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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñ vk-1366-—dsanzh; ljdkj] ,rn n~okjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] mÙkj izns'k jkT; ljdkj] x`g ¼iqfyl½ vuqHkkx&11]

y[kuÅ dh lgefr ls fnukad 5 vxLr] 2014 dh vf/klwpuk lañ

364 ,eñ,lñ@6&ih& 2014&543 ,e@2013 ds rgr gSfjVst QkÅaMs'ku]

xzke Hkknokj ckbZ ikl jksM] okjk.klh ¼mÙkj izns'k½ n~okjk Hkkjr ljdkj

dh iwokZuqefr ds fcuk o"kZ 2006&07 ls o"kZ 2011&12 dh vof/k ds

nkSjku 8-38 djksM+ ¼vuqekfur½ dh fons'kh lgk;rk izkIr dj fons'kh

lgk;rk ¼fofu;e½ vf/kfu;e] 2010 ¼2010 ds vf/kfu;e lañ 42½

ds fofHkUu izko/kkuksa ds mYya?ku djus ds laca/k esa vUos"k.k djus ds

fy, rFkk mijksDr vijk/kksa] iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa] "kM~;a=ksa vFkok mijksDr

vijk/kksa rFkk vU; vijk/k@vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kf/kdkj {ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ

mÙkj izns'k jkT; ij djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 228@6@2015&,ohMh&II]

vthr dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1366.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of Delhi Special

Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the

Central Government with the consent of the Govt. of Uttar

Pradesh, Grih (Police) Anubhag-11, Lucknow vide

Notification No. 364M.S./6/P-2014-543M/2013 dated

5th August, 2014 hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh

for investigation into the matter pertaining to violation of

various provisions of Foreign Contribution (Regulation)

Act, 2010 (Act No. 42 of the 2010) by Heritage Foundation,

Village Bhadwar By Pass Road, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)

by receiving foreign contribution of Rs. 8.38 Crore (appox)

without prior permission of Government of India during

the period from 2006-07 to 2011-12 and any other offence(s)

attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to the

above mentioned offences.

[F.No. 228/6/2015-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 28]

ubZ fnYyh] tqykbZ 5—tqykbZ 11] 2015] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 14—vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

No. 28]

NEW DELHI, JULY 5—JULY 11, 2015, SATURDAY/ASADHA 14—ASADHA 20, 1937

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

2857 GI/2015

(2935)

2936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñ vkñ 1367-—dsanzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] egkjk"Vª jkT; ljdkj] dh vf/klwpuk lhñ vkjñ lañ

,evkbZ,l 2015@lhñ vkjñ 1023@ihvks,y&II fnukad 'kwU; ds

ek/;e ls izkIr lgefr ls fons'kh vfHknk; ¼fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e]

2010 ¼2010 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 42½ ds v/khu x`g ea=ky; lanHkZ lañ

,Qñ lañ II@21022@58¼092½2015&,Qlhvkj, ¼,e;w½ fnukad 26-

06-2015

¼dsñvñ

C;wjks

lanHkZ

lañ

4476@lh,@413@2015@bZvks;w&IX@,uMh½ fnukad 30-06-2015 esa rFkk

mlls lEc) vijk/kksa esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa dh

tkap djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa

vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj leLr egkjk"Vª jkT; esa djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 228@26@2015&,ñohñMhñ&II]

vthr dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2015

S.O.1367.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra vide Notification C.R. No. MIS

2015/C.R. 1023/Pol-11 dated nil, hereby extends the powers

and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Maharashtra for

investigation of MHA Reference No. F. No. II/21022/58(092)

2015-FCRA (MU) dated 26.06.2015 (CBI Reference No. 4476/

CA/413/2015/EOU-IX/ND) dated 30.06.2015 under the

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (Act No. 42 of

2010) and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation

to the above mentioned offences.

