2180 GI/2015

(2379)

foÙk ea=ky;

¼O;; foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1072-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ys[kk ijh{kk vkSj ys[kk foHkkx ds

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa dks] ftuds vLlh izfr'kr deZpkfjo`Un us

fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS%

1- izèku funs'kd ys[kkijh{kk ¼dsUnzh;½] y[kuÅA

2- egkys[kkdkj ¼vkfFkZd ,oa jktLo {ks= ys[kkijh{kk½] dsjy

fr:ouariqjeA

3- egkfuns'kd ys[kkijh{kk] Mkd o nwjlapkj] fnYyh

¼'kk[kk dk;kZy; diwjFkyk½A

[lañ ,ñ&12034@02@2014&bZñ thñ]

,suh tkWtZ eSF;w]la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

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.

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 22]

ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 24—ebZ 30] 2015] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 3—T;s"B 9] 1937

No. 22]

NEW DELHI, MAY 24—MAY 30, 2015, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 3—JYAISTHA 9, 1937

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

2380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¼fgUnh vuqHkkx&2½

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1073-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e] 10 ds mi&fu;e

¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds vèhu vk;qDr dk;kZy;] lhek

'kqYd ¼fuokjd½] uohu lhek 'kqYd Hkou] ubZ fnYyh dks ftuds

80 izfr'kr ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr

dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

[QkñlañbZñ&11017@01@2015&,ñMhñ ¼fgUnh&2½]

pUnzHkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

(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)

jsy ea=ky;

¼jsyos cksMZ½

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1074-—jsy ea=ky; ¼jsyos cksMZ½] jktHkk"kk fu;e 1976

¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

¼2½ vkSj ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa nf{k.k iwoZ e/; jsyos] fcykliqj ds

jk;iqj eaMy rFkk fcykliqj eaMy ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa rFkk

eq[; dkj[kkuk izcaèd] oSxu fjis;j 'kkWi] jk;iqj dks tgka 80% ls

vfèd vfèdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj

fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrh gS%µ

Øe lañ

dk;kZy; dk uke

1- Mhty yksdks 'ksM] jk;iqj

2- fo|qr yksdks 'ksM] fHkykbZ

3- ihñ ihñ ;kMZ] fHkykbZ

4- lgk;d eaMy fo|qr bathfu;j ¼d"kZ.k½ dk;kZy;] isaMªk jksM

5- lgk;d eaMy flxuy ,oa nwjlapkj bathfu;j dk;kZy;]

eusUnzx<+

6- eq[; dkj[kkuk izcaèd] oSxu fjis;j 'kkWi] jk;iqj

[lañ fganh&2015@jkñHkkñ&1@12@2]

dsñ ihñ lR;kuanu] funs'kd] ¼jktHkk"kk½

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(RAILWAY BOARD)

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

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

5. Office of the Assistant Divisional Signal &

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.)

okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=ky;

¼okf.kT; foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1075-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj

fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr

fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vfèfu;e] 1963 ¼1963

dk 22½ dh èkjk 7 dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] eSllZ DokfyVh lfoZflt ,aM lksY;w'kUl ¼xksvk½] f}rh;

eafty] :De.kh Vkoj] fryd eSnku ds lehi] ,Qñ ,yñ xksEl jksM]

Øe lañ

dk;kZy; dk uke

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2381

okLdks Mh xkek] xksvk&403802] dks bl vfèlwpuk] ds jkti= eas

izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds

okf.T; ea=ky;] dh vfèlwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj]

1965 dh vfèlwpuk esa mikc) vuqlwfp;ksa esa fofufnZ"V [kfut vkSj

v;Ld] lewg&1] vFkkZr~] ykSg v;Ld] ckDlkbV vkSj eSaxuht v;Ld

dks fu;kZr ls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds vèhu xksvk] esa mDr [kfut

vkSj v;Ld ds fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa

ekU;rk nsrh gS] vFkkZr~%µ

¼i½ eSllZ DokfyVh lfoZflt ,aM lksY;w'kUl ¼xksvk½ [kfut

vkSj v;Ld lewg&1 dk fu;kZr ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965

ds fu;e 4 ds vèhu muds }kjk viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k dh

i)fr dh tkap djus ds fy,] bl fufeÙk fu;kZr fujh{k.k

ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefufnZ"V vfèdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfoèk,a

nsxh( vkSj

¼ii½ eSllZ DokfyVh lfoZflt ,aM lksY;w'kUl ¼xksvk½] bl

vfèlwpuk ds vèhu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd

¼fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=.k½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~

le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa fn, x, ,sls funsZ'kksa ls vkc)

gksaxsA

[Qkañ lañ&4@9@2014&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]

larks"k dqekj lkjaxh] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2015

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

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1076-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa okf.kT; foHkkx ds vèhu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; dks

vfèlwfpr djrh gS] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd deZpkjho`an us

fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS%µ

,e,eVhlh] 2 ufxunkl psEcj]

mlekiqj vkJe jksM+]

vgenkckn&380 061

[lañ bZñ&11013@1@2014&fganh]

lqèka'kq ik.Ms;] la;qDr lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th 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.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1077-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988

ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalks ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph

esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%µ

2382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek lañ@

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M

o"kZ@ekg

@o"kZ

1- 2910352

01@09@2014

Lojkt b.MLVªh;y ,oa MksefLVd vIykbvWUlsl

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kk|

Hkkñekñ 4250 % 1980

izkñ fyñ] iyZ Xykl daikm.M

feDlj

vkñ chñ iVsy jksM] xksjsxkWo iwoZ

¼nzohij vkSj xzkbMj½

eqacbZ 400 063

2- 2910251

02@09@2014

,f'k;u vkVZ b.MLVªht

?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa

Hkkñekñ 3854% 1997

IykWV lañ 30 ,ch] ljdkjh b.M]

ds fy, fLop

bLVsV] ,e th jksM dkafnoyh if'pe

eqacbZ 400 067

3- 2915968

09@09@2014

thñ,eñ eksM;wyj izkñ fyñ

bysDVªkWfud Vkbi ia[kk

Hkkñekñ 11037% 1984

xkyk lañ 8 ls 15 rd] cksdkfM;k b.M- bLVsV

jsxqysVj

lkrhoyh jksM] okfyo xkWo]