[F.No. 228/26/2015-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=ky;

¼lhñihñohñ izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dkñvkñ 1368-—jktuf;d rFkk dksalwyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa

dsanz ljdkj Jh ihñ vkjñ flag] lgk;d] dks 30 twu] 2015 ls Hkkjr ds

dksalqykokl] tsíkg esa lgk;d dksalwyh; vf/kdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk

ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gSA

[lañ Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

MINISTRY OF EXTERN AL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O.1368.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorize Shri P. R. Singh, Assistant, in Consulate General

of India, Jeddah, to perform the duties of Assistant Consular

Officer with effect from 30th June, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1369-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;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, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Ø- ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek lañ

la- la[;k

dh frfFk

¼Hkkx@vuqHkkx½ %

o"kZ@ekg

o"kZ

6500005703 20150604

eSllZ , ,.M Mh bathfu;fjax ,aVjizk;lsl

lkQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472 : 1998

159&6 lDdjkjktdjkj lM+d] ikIieiV~Vh

vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi

fifjoq] fparkef.kiqnqj]dks;EcÙwkj&641103

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2937

6500005598 20150604

eSllZ dUuIiu ,ykW; ,.M LVhy dEiuh

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa

IS 2830: 2012

izk;osV fyfeVM

iquosZYyu ds fy, dkWcZu]

,l ,Q lañ 262] esdqZrksV~Ve]

<yoka bLikr fcysV baxV]

djfMokoh jksM] vuqiV~Vh iksLV]

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc

iYyMe rkyqd] fr#Iiqj&641664

6500005699 20150611

eSllZ Jh okloh baMLVªht

nzfor isVªksfy;e xSlksa ds

IS 4246: 2002

7@111A, uk.k;erksV~Ve] osV~Vqiky;e]

lkFk iz;qDr ?kjsyw xSl pwYgs

lkseUuwj jksM] eaxye iksLV] fr:Iiqj

6500005804 20150615

eSllZ o"kkZ ikWyh izksMDV~l

ikuh ds HkaMkj gsrq IykfLVd

,l ,Q lañ 421@1] njoktk lañ 3@166&J]

Vafd;ka

IS 12701: 1996

fpfUu;kxkSUMeiky;e xkao]

iUDdeiV~Vh iksLV] iYyMe rkyqd]

fr#Iiqj&641664

6500005905 20150619

eSllZ QkbuVsd ikbi izksMDV~l]

is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy, mPp

IS 4984: 1995

1@298&,] iqfy;eiV~Vh eq[; jksM]

?kuRo okys ikWyh,fFkyhu ikbIl

iksyokiky;e] ufEc;wj] xkSch&638458

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13 % 11]

,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1369.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particular of which are given in the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name & Address (Factory) of the Party

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

No. No.

Sec. Year

6500005703

20150604

M/s. A & D Engineering Enterprises

Centrifugal Regenerative

IS 8472 : 1998

159-6, Sakkararaikarar Street,

Pumps for clear, cold

Pappampatti Pirivu, Chinthamanipudur

water

Coimbatore-641103

6500005598

20150604

M/s. Kannappan Alloy And Steel

Carbon Steel Cast Billet

IS 2830 : 2012

Company Pvt. Ltd.

Ingots, Billets, Blooms and

SF No. 262, Merkuthottam

Slabs for re-rolling into

Karadivavi Road, Post Anupatti,

Steel for general Structural

Palladam Tk, Tiruppur-641664

purposes

6500005699

20150611

M/s. Sri Vasavi Industries

Domestic Gas Stoves for

IS 4246 : 2002

7/111A, Nanayamthottam,

use with Liquefied

Vettupalayam, Somanur Road,

Petroleum Gases

Mangalam Post, Tiruppur

2938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6500005804

20150615

M/s Varasha Poly Products,

Rotational Moulded

IS 12701: 1996

SF No. 421/1, Door No. 3/166-J,

Polyethylene Water

Chinniya Goundampalayam Village,

Storage Tanks

Panickampatti Post, Palladam Taluk,

Tiruppur-641664

6500005905

20150619

M/s. Finetech Pipe Products

High Density

IS 4984 : 1995

1/298-A, Puliampatti Main Road,

Polyethylene Pipes for

Polavapalayam, Nambiyur,

potable water supplies

Gobl-638458

[No. CMD/13 : 11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1370-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jn~n@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gSa%—

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jn~n fd, x,

jn~n gksus dh frfFk

lañ

lh,e@,y

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe

lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

6500000487

eSllZ osyou ,Dok QkElZ

iSdstcan is; ty

02-06-2015

lañ 285@2 A1]