olbZ iwoZ] ftyk Bk.ks 401 208

4- 29138363

10@09@2014

ljLorh ok;j ,.M dscy b.MLVªht

1100 oksYV rd dk;Zdkjh

Hkkñekñ

IykWV lañ lh&1] ,l,yñ lañ 47@2

oksYVrk ds fy, ihohlh

1554¼Hkkx 1½% 1988

osowj xkWo] iksLV euksj jksM

jksfèr ¼Hkkjh M;qVh½

ikyèj] iwoZ] ftyk% Bk.ks&401 404

fo|qr dscy

5- 2914461

11@09@2014

lqèhj fLopxs;j izkñfyñ

,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLQvlZ&

Hkkñekñ@vk;bZlh 60079%

xsV lañ144] ,] vkse vkdk'k Qkbcj ls vxyk

Hkkx&1 QyseizwQ buDykstj

Hkkx&1% 2007

lkbZ d`ik èkck ds ihNs ¼VEch èkck½

^Mh* }kjk miLdj laj{kk

?kksulkbZ xkWo ¼esV½] rkyqdk okMk]

Bk.ks 421 312

6- 2915463

12@09@2014

ohul lsQVh ,.M gsYFk izkñfyñ

us= laj{kd

Hkkñekñ 5983%1980

IykWV lañ ,y&75@76] ,evk;Mhlh rykstk

iuosy] ftyk jk;x<&410 208

7- 2916768

17@09@2014

;wuholZy dscYl fyñ

1100 os rd ,oa lfgr

Hkkñekñ 694% 1990

IykWV lañ ,y&58 ls ,y&60 rd

dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds

osj.kk b.M] bLVsV] osjuk] lkylsV

fy, ihohlh jksfèr dscy

ftyk% nf{k.k xksok] xksok&403 722

8- 2916869

17@09@2014

;'k ikbZIl ,.M fQfVaXl

flapkbZ miLdj Qqgkjk ikbZi

Hkkñekñ 14151% Hkkx&2%

oh&74] ,evkbZMhlh

fof'kf"V Hkkx 2 'kh?kz ;qXed

2008

tyxkWo 425003 egkjk"Vª

ikWyhfFkyhu ikbi

9- 2918570

22@09@2014

dqdosy MksesfLVd vIykbvWUlsl

fctyh ds ?kjsyw

Hkkñekñ 4250%1980

IykWV lañ 213] 'ksykj daikm.M

[kkn; feDlj

lqHkk"k uxj] foyst jksM ukgqj if'pe Hkk.Mqi

¼nzohij vkSj xzkbMj½

eqacbZ 400 078

10- 2918671

22@09@2014

lqij VsIl

fon;qr iz;kstuksa ds fy,

Hkkñekñ 7809¼Hkkx 3½%

ijekj VsDuks lsaVj] Qsl 1] xkyk lañ 3

nkc lqxzkgh vklatu'khy

[kaM 1% 1986

,Dlizsl gkbZo] isYgkj xkWo] olbZ QkVk ds utnhd

fon;qrjksèh Vsi&Hkkx 3%

olbZ iwoZ] ftyk Bk.ks 401208

vyx vyx lkefxz;ksa dh

egkjk"Vª

vis{kk,W [kaM 1% v rkiekih

vklatu'khy okys lq?kFV;r

ikWyhfoukbyDyksjkbM Vsi

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2383

11- 2920557

26@09@2014

fØf'kr vIyk;alsl

fctyh ds ?kjsyw

Hkk ek 4250% 1980

30,32 t; b.Mñ bLVsV] lkrhoyh mn~;ksx uxj

[kkn~; feDlj

lkrhoyh jksM] okfyo xkWo] olbZ iwoZ]

¼nzohij vkSj xzkbMj½

ftyk Bk.ks&401208

12- 2920658

26@09@2014

fxzIiks lkWY;w'ku bafM;k izkñ fyñ

fon;qr iz;kstuksa ds fy,

Hkk ek 7809 ¼Hkkx 3½%

xksnke lañ 1]2 ,oa 3] IykWV lañ 121

nkc lqxzkgh vklatu'khy

[kaM 1% 1986

xqanoyh xkWo] fHko.Mh] ftyk Bk.ks&401208

fon;qrjksèh Vsi&Hkkx 3%

egkjk"Vª

vyx&vyx lkefxz;ksa

dh vis{kk,W [kaM 1%

v rkiekih vklatu'khy

okys lq?kFV;r

ikWyhfoukbyDyksjkbM Vsi

13- 2922460

29@09@2014

tkslsQ ysLyh Mk;ukekbDl eSU;wQSDpfjax izkñ fyñ

'olu midj.k Hkkx 3%

Hkk ek 10245% Hkkx 3% 1999

oksjk b.MLVªh;y dkWEIysDl] HkksbZMkikMk

'kq) ok;q gkst vkSj laihfMr

xksf[kojs] olbZ iwoZ] ftyk Bk.ks&401208

ok;q vuq:i 'olu midj.k

egkjk"Vª

14- 2921458

30@09@2014

VsDuks QysDl dscYl

1100 oks rd ,oa lfgr

Hkkñ ekñ 694% 1990

IykWV lañ 18 ch ,oa 24] fnoku mn~;ksx uxj

dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds fy,

lqanje Ldwy ds ihNs] foyst ekghe

ih oh lh jksfèr dscy

rkyqdk iky?kj] Bk.ks&401404

egkjk"Vª

[lañ dsUæh; izek.ku foHkkx 13%11]

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

[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. 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

2384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

Irrigation equipment- IS 14151:

V-74, MIDC

sprinkler pipes-

Part 2: 2008

Jalgaon-425003

specification-Part 2:

Maharashtra

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:

Maharashtra

requirements for

individual materials-

section 1: plasticized

polyvinylchloride

tapes with non-

thermosetting adhesive

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2385

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)

and compressed

Thane-400028

air line breathing

apparatus

14. 2921458

30/09/2014

Techno Flex Cables

PVC Insulated

IS 694: 1990

Plot No. 18/B & 24, Diwan Udyog

Cables for working

Nagar, Behind Sundaram School

Voltages upto and

Village Mahim, Tal: Palghar

including 1100 V

Distt. Thane-401404 Maharashtra

IS 694: 1990

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1078-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os jn~n dj fn, x, gSa%&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

dqN ugha

[lañ dsanzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13]