¼iSdstcan feujyty ds vykok½

is:iYye cl vM~Ms ds ikl]

IS 14543: 2004

fpUukiYye iksLV] usfjUthisV~VS]

bZjksM&638311

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13 % 13]

,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1370.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below

have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Date of

No. CM/L-

Indian Standard covered by the

Cancellation

licence cancelled/suspension

6500000487

M/s. Velavan Aqua Farms,

Packaged Drinking Water (other

02.06.2015

No. 285/2AI, Near Perumpallam Bus

than Packaged Natural Mineral

Stop, Chinnapallam (P.O.),

Water) IS 14543: 2004

Nerinjipettoi, Erode-638311

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2939

jlk;u vkSj moZjd ea=ky;

¼jlk;u ,oa isVªksjlk;u foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2015

dkñvk-1371-—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] jlk;u vkSj moZjd ea=ky;] jlk;u ,oa isVªksjlk;u

foHkkx ds fu;a=.kk/khu ^^d** {ks= esa fLFkr flisV] t;iqj ftlds 80

izfr'kr deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ bZ&11019@01@2015&fgUnh]

xqy'ku yky pksiM+k] la;qDr funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS

(Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals)

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2015

S.O. 1371.—Hindi in pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule

10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby

notify CIPET, Jaipur Unit, which is located in region A under

the administrative control of Ministry of Chemicals and

Fertilizers, Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals,

whereas the 80% staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E-11019/01/2015-Hindi]

GULSHAN LAL CHOPRA, Jt. Director (OL)

lapkj ea=ky;

¼Mkd foHkkx½

dkfydV] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1372-—dsanzh; ljdkj ds foHkkxh; tkap ¼lk{kh mifLFkfr

izorZu ,oa nLrkostksa dk izLrqrhdj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1972 ¼1972 ds

18½ ds rgr [k.M 4 dh mi[k.M ¼2½ n~okjk iznÙk vf/kdkjksa ds

iz;ksx ls ;g fofufnZ"V fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh ih- lh- lthou] lgk;d

v/kh{kd Mkd?kj] rfyijack mieaMy] rfyijack&670141] Jh ihñVhñ

tktZ] xzkeh.k Mkd lsod ,eMh] vfjfoyatiksf;y&670571 ds fo:n~è

foHkkxh; tkap esa mi;qZDr vf/kfu;e ds [k.M 4 ds mi[k.M ¼1½ ds

rgr Hkkjr ljdkj n~okjk fn;s x, vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djus gsrq l{ke

izkf/kdkjh gSaA

[la- vkbZ,uoh@3&7@11&12]

duZy-fo-jkeqyq] iksLVekLVj tujy

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(Department of Posts)

Calicut, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1372.—In exercise of powers conferred by sub-

section (2) of Section 4 of the Departmental inquiries

(Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production

of Documents) Act 1972 (18 of 1972), the Central

Government hereby specifies Shri P.C. Sajeevan, Assistant

Superintendent of Post Offices, Taliparamba Sub Division,

Taliparamba-670141 as an authority to exercise the power

conferred on the Central Government by Sub-section (1) of

Section 4 of the said Act in respect of Shri P.T. George,

GDSMD, Arivailanjapoyil-670571 against whom a

departmental inquiry may be held.

[No. Inv/3-7/11-12]

Col. V. RAMULU, Postmaster General

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

'kqf)i=

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2015

dkñvkñ 1373-—Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k

ea=ky; dh fnukad 07 ebZ] 2015 dh lela[;d vf/klwpuk] ftlesa

vkbZ,elh vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 3 ¼1½ ¼[k½ ds rgr ckck

Qjhn LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky; dk izfrfuf/kRo djus okys Hkkjrh;

vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ ds lnL; ds :i esa izksñ MkWñ jkt cgknqj] dqyifr]

ckck Qjhn LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] QjhndksV] iatkc ds uke

dks vf/klwfpr fd;k x;k gS] ds dkWye Øñ lañ esa dh xbZ izfof"V dks

^^44** dh ctk; ^^8** i<+k tk,A vf/klwpuk dh vU; izfof"V;ka

leku jgsaxhA

[lañ ohñ 11013@02@2015&,ebZih&1]

vfer fcLokl] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2015

S.O. 1373.—In the Government of India, Ministry of

Health & Family Welfare Notification of even No. dated

07th May, 2015, notifying the name of Prof. Dr. Raj Bahadur,

Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,

Faridkot, Punjab as Member, Medical Council of India

representative of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences

under section 3 (1) (b) of IMC Act, 1956, the entry at the

Column S.No. may be read as "8" instead of "44". The

other entries of the Notification will remain the same.

[No. V. 11013/02/2015-MEP-1]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1374-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds izca/

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

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

U;k;y;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 53@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@351@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

2940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1374.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2004) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown

in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the

management of Parascole Colliery, M/s Eastern Coalfield

Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 01/07/2015.

[No. L-22012/351/2003-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present:

Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 53 OF 2004

PARTIES:

The management of Parascole Colliery, Kajoa

Area of M/s ECL

Vs.

Sri Mantu Raidas

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. ECL

For the union (Workman):

Sri Rakesh Kumar, President,

KMC

Industry: Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated: 04.06.2015

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-22012/

351/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 04.10.2004 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute the adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Parascole

Colliery, under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in dismissing Sh. Mantu Raidas, U.G.L., U.M.

No. 722356 from service w.e.f. 06.05.2000 is legal and

justified? if not, to what benefit he is entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/351/2003-IR(CM-

II) dated 04.10.2004 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 53 of 2004

was registered on 14.10.2004 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.

Case called out. Both parties; Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

for the management and Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of

the Union (Koyla Mazdoor Congress) for the workman/

union are present.

Sri. P.K. Das, files a letter of Parascole Colliery, ECL

bearing No. PSC/P&IR/C-6/14/1023 dated 11/13.09.2014

stating therein that the workman has already been

reinstated. Sri Rakesh Kumar also submits that the case

may be closed as the workman has joined in service. Since

the workman has already joined the service no dispute

exist between the concern parties. As such 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] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1375-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,Ykñ 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[;k 43@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@310@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1375.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2004) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown

in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the

management of Nutundanga Colliery, Pandaveshwar Area,

M/s E.C.L. and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 01/07/2015.

[No. L-22012/310/2003-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2941

REFERENCE NO. 43 OF 2004

PARTIES:

The

management

Nutandanga Calliery of M/s

ECL

Vs.

Sri Ranjit Kumar Chandra

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. ECL

For the union (Workman): None

Industrial: Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated 09.06.2015

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-22012/

310/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 30.06.2004 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Nutandanga Colliery under Pandeveshwar Area of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in denyaing

voluntary retirement on medical grounds to Sri Ranjit

Kumar Chandra, Sirdar under Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-

IV is legal and justified? If not, to what benefit he is

entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/310/2003-IR(CM-

II) dated 30.06.2004 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute a referfence case No. 43 of 2004

was registered on 12.07.2004 and accordinlgy 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

withness in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

Case called out. Both of the parties; management as

well as union/workman are absent.

On perusal of case record I find that agent of Nutandanga

Colliery has filed a petition before the Tribunal stating

therein that workman has already joined in service. Copy

of appointment letter has also been enclosed with the

petition. The union is also neither appearing nor taking

any step since long in spite of service of several notices.

Since the workman has already joined in service and the

workman is neither appearing nor taking any step, the case

is closed. As such 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

exisating. 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] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1376-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ 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;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2002½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@176@2001&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1376.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 36/2002 of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in

the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the

management of C.V. Area of M/s. BCCL, and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 01/07/2015.

[No. L-22012/176/2001-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 36 OF 2002

PARTIES:

The management of Victoria West Colliery of

M/s BCCL

Vs.

Sri Baban Dusadh & 3 others

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv.

For the union (Workman):

None

Industrial: Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated 26.05.2015

2942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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-22012/

176/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 27.08.2002 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Victoria

West Colliery under BCCL C.V. Area-XII in denying

conversion of Baban Dusadh, Seobali Dusad, Bijay

Shaw and Lukman Mia (all U.G. Loaders of Victoria

West Colliery) from U.G. Loader to Trammer is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workmen are entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/176/2001-IR(CM-

II) dated 27.08.2002 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute a referfence case No. 36 of 2002

was registered on 10.09.2002 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.