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e ;w ch vks&bZbZbZ½

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.

licensee

Indian standard covered by the

cancellation

Licence

Nil

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1079-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

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

2386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek lañ@

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@

o"kZ@ekg

o"kZ

1 2931158

28@10@2014

vno; fMªi bZjhxs'ku ,.M ihohlh ikbZi fyñ

flapkbZ miLdj&mRltZd

Hkkñ ek 13487% 1992

IykWV lañ bZ 69] ,evk;Mhlh] voèku

èqys&424006

2 2931259

28@10@2014

vno; fMªi bZjhxs'ku ,.M ihohlh ikbZi fyñ

flapkbZ miLdj&flapkbZ

Hkkñ ek 12786% 1989

IykWV lañ bZ 69] ,evk;Mhlh] voèku

ySVjyksa gsrq ikWyhfFkyhu

èqys&424006

ikbZi

3 2931360

28@10@2014

vno; fMªi bZjhxs'ku ,.M ihohlh ikbZi fyñ

mRltZu ikbZi iz.kkyh

Hkkñ ek 13488% 2008

IykWV lañ bZ 69] ,evk;Mhlh] voèku

èqys&424006

[lañ dsanzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

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 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)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1080-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os jn~n dj fn, x, gSa%&

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2387

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

dqN ugh

[lañ dsanzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13]

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e ;w ch vks&bZbZbZ½

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.

licensee

Indian standard covered by the

cancellation

Licence

Nil

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1081-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

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

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek lañ@

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@o"kZ

o"kZ@ekg

1- 2944571

27@11@2014

dksghuwj dscYl

1100 oksYV rd dk;Zdkjh

Hkkñekñ 1554 ¼Hkkx 1½

xkkyk lañ 5 ,oa 6] mLeku lsB bLVsV]

oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh

% 1988

lkrhoyh eafnj ds lkeus] Hkkjr osyosV

jksf/kr ¼Hkkjh M~;wVh½

ds ihNs lQsn iwy] dqykZ va/ksjh jksM]

fo|qr dscy

lkdh ukdk] va/ksjh iwoZ eqacbZ 400072

2- 2937978

14@11@2014

Vªhu VsDuksykWth

?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa

Hkkñekñ 3854 %1997

xkyk lañ 8]9 ,oa 10 yqFkkfj;k gkml]

ds fy, fLops

lkrhoyh esu jksM] lkrhoyh olbZ iwoZ]

ftyk Fkk.ks 401208

3- 2944470

28@11@2014

lsyou b.MfLVªt

?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa

Hkkñekñ 3854 % 1997

xkkyk lñ 202, nwljk ekyk] vkf'kokZn

ds fy, fLops

b.M- bLVsV ua 3] jke eafnj jksM]

xksjsxkao ¼i½] eqacbZ 400104

4- 2943569

24@11@2014

fj;k;al fizftlu flLVe

bysDVªkWfud out iz.kkyh

Hkkñekñ 9281

lh 48, bysDVªkWfud lnu 1] rhljk ekyk

¼Hkkx 3½% 1981

VhVhlh ,.M ,fj;k] egkis rkyqdk ,oa

ftyk Fkk.ks 400710

2388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5- 2942769

11@11@2014

Lokxre IykfLVd

fo|qr laLFkkiuksa ds fy,

Hkkñekñ 9537 ¼Hkkx 3½

IykWV lañ 257@10, xksok vk;Mhlh]

ufydk,a Hkkx 3 fo|qrjks/kh %1983

Qk;j LVs'ku ds utnhd] ¯jxuokMk

lkexzh ds n`< lkns bLikr

ukuh neu] neu&396210

ufydk,

6- 2933162

03@11@2014

izfrHkk iSds¯tx ikWyhej izkñfyñ

oL=knh duy vLrj ds

Hkkñekñ 15351%2003

lqeaxy gkml] IykWV lañ 19]

fy, ysfefur mPp

e?k lsDVj] okVj I;wjhfQds'ku

?kuRo okys ikWyhbFkkbZyhu

ds lkeus lqUnjcu dkWyuh]

¼,pMhihbZ½ oL=

ukfld&422009

7- 2933061

03@11@2014

vkfnukFk ikWyhQSc izkñfyñ

,xzks oL=knh ofeZdypj ds

Hkkñekñ 15907 % 2010

IykWV lañ ,p 25] vfr ,evkbZMhlh

fy, mPp ?kuRo

dqanoyh foyst] eqjckM Fkk.ks&421401

ikWyhfFkyhu ¼,pMhihbZ½

vksou csMl

[lañ dsanzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

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 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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2389

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)

ubZ fnYyh 22 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1082-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os jn~n dj fn, x, gSa%µ

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

2317847

fMªi bafM;k

Hkkñ ekñ 12786 % 1989

03@11@2014

xV lañ 285] Vdyh f'kokj

¯lpkbZ miLdj&¯lpkbZ ySVjyksa gsrq

yklyxkao] fuQkM]

ikWyhfFkyhu ikbZi

ftyk ukfld&422306 egkjk"Vª

2903658

ehjkdWy dscYl bafM;k izkñfyñ

Hkkñ ekñ 7098 % Hkkx 1 % 1988

07@11@2014

ds 29@2] ,fM'ku vEcjukFk

Økl¯yDM ikWyhfFkyhu fo|qrjks/kh

vkuan uxj] ,evk;Mhlh]

ihohlh vkofjr dscy Hkkx 1] 1100 oksñ

vEcjukFk iwoZ] Fkkus&421501 egkjk"Vª

rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk gsrq

7157573

fMªi bafM;k

Hkkñ ekñ 13487 % 1992

03@11@2014

xV lañ 285] Vdyh f'kokj

¯lpkbZ miLdj&mRltZd

yklyxkao] fuQkM

ftyk ukfld&422306 egkjk"Vª

7597807

fMªi bafM;k

Hkkñ ekñ 14151 % Hkkx 2% 2008

03@11@2014

xV lañ 285] Vdyh f'kokj

¯lpkbZ miLdj&Qqgkjk ikbZi fof'kf"V

yklyxkao] fuQkM]

Hkkx 2 'kh?kz ;qXed ikWyhfFkyhu ikbi

ftyk ukfld&422306 egkjk"Vª

7605574

fMªi bafM;k

Hkkñekñ 13488 % 2008

03@11@2014

xV lañ 285] Vdyh f'kokj

mRltZu ikbZi iz.kkyh

yklyxkao] fuQkM]

ftyk ukfld&422306 egkjk"Vª

[la dsUæh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13]

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

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.