Case called out both parties management as well as

union/workman are absent.

On perusal of case record I find that this reference case

was fixed for hearing on merit on 30.08.2005. But the union

appeared only on 28.02.2006 when management was

absent. Thereafter the union never appeared not took any

step. After granting 15 days registered notice was issued

to the union on 30.03.2009. But none on behalf of the union

turned up. Again registered notice was issued on 10.09.2014

and 3 dates were granted but all in vain. The union neither

appeared nor took any step after 28.02.2006 despite two

registered notices. It seems to me that the union is now not

at all interested to proceed with the case further. The

reference case is also too old—in the year of 2002. So I

don't think it proper and wise to keep this old record pending

while the workmen have no more interest left. As such 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] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1377-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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

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

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 342@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@244@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1377.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 342/99) of the Cent.

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

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of Rajnagar Colliery of SECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/07/

2015.

[No. L-22012/244/1999-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/342/99

Joint General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation,

At & PO Rajnagar Colliery of SECL,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

The Sub Area Manager,

Rajnagar R.O of SECL,

PO Rajnagar Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 19-20/10/99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

244/99/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of the Mines

Manager, Rajnagar RO Colliery, Incline No.5-6,

Hasdeo Area of SECL, Distt. Shahdol in terminating

Shri Ram Khelawan S/o Shri Hirwa, General Mazdoor,

Rajnagar RO Colliery w.e.f. 16-5-97 from company

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2943

services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled?'

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at Page

5/1 to 5/3. Case of workman is that he was working in colliery

of IInd party. Chargesheet was issued to him on 25-10-96.

He denied charges against him. Management instituted

enquiry and ultimately terminated his services from

12-5-97. Workman challenged order of his termination

alleging that charges alleged against him were vague. The

Enquiry Officer was biased. He acted as a prosecutor rather

than judge. Management closed evidence. Thereafter

Enquiry Officer directed management to produce more

evidence to fill up the lacunas. Findings of Enquiry Officer

are perverse. Enquiry Officer had not applied mind for

recording his findings. The punishment of dismissal is

harsh. On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party denied material

allegations of workman. It is submitted that charges alleged

against workman were precise followed by complaint by

supervisor of the workman Jahuruddin, Mining Sirdar dated

25-10-96. The contentions of workman w.r.t. charges were

vague. Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor. It is submitted

that Enquiry Officer recorded findings considering evidence

on record. The findings are not perverse. The punishment

of dismissal was imposed against workman considering

the allegation that workman had denied to perform his duty.

He had disobeyed orders of his superior. Workman was in

habit of misbehaving with his superiors. Enquiry was

conducted fairly. The witnesses of management were cross-

examined by co-worker. On such ground, IInd party submits

that workman has not made out sufficient ground for his

claim.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. That the

findings of enquiry Officer are contrary to the record. The

principles of natural justice were not followed by Enquiry

Officer. He acted as a prosecutor. The charges alleged

against workman were false.

5. Preliminary issue was framed in the matter, as per

order dated 15-2-2011, my predecessor found enquiry

conducted against workman legal and valid.

6. Considering pleadings on record and orders 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 charges alleged

In Affirmative

against workman are proved

from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

(ii)

Whether the punishment of

In Negative

dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. As stated above, vide order dated 15-2-2011, enquiry

conducted against workman is found legal. Next question

for consideration is whether charges alleged against

workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings

or findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. The documents

Exhibit M-1 is chargesheet issued to workman under Clause

26.3, 46.5, 26.22 of standing orders which relates to

disobeying orders of the superiors and deliberately not

cooperating with the superiors causing indiscipline and

loss to the management. The report by complainant

Jahuruddin is produced in record of Exhibit M-1.

Management examined witness Shri Anup Shriya Prasad

witness No. 1, complainant Jahuruddin Mining Sirdar, Anwar

Ali, Lalji S/o Jhakuruddin witness No. 4 Tiwari, Naveen

Deep Witness No. 5. All the witnesses were cross-examined

by Defence Assistant. The workman examined defence

witness Shri Sham Baghel, Witness No. 2 Abimanyu,

Witness No. 3 Kamla, witness No. 4 Rampal Tamar, workman

examined himself. The evidence of management's witnesses

is clear that workman had left the place of working.

Complainant Jahuruddin had gone for his search, workman

was found bear Kali Temple talking with 2-3 other persons.

When workman asked him about the same, workman replied

in indescent language. He also abused workman indecently.

Workman had left place of work earlier, workman was one

of the member of group of 8 labours who were assigned

work of spreading belt. Jahuruddin in his statement says

that when he had gone for search of workman, he was

found near Kali temple. On his enquiry, workman said what

harm he may do to him. While returning to his place of

work, workman said he would not obey his orders. His

evidence is corroborated by management wintess

Anushriya Prasad. His statement is clear that the work of

spreading belt for loading in the mines was assigned to

their group. Workman Ramkhilawan had left place of work.

Sirdar had gone for his search. Remaining labours had

started work of spreading belt. As belt was more, belt could

not be taken down. His evidence is corroborated by

management Witness Lalji S/o Hasuruddin. Witness No. 3

for management says that they were assigned work in group

of 8 persons. Belt was to be taken at 200 mt distance.

Workman Ramkhilawan had gone out of boundary. Sirdar

had gone to call him. Ramkhilawan and one Kamla were not

present therefore the belt could not be taken loose upto

the trolley. Management's witness Tiwari corroborated

evidence of their witnesses and MW-5 Naveen have also

corroborated their evidence. The evidence in cross-

examination of all those witnesses is not shattered evidence

2944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on the point workman had left the working place and he

disobeyed order of his superior. The defence witness No. 1

to 4 tried to support defence of the workman. That the

work was completed. I find no evidence shattering the

testimony of management's witness to disbelieve them.

The scope of judicial scrutiny by the Tribunal does not

permit re-appreciation of evidence. The findings of Enquiry

Officer are supported by the evidence. Enquiry Officer while

recording his findings has not marshelled the evidence.

The marshelling of evidence by Enquiry Officer is not

expected as he is not a person from legal field. The evidence

in Enquiry Proceedings is sufficient to prove charges

alleged against workman. The findings of Enquiry officer

cannot be said perverse. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

8. Point No. 2—in view of my finding in Point No. 1

charges alleged against workman, disobeying orders of

his superiors, not maintaining discipline, leaving the place

of work are proved, question is whether the punishment of

dismissal imposed against workman for the charges proved

against him is proper. Though learned counsel for IInd

party Shri A.K. Shashi submits that workman was habitually

disobeying the orders of his superiors, no evidence is found

in that regard. There was no charge against workman of

habitual disobeying the orders of his superiors. The

evidence of management's witnesses shows that the

incident occurred on 24-10-98 when the group of labours

were assigned work of spreading belt. The workman left

the place and when Sirdar Jahuruddin went to call the

workman, the workman abused him and told that he would

not obey the jobs. The incident occurred on 24-10-96.

9. As per evidence of Ist party workman, he was working

in Rajnagar colliery from 1-9-79. Workman is dismissed as

per order dated 16-5-97. Workman was working with IInd

party from 1979 to 1997 for about 18 years. While imposing

punishment of dismissal, length of his service was not

considered. There was no charge of workman habitually

disobeying orders of his superiors when no evidence was

adduced before Enquiry officer about past service record

of workman.

10. Learned counsel for workman Shri R.C. Shrivastva

submits considering isolated incident of leaving working

place, disobeying order of mining Sirdar, the punishment

of with-holding some increments would have been

appropriate. The punishment of dismissal imposed against

workman is disproportionate and harsh.

11. Considering the facts and evidence of the case, I am

of the view that for single incident of disobeying order of

Mining Sirdar, punishment of dismissal of workman who

had completed almost 18 years service is disproportionate

and excessive. The punishment was imposed in 1997. At

the time of evidence of workman adduced evidence in the

case on 14-9-2011, age of workman is shown 52 years. By

this time, workman may have completed age of 55-56 years.

As the punishment of dismissal is found disproportionate,

in my considered view, considering proved charges against

workman, the punishment of compulsory retirement would

be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No. 1.

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

(1) The action of the management of the Mines

Manager, Rajnagar RO Colliery of SECL, Distt.

Shahdol in terminating Shri Ram Khelawan S/o

Shri Hirwa, w.e.f. 16-5-97 is not proper and legal.