Licence

Indian Standard covered by the

cancellation

Licence

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

2903658

Miracle Cables (India) Pvt. Ltd.

IS 7098 Part 1 : 1988

07/11/2014

K-29/2, Additional Ambernath,

crosslinked polyethylene

Anand Nagar, MIDC,

insulated pvc sheathed cables:

Ambernath East

part 1 for working voltage

Distt : Thane-421501

upto and including 1100 v

Maharashtra

7157573

Drip India

IS 13487 : 1992

03/11/2014

Gat No. 285, Takli Shiwar,

irrigation equipment-emitters

lasalgaon, Niphad

Distt: Nashik-422306 Maharashtra

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

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)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1083-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, g®%µ

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkñekñ lañ@

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@

o"kZ@ekg

o"kZ

1 7100000063 10@12@2014

fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyñ

u;k fo|qrjksèh rsy

Hkkñekñ 335%1993

ek>xkWo gscanj dkWEIysDl] Y;wc IykUV]

gscanj jksM] eqacbZ 400033

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2391

2- 7800000007 16@12@2014

fgUnqLrku balsDVhlkbM fyñ

,lQsV ,lih

Hkkek 12916%1990

Hkkjr ljdkj dk miØe] jlk;uh

iuosy ftyk jk;x<&410207

3- 7100000164 26@12@2014

ikWyhdWc ok;j izkñ fyñ

110 oksYV rd dk;Zdkjh

Hkk ek 1554 ¼Hkkx 1½

74@8&11, neu b.M~] bLVsV] dnS;k foyst]

oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh

% 1988

neu ftyk neu ,oa nho&396210

jksf/kr ¼Hkkjh M~;qVh½

fo|qr dscy

4- 7800000108 26@12@2014

LdksMk dscYl

1100 oksYV rd ,oa lfgr

Hkk ek 694% 2010

xkyk lañ 9 vkSj 19] U;w eqdkn daikm.M

dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds

fiEiydj daikm.M fQYe lhVh jksM]

fy, ih oh lh fo|qr

xksdqy/kke ekykM iwoZ eqacbZ&400087

jksf/kr dscy

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

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. 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)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1084-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os jn~n dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc/n

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

dqN ugh

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13 % 13]

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

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.

licensee

Indian standard covered by the

cancellation

Licence

Nil

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1085-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xouZesaV vksfi;e

,aM vYdykWbM QSDVªh] uhep ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@137@03½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@276@99&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky]MsLd vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/137/03

Shri Veeramchandra

S/o Shri Pyareji,

Village Jaisinghpura,

Neemuch (MP)

....Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

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?'

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2393

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.

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

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

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 during

2394

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.

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:—

(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

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1086-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafnjk xka/kh

jk"Vªh; ekuo laxzgky;] Hkksiky ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@180/98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@14@98&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky]MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

Smt. Sunita Sisodia,

.... Workman

H.No. 369, Naya Basera,

Kotra Sultanabad,

Bhopal

Versus

Director,

.... Management

Indira Gandhi Rashtriya

Manav Sangrahalaya Shamla Hills,

Bhopal

AWARD

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:

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2395

"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.

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.

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

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)]

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.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1087-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsUnzh; Hk.Mkj.k

fuxe Jfed dY;k.k la?k y[kuÅ jhtuy vkWfQl ds izca/kr= ds

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

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

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 64@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ lañ ,y&42011@15@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM -LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 64/2012

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

BETWEEN

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

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?"

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 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 been

2398

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2399

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

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1088-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] dkuiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 100@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 20@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@43@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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 the

2400

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.

[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

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,

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?"

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 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 by

2402

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2403

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1089-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy

l®iy losZ vkWfQl f'keyk ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1 paMhx<+ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 18@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

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

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

Award Passed on : 15.05.2015

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.

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 the

2404

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2405

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1090-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy yksd fuekZ.k

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

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 56@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@89@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

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

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

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 :

For the 1st Party/

Sri S. Ravi, T. Ramkumar,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

Sri M. Liagatali,

Respondent

Advocate

AWARD

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.

2406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"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?"

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.

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:

(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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 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

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri P. Paul Pandi

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri G. Ganesan

1st and 2nd Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

19.11.2009

Hand Receipt approved by the

Respondent

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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1091-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk µ ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2015 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds

v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½

v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy

jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

jsosU;q foYyst & osywj] rkyqd & ryfIiYyh] ftyk & r`''kwjA

[lañ ,l&38013@37@2015µ,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1092-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds

:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o

45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

[èkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

jsosU;q foYyst & ikatky] rkyqd & ryfIiYyh] ftyk & r`''kwjA

[lañ ,l&38013@38@2015µ,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

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' State

2408

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1093-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds

:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o

45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

[èkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

jsosU;q foYyst & e..kwj] rkyqd & ikyDdkM] ftyk & ikyDdkMA

[lañ ,l&38013@39@2015µ,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1094-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds

:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o

45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

[èkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

jsosU;q foYyst & czgedqye] rkyqd & pkoDdkM] ftyk & r`''kwjA

[lañ ,l&38013@40@2015µ,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1095-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk µ ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2015 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds

v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½

v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy

jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

jsosU;q foYyst & r¸;wj] rkyqd & ryfIiYyh] ftyk & r`''kwjA

[lañ ,l&38013@41@2015µ,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 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.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1096-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds

:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o

45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

[/kkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

jsosU;q foYyst&raxywj] rkyqd&r`''kwj] ftyk& r`''kwjA

[lañ ,l&38013@42@2015&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1097-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds

:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o

45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

[/kkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

jsosU;q foYyst&raxywj] rkyqd&r`''kwj] ftyk& r`''kwjA

[lañ ,l&38013@43@2015&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1098-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds

:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o

45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

[/kkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

jsosU;q foYyst&ikojV~Vh] rkyqd&pkoDdkM] ftyk&r`''kwjA

[lañ ,l&38013@44@2015&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

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 into

2410

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1099-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds

:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o

45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

[èkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k rsyxkauk jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

^^rsyxkauk jkT; ds egcwcuxj ftys ds tM+pjyk eaMy esa

vkus okys jktLo xkaoksa dh lhek ds varxZr {ks=&tM+pykZ]

ckM+sifYy] ekpkje] xksYykiYyh] cqjsM~MhiYyh]

eYyscksbuiYyh] ukxklkyk] iksysifYy] dksjeisV]

'akdjk;iYyh rFkk Hkwriqj eaMy ds 'ksfjiYyh ¼ch½ vkSj

egcwcuxj eaMy ds vIiuukiYyh**

[lañ ,l&38013@45@2015&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1100-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds

:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e dsv/;k;&4 ¼44 o

45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

[èkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

jsosU;w foYyst&fdjkywj] rkyqd&rykfiYyh] ftyk& r`''kwjA

[lañ ,l&38013@46@2015&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1101-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VkVk LVhy fyfeVsM

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2004½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@249@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 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

ANNEXURE

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.

Parties:

Employer in relation to the management of 6&7 Pits,

Tata Steel Limited.

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

None

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Date 6/4/2015

AWARD

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:

SCHEDULE

"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?"

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

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1102-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 179@2001½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@239@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2015

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)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

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

of I.D. Act, 1947.

Ref. No. 179/2001

Employers in relation to the management of Block II area

of M/S BCCL

AND

their workmen

Present :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE:

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

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) of

2412

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:

SCHEDULE

"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?"

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.

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.

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

been any harness, as no evidence led no he is cross

examined.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1103-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 88@1998½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@686@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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.

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

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

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

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 88/1998

Employer in relation to the management of Jagdamba

Coke Manufacturing Enterprises, Govindpur

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

Sri R.A. Chamaria, Advocate

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Date 12/3/2015

AWARD

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

"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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2413

also adduce one witness on merit. Document marked by

the management as M-1 to W-9.

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

absenteeism a departmental enquiry conducted and the

workman was dismissed. But before this Tribunal the

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.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

I hold the action of managemetn of M/s. Jagdamba Coke

manufacturing Enterprises, Tundi Road, P.O. Govindpur,

Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Kedar Nath Mahto S/o Late

Ganpat Mahto is not Proportionate & justified. Accordingly

the workman be reinstated atonce and he is retired by now,

Hence he be not given any back wages, as per no work no

pay theory. He be granted other superannuation benefits.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1104-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 08@2014½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@64@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

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

of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 08/2014

LOK ADALAT

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of W.W. Zone,

Mahuda M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri K.N. Singh, Advocate

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Date 1/4/2015

AWARD

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

"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 Officer

2414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1105-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj xsy ds izca/kra=

ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 192@1996½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@05@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@22@1996& vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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

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:

"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?"

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.

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2415

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?

2416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2417

Prasad is not bogus. The contract given by IInd party

to the contractors complete their work and leave.

That Registration Certifaicate of Union is not

produced. Presently he is elected as Secretary of

Union but no documents are produced. That he had

not submitted any application that the contractors

were bogus. He had not challenged that contractor

Shital Prasad was bogus. In his futher cross, he says

that he was working 30 days in a month. He was paid

wages for 26 days. IInd party has not issued

appointment letter to him. He not submitted any

application to IInd party for employment. For past 21

years, he was working in Indu Engineering Services

and contractor Shital Prasad. During past 18 years,

he was working under Shital Prasad.

15. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Sham

Sunder Kondawathini supporting contentions of IInd

party. Contractors engaged by IInd party. At present

contractors Prakash construction, safai Karmchari

Sahkari Samini, ACR contractor etc. are not doing

any work. This witness in his cross-examination says

the contractor shown in W-15 was carrying work of

loading unloading. Presently those persons are doing

the work cleaning, sweeping. He denies that work of

loading, unloading, sweeping are regular works of

IInd party establishment. He denied that attendance

of the employees represented by Union was

maintained by the management of IInd party. It is

denied that contract labours were working under

supervision of officers of IInd party. He claims

ignorance about agreement M-2 to M-5. In his further

cross, he says that when representative of contractor

remained present while contract labours are carrying

their work.

16. Management filed affidavit of Shri Rajesh Jain

contractors. He says that he was working as

contractor for about 20 years at plant of IInd party.

Work of loading unloading etc. was carried by

contractor Shital Prasad. Any person cannot enter

the plant without permission of management. The

labours engaged by him were issued pass. The CIF

is entrusted Securtiy of plant. The work above Rs.50

Lakh are given by tender. The contract labours are

given benefits of leave, PF, bonus, medical facilities

etc. In his cross-examination this witness says after

completion of contract period, advertisement was

issued following tenders. Since past 20 years, he

was continuously getting contract. He was carrying

the work as per contract.

17. Evidence of witness Shri Ashish Dadel is on the point

of calling tenders for contracts of the work of repairs,

cleaning, loading unloading etc. In his cross-

examination, this witness says he is not knowing the

employees presently related to the dispute. He claims

ignorance about the work of loading unloading,

payment of wages to employees engaged on such

work.

18. As stated above, the terms of reference does not

cover the point of non-payment of wages, bonus, PF

etc.

19. Document W-16 is about verification of payments of

wages to Shri Ramgopal Noda for the month of May

96. Exhibit W-17 is certificate of competency issued

for minor competency to Shri Gopilal Mani on 3-5-97.

Those documents have no direct bearing to establish

that the contracts between IInd party and the

contractor are bogus and camouflage.

20. Counsel for Ist party Shri Rajesh Chand during course

of argument submits that contract works

continuously worked. Work is of permanent nature.

Workmen are still working they should be treated as

permanent employee of IInd party. He also referred

to documents Exhibit W-14(a), 15, 16, 17 and

emphasized that employees working under Exhibit

W-18-1 to 3 as contract labours are continuously

working. He also referred to the evidence of

management's witness Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, Sham

Sunder and emphasized that the work carried by

contract labour is of permanent nature.

21. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri P. Jain submits

that contractors are not impleaded as parties.

Management's witness Shri Rajesh Kumar not asked

about contractors were bogus. Union has not

produced registration certificate. Sor far as non-

production of Union certificate does not go through

the route of the matter as the dispute was raised by

Union itself and documents Exhibit W-1 to W-12.

The demand of Union are produced on record.

22. Learned counsel relied on ratio held in case of "Ram

Singh and others versus Union Territory reported in

2004(1) SCC 126. Their Lordship of the Apex Court

dealing with determination of employer employee

relationship. Multiple pragmatic approach is stressed.

Factors to be considered inter alia are (i) control, (ii)

integration, (iii) power of appointment and dismissal,

(iv) liability to pay remuneration and deduct insurance

contributions, (v) liability to organize the work and

supply tools.

The evidence of the witnesses of Ist party is not

cogent on any of those points that the contract

labours engaged or were appointed by IInd party.

They were dismissed by IInd party. The work of

supplying tools to contract labours were made by

IInd party. It is suprising to say that evidence adduced

by Union is lacking on above points.

2418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In case of Charan Singh versus Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court reported in

2014-LLR-747. Their Lordship of Punjab and Haryana

High Court, it was observed that workman was

employee of the contractor. Workman had not

produced any independent evidence in support of

his claim. Workman did not implead the contractor.

Hence workman is not entitled to claim any relief

from the management.

In case of Ghisa Khan versus Labour Court and

Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer and another reported in

2014-LLR 753. Their Lordship of Rajasthan High

Court held workman neither impleaded the contractor

as a party nor moved any application for summoning

the relevant records to prove his case on summoning

the contractor as witness. Labour Court held him to

be employed by the contractor and not by employer

was upheld.

In case of Pradumn Singh vrs Shiv Raj Singh reported

in ILR 2014(MP) 424. Their Lordship held affidavit

prepared by counsel and the witness merely signing

it. It can be inferred that statement produced on behalf

of witness is not his actual statement.

Ratio held cannot be applied to present case as all

the witnesses of Ist party cannot be said that they

had only signed the affidavits without knowing the

contents.

In case of International Airport Authority of India

versus International Air Cargo Workers Union

reported in AIR 2009 SC-3063. Their Lordship of the

Apex court dealing with production of Section-10 of

Contract Labour (R&A) Act. Their Lordship held plea

that contract is sham, nominal and merely a

camouflage to deny employment benefits to the

employees and that there is in fact a direct employment

by playing tests like who pay the salary, who has the

power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate

disciplinary action, who can tell the employees the

way in which the work should be done, in short who

has direction and control over the employees.

The evidence of Union is not devoted on any of

such points, not devoted that IInd party was having

control over the employees engaged by contractors.

23. Ist party counsel relied on ratio held in case of—

Steel Authority of India Ltd and others versus

National Union Waterfront workers reported in

2001(7)SCC-1. In para 125 of the judgment their

Lordship outlined the above discussions considering

the ratio held in various cases.

In Para-3 neither section 10 of the CLRA Act nor

any other provision in the Act whether expressly or

by necessary implication, provides for automatic

absorption of contract labour on issuing a

notification by the appropriate Government under

Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 prohibiting employment

of contract labour in any process operation or other

work in any establishment. Consequently, the

principal employer cannot be required to order

absorption of the contract labour working in the

establishment concerned.

In Para-5 on issuance of notification under Section

10(1) of the CLRA Act is not issued by Central Govt.

Point needs no discussion.

Para 6- Their Lordship contented if the contract is

found to be genuine and prohibition notification

under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of

the establishment concerned has been issued by the

appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of

contract labour in any process, operation or other

work of any establishment and where in such

process, operation or other work of the establishment

the principal employer intends to employ regular

workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile

contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if

necessary by relaxing the condition as to maximum

age appropriately, taking into consideration the age

of the workers at the time of their initial employment

by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as

to academic qualifications other than technical

qualifications.

As such demand is not raised by Union. Therefore

demand of Union cannot be allowed.

24. Learned counsel for IInd party also relies on ratio

held in case of employers in relation to management

of Madan Pal Singh versus State of UP reported in

AIR 2000-SC-537. I have carefully gone through

those judgments and found the ratio cannot be

applied to present case at hand.

Counsel for 1st party Shri Rajesh Chand relies on

ratio held in case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd versus

ALC(C), Raniganj and others reported in 2001-II-LLJ-

1467. The ratio held in the case pertains to amendment

of certificate of registration issued under TA of

Contract Labour (R&A) Act.

The ratio held in case no bearing to the controversy

between the parties. The facts of the case are entirely

different. The ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.

25. To conclude, evidence adduced by Ist party is not

sufficient to establish that contractors engaged by

IInd party were sham and bogus. No notification

under Section 10(1) of CL(R&A) Act were issued by

the Central Government prohibiting any of the

activities therefore demand of Union cannot be said

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2419

justified. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No. 1 in Negative.

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

(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

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1106-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

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

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

U;k;ky; uñ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@158@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

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

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

Present :

Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 15/12/2014

AWARD

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

"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.

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.

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.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

2420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1107-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

,DlIyksjs'ku dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

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

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

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 18@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@99@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.

In the Matter of a Reference U/s 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D.

Act, 1947.

Ref. No. 32 of 2010

Employers in relation to the management of Mineral

Exploration Corporation Ltd.

AND

Their workman.

Present :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

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

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:

SCHEDULE

"(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

Sl.

Name

Father's Name

Designation

No.

Anil Kumar Singh

Late Ram Jee Singh

CAT-II

Inamul Haque

Sri Hafizual Haque

CAT-I

Rajib Ranjan Sinha

Sri Surendra Pd. Sinha

CAT-I

Narendra Kumar Sinha Late Basudeo Pd. Sinha

CAT-I

Sunil Kumar

Sri Deo Kumar Sinha

CAT-I

Rao Ranvijay Singh

Late Sakaldeo Singh

CAT-I

Ghanshyam Kumar

Sri Sukhdeo Ram Nayak

CAT-II

Nayak

Anil Kumar Srivastava Late Satay Narayan

CAT-II

Prasad

Sunil Kumar Sharma

Late Narayan Pd. Sharma CAT-II

10.