(2) Punishment of dismissal of workman from service

is modified to compulsory retirement. IInd party

is directed to allow retiral benefits to workman

within two months from the date of publication of

award.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1378-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj [kknh ,oa xzkeks|ksx

vk;ksx 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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 120@2001½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@51@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O..1378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/01) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Khadi and Village Industries

Commission, Bhopal, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 01/07/2015.

[No. L-42012/51/2000-IR(C-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

CASE No. CGIT/LC/R/120/01

Ms. Prabhavati

C/o Ramanand Dhyani,

CSD & Workshop, Bhadbadha Road,

Bhopal

....Workman

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2945

Versus

Director,

Khadi and Village Industries Commission,

B-3/4, Office Complex,

Gautam Nagar,

Bhopal.

Manager,

Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan,

27, Bhadbhada Road,

TT Nagar, Bhopal.

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 22-6-01 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-42012/

51/2000-IR (C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Director,

Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Ms Prabhavati C/o

Ramanand Dhyani w.e.f. 31-1-2000 not complying

with Section 25 F of ID Act 1947 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief she is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

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

to 2/4. Case of workman is that she was appointed in General

Cadre without giving order in writing from 1-1-1996. She

was allowed employment for doing various nature of work.

She was working as peon, clerk time to time as work

assigned by management. She was attending office every

day from 11 AM to 8 PM. That she was continuously

working till her discontinuation on 30-1-2000. That she was

not given termination order. The termination of services by

oral order is illegal. Her services were terminated by IInd

party after demand for regularization and payment of equal

wages for equal work. instead of regularizing her services,

he was discontinued. That she completed 240 days

continuous service. She is entitled to protection of ID Act.

She was continuously working for about 4 years. Her

services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act. On such ground, workman is praying for reinstatement

with full backwages.

3. IInd party filed written Statement at page 10/1 to 10/4

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party denied that

workman was appointed without order in writing by IInd

party. That IInd party has no power to appoint employees.

IInd party is establishment under control of Government

of India. Appointment in IInd party are made by Central

Government. Workman is not terminated by IInd party

neither she was appointed by it. IInd party had engaged

Tiger Security Services. IInd party has no concern with

engagement or termination of services of workman. There

was no question of continuously employing workman by

IInd party. Workman had not completed 240 days

continuous service. Violation of Section 25-F of ID Act by

IInd party is denied the conditions of services of workman

were settled between her and Tiger Security Services. Claim

of workman is not legal and same cannot be accepted.

4. Workman has submitted rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/

4 reiterating her contentions in statement of claim. She

denied that she was working as employee of Tiger Security

services. She was never appointed as Security Guard.

During the year 1994-95, workman was engaged on daily

wages. From 1-1-1996, he was appointed without issuing

order. IInd party has produced fabricated documents as

females are never employed as security guard, mostly males

are employed as security guard. She has reiterated that

during the year 1996 to 2000, she worked for 215 days

during each of the year. Her services are terminated orally

in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Director,

Khadi and Village Industries

Commission, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Ms

Prabhavati C/o Ramanand

Dhyani w.e.f. 31-1-2000 is

legal?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

6. Point No. 1 Workman is challenging termination of

service for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act contending

that she was continuously working in IInd party from 1996

to 2000. She has filed affidavit of her evidence supporting

above contentions that her services were orally terminated.

Notice was not issued to her. She was not employed by

tiger Security Services. Documents produced by IInd party

are bogus and fabricated. In her cross-examination,

workman says during 1994-95, she was working as LDC in

IInd party. Shri N.V. Singh Manager had appointed her.

Order in writing was issued to her. She admits that IInd

party is institution of Central Government, the

appointments are made by Central Govt. she did not receive

letter of appointment from the Central Government.

Workman further says that she was daily wage employee.

Manager had appointed her as LDC. Manager had told her

that on post of LDC, she would be required to work on

computer, accounts. During the period she was working

with IInd party on computer there was no other person

2946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

working on computer. Other persons were working in

accounts. Manager had issued certificate that she worked

more than 240 days. Initially she was paid Rs. 45/- per day.

Subsequently she was paid Rs. 1500 p.m. The evidence of

workman that she was not employee of Tiger Security

services is not shattered. Workman has denied suggestion

in that regard.