Indrapal Singh

Balbir Singh

CAT-I

11.

K.P. Narayan

Lakshan Prasad

CAT-I

12.

B. Hansada

Sri Ghasiram Hansada

CAT-I

13.

S.K. Ram

Ram Bilash Ram

CAT-I

14.

A.K. Pandey

Ramjee Pandey

CAT-I

15.

Sanjay Kumar

Satrughan Pd. Sinha

CAT-I

16.

Satyajit Pradhan

Bansidhar Prasad

CAT-I

17.

Kallola Pradhan

—

CAT-II

18.

Manmohan Pandey

Sri R.N. Pandey

CAT-II

19.

Uttam Kr. Mahto

Sri S.K. Mahto

CAT-II

20.

Rajesh Kumar

Sri B.N. Lal

CAT-I

21.

Agam Kumar

Sri Amrendra Gung

CAT-I

Bahadur

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

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2421

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.

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.

5. It is submitted by the management counsel that

retrenchment of workman is no retrenchment and it is

proper.

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.

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.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1108-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼24@1999½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@470@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch& I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 24 OF 1999

PARTIES :

The management of State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Burdwan

Vs.

Sri Hari Singh Gurung

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management

Sri A. Chakraborty, Ld. Adv.

SBI

For the union (Workman) :

None

Industry

Bank

State

West Bengal

Dated : 29.04.2015

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-12012/

470/98-IR(B-I) dated 22.3.1999 has been pleased to refer

the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"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 support

2422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

ORDER

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

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

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1109-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

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

76@1993½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@93@93&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

Present :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE OF 76 OF 1993

PARTIES :

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

Ld. Representative.

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. V.N. Sahay.

LD. Adv.

State

: Bihar

Industry

: Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st April, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-12012/

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

SCHEDULE

" 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?"

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2423

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.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1110-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds izcaèra=

ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

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

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2010½ izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@127@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 22/2010

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

BETWEEN

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

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 Circular

2424

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.

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.

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.

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2425

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 and

2426

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 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."

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1111-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos izcaèra=

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k y[kuÅ ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21@5@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@108@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh]vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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 :

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 20/2010

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

BETWEEN

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

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) of

2428

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2429

(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 of

2430

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 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:

"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."

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.

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1112-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 6@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@97@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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.

[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

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

BETWEEN

The President

Rail Sewak Sangh

Through Sri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow

2432

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.)

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

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

Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

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.

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.

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

proceed with the case. His grievance, has perhaps been

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.

8. Award as above

LUCKNOW

08.05.2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1113-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ jsyos izca/kra=

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

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

/kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 95@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@11@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference u/s 10(1) (d) (2a) of

I.D. Act, 1947.

Ref. No. 95/2002

Employers in relation to the management of Eastern

Railway, Danapur, Patna

AND

Their workmen.

Present :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

For the workman

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate.

State

Bihar

Industry

Railway

Dated. 29.4.2015

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2433

AWARD

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

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?"

2434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

33. Govind Paswan

Chandeshwar Paswan

Kangali Bigaha

Nagar Nausa

Nalanda

34. Ravindra Kumar

Kuldeep Ram

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

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

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

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2435

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

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

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

Patna

119. Mani Lal Prasad

Shyam Narayan Prasad Singh

Pendapur

Kawa Hilsa

Nalanda

120. Ajay Kumar

Hari Prasad

Daniyawan

Patna

121. Anil Kumar Sinha

Hanumant Lal Sahay

Mohan Nagar

Chhapra

Saran

122. Jai Prakash Srivastava

Raj Narayan Prasad

Kolhuwa

Siwan

123. Anil Kumar

Durga Prasad

Shanti Ashram

Chiraiya Tand

Patna

Sl.No. Worker's Name

Father's Name

Village

Post

Distt.

2436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

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

166. Aanand Suman

Sumeshwar Prasad Suman

Mitanghat

Gurhatta

Patna

167. Stendra paswan

Late Ramdeo Paswan

Daniyawan

Patna

Sl.No. Worker's Name

Father's Name

Village

Post

Distt.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2437

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.

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:—

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

Patna

3. Ashok Kumar

Ram Chandra Ram

Chhotidevi Asthan

Shalugung

Bihar Sharif Nalanda

4. Shyam Kishore Prasad

Babulal Prasad

Purani Chowk Nohta

Fatuha

Patna

5. Kundan Singh

Jit Narayan Singh

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

—

Patna

9. Mahendra Ram

kesho Ram

Saidpura

Nagarnausa

—

Nalanda

10. Umesh Ram

Bachhu Ram

Saidpura

Nagarnausa

—

Nalanda

11. Ajay Kumar

Hari Prasad

Daniyawa

—

Patna

12. Yamuna Mistry

Ram Iswar Mistry

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

—

Patna

17. Sanjeev Kumar

Balmiki Prasad

Mahandipur

Bind

Nalanda

18. Umesh Prasad

Basudeo Mahto

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

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

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

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

—

Patna

2438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1114-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos ds

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

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

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@74@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

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 :

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 49/2007

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

BETWEEN

Executive Member

North East Railway Shramik Sangh,

C/o Sri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow

AND

Divisional Railway Manager (Per)

North East Railway,

Ashok Marg,

Lucknow

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2439

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.

2440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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". 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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1115-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 143@96½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@45@95&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 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

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

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.

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 enquiry

2442

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.

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

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 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.

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

from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings pertains to

committing theft of two cheque numbers supra and

attempting to commit fraud of Rs. 17,000/- misusing those

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

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1116-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

eas fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsaUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 138@02½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@151@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh]vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/138/02

General Secretary,

Daily Wages Bank

Employees Association,

9, Sanwar Road, Ujjain

...Workman/Union

Versus

Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India, Region-V,

Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

2444

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:

"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:—

(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

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,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2445

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:—

(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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1117-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k eas

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 181@03½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@18@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh]vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/181/03

Shri Ramesh Kumar,

S/o Shri Gulab Singh,

Near Shri Sitaram Bathare,

Village Jmunia, Nr. Rly. Station,

Guramkheri, Tehsil Sohagpur,

Distt. Hoshangabad (MP)

...Workman

VERSUS

Sr. Bridge Inspector (Constructions),

Central Railway,

Jhansi (UP)

Executive Engineer,

BRE, Central Railway,

Manmarh (Maharashtra)

...Management

A W A R D

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.

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.

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 is

2446

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

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

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2447

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.

(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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1118-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

banksj etZM ,t Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

349@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@304@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

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

VERSUS

Managing Director,

State Bank of Indore,

Merged as State Bank of India

Local Head Office,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

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?"

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 General

2448

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?"

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

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.

(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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2449

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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1119-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

paMhx<+ ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; & 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

134@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrk gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@194@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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 to

2450

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

ANNEXURE

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

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

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman

None.

For the Management

Shri N.K. Zakhmi Proxy for

Sh. G.C. Babbar.

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

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,

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?"

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.

19.05.2015

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1120-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWy MSe gkbMªksbysfDVªd

ikoj izkstsDV ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; & 1 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

39@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrk gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@163@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

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)

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2451

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

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

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

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:

Term of Reference

"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

of the representative of workman, the present reference is

returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat, with liberty to file

afresh if need be.

3. Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh.

21.05.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1121-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

fyfeVsM eaMh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼alnHkZ la[;k

16@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 16 of 2012

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.)

...Workman

2452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

Manager, Hindustan Salt Ltd., Mandi (H.P)

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar.

For the Management

Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on : 21.05.2015

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.

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.

Chandigarh

21.05.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1122-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

fyfeVsM eaMh ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼alnHkZ la[;k

10@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ lañ ,y&42012@261@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky]MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

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-42012/261/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PARKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 10 of 2011

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

The Manager, Hindustan Salt Ltd., Mandi (HP).

...Respondent

APPEARANCE :

For the workman

Shri R.K. Singh Parmar.

For the Management

Shri S.K. Gupta Advocate.

AWARD

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?"

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2453

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1123-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

paMhx<+ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

125@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@102@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

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

VERSUS

The Assistant Engineer (E), Chandigarh Central

Electrical Sub-Division-I, CPWD C.R. Building,

Sector-17, Chandigarh.

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.

AWARD

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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1124-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

paMhx<+ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

133@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@195@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky]MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015

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 Officer

2454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

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

APPEARANCE :

For the workman

: None.

For the management

: Shri N.K. Zakhmi proxy

AWARD

Passed on 21.05.2015

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:

"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

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 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

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1125-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

DokVZlZ dksLV xkMZ fMfLVªDV uacj 4 dksphu ds izca/kra= ds lac)

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

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

,.kkZdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&14011@09@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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)

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

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 20th day of May, 2015/

30th Vaisakha, 1937)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2455

ID 40/2014

Union

The Secretary

Ernakulam District Labour

Congress

Central Committee Office

Narakkal

COCHIN - 682505

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:

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

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?"

3. After receipt of summons union entered appearance

but did not file any claim statement in spite of several

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.

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.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the

20th day of May, 2015.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1126-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy cSad vkWQ

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

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@00½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-05-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@235@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/29/00

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

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, 690,

Shastri Nagar,

Ratlam (MP)

...Management

2456

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,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 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.

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

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.

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 not

2458

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

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1127-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 42@91½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-05-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@280@90&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2459

ANNEXURE

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

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

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.

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 to

2460

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.

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.

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2461

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.

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.

(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

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1128-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 34½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj l®Vªy c®d vkWQ

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 162@02½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@140@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Above City Post Office,

Mangalwara,

Hoshangabad

...Management

AWARD

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 :

2462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 30, 2015/JYAISTHA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"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?"

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.

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

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2463

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.

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.

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1129-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flafMdsV cSad ds izca/

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 48@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ lañ ,y&12012@443@95&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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:

The management of Syndicate Bank, Asansol

Vs.

Sri Vaskar Roy

REPRESENTATIVES:

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

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

2464

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2465

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1130-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds izca/

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 08@1995½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ lañ ,y&12011@46@94&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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 :

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 08 OF 1995

PARTIES

The management of Uco Bank, Burdwan Division.

Vs.

Sri Nepal Ch. Bagdi & 10 Others

REPRESENTATIVES:

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 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

"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:

ORDER

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

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

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1131-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZapkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e]

1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 88 }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, LVhy vkWFkksfjVh vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM

ds lSUVªy ekdsZfVax vkWxsZukbtslu ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer

deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vfèfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g

NwV] bl vfèlwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vofè ds

fy, ykxw jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds vèhu gS( vFkkZr~%&

¼1½ iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs(

¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e ds vèhu

,slh izlqfoèk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vfèlwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vkèkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(

¼3½ NwV izkIr vofè ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(

¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstu ml vof/k dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk mDr vf/kfu;e ¼ftls

blesa blds i'pkr mDr vof/k dgk x;k gS½ izorZeku Fkk

,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'k"V;ksa lfgr

nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950

ds v/khu mls mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha(

¼5½ fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e dh èkjk

45 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

lkekftd lqj{kk vfèdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkfèd`r

dksbZ vU; inèkjh(

¼i½ èkj 44 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] mDr vofè

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

¼ii½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek ¼lkèkj.k½ fofu;e]1950 }kjk

;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vofè ds

fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha( ;k

¼iii½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds

QyLo:i bl vfèlwpuk ds vèhu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

¼iv½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vofè

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds lacaè esa vfèfu;e

ds micaè izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

¼d½ izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

fujh{kd ;k vU; inèkjh vko';d le>rk

gS( vFkok

¼[k½ ,sls izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds

vfèHkksxkèhu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]

dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr

le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls

;g vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu

vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèr ,sls ys[kk]

cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k

vU; inèkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsas vkSj mudh

ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os

vko';d le>rs gSa( vkSj

¼x½ izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh mlds

vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr

dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k

vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus

dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS]

ijh{kk djuk( ;k

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 30] 2015@T;s"B 9] 1937

2467

¼?k½ ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh

;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k

m)j.k ysuk(

¼³½ ;FkkfuèkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksas dk iz;ksx djukA

6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks tk,xh

vkSj rc u, izfr"Vku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh

gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@2@2014&,l,l&I]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

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

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

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.