7. Management filed affidavit of witness Meena

supporting contentions of the management that workman

was employee of Tiger security services. Said security

services is deliberately not impleaded as party. Workman

failed to cross examine the management's witnesses. Even

after the order dated 13-4-14 was recalled, workman failed

to cross-examine the management's witness. However, the

management's witness has failed to prove the documents

of security contract with Tiger Security Services. The

evidence of management's witness is not cogent that

workman was employed by Tiger Security services.

Management has not produced documents about

registration of its establishment under CL(R&A) Act. The

contentions of IInd party that workman was employee of

IInd party is not reliable. Ist party being lady is difficult to

believe that she was engaged as security guard by Tiger

Security Services. The evidence of workman is not

shattered that she was working on computer and also doing

acounts work from 1-1-96 till 2000. Her services were

discontinued orally. Workman was not served with notice,

retrenchment compensation was not paid therefore

termination of services of workman is illegal for violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act. Therefore I record my finding in

Point No. 1 in Negative.

8. Point No. 2 — The services of workman are terminated

in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act as per my finding in

Point No. 1, question arises whether the workman is entitled

for reinstatement with back wages. Cross examination of

workman shows she was not appointed by Central

Government. Her evidence does not show that she was

appointed following any kind of recruitment process. In

absence of such evidence, claim of workman for

reinstatement cannot be allowed. Considering the workman

was working for 4 years with IInd party, compensation Rs.

One Lakh would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my

finding in Point No. 2.

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

(1) The action of the management of Director, Khadi

and Village Industries Commission, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Ms Prabhavati C/o

Ramanand Dhyani w.e.f. 31-1-2000 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 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] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1379-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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 186@96½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@210@1994&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O.1379.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 186/96) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/07/2015.

[No. L-22012/210/1994-IR(C-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

CASE No. CGIT/LC/R/186/96

Secretary,

Koyla Mazdoor Sabha,

Camp Lusai,

Post Kotma,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

....Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Jamuna & Kotma Area,

SECL, Post Jamuna Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8th day of June 2015

As per letter dated 26-9-96 by the Government of India,

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

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

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/210/94-IR

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

"Whether the action of the management of Jamuna

1/2 mines of Jamuna and Kotma Aras of SECL in

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2947

dismissing the services of Shri Nain Das S/o Chmu

Das, Badli Piece Rated Loader is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled

to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at

Page 3/1 to 3/5. Case of Union is that Naindas was working

as permanent workman in Jamuna 1, 2 mines in Kotma Area

of SECL. Said workman was working against permanent

vacancy. He had put up more than 240 days attendance in

each of the calendar year. Workman was discharging his

duties under direct control and supervision of management

to its satisfaction. Management provide proper medical

facilities to said workman. He suffered from disease of TB.

Above said workman reported to company's Medical Officer

any time for treatment. Unfortunately workman was not

provided proper treatment. Workman would not recover

from his killing disease. Workman was receiving treatment

from Doctor under supervision of his relatives as well as

well-wishers. Workman was absenting from duty, his

absence was informed to the management. That as per

clause 17.1 of certified standing orders, management issued

letter dated 31-1-1984 terminating his services. It is

submitted that the termination of services of workman is

illegal contrary to the standing orders. Any charge sheet

was not issued to the workman. No enquiry was conducted

against him. Clause 17-N of Certified standing order restricts

to terminate services of workman without assigning reason,

without according any opportunity. The dispute raised by

Union was rejected by Government. After directions issued

by Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition, the dispute has

been referred. Union submits that the services of workman

are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Union

claims for reinstatement of workmen with all consequential

benefits.

3. Better particulars were applied by IInd party

management. Union submitted better particulars that

workman was appointed in service by management in 1975.

Workman was working till 1983. He completed 240 days

continuous service during each of the year. Workman was

suffering from TB consequently absenting from work.

Workman is illiterate person. Workman has forgotten the

name of supervisor under whom he was working. Workman

was terminated from 3-1-84.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 12/1 to 12/7

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party raised preliminary

objection that workman was engaged as casual mazdoor

as badly/piece rated loader. Workman remained absent

unauthorisely without intimation or sanctioned leave.

Workman was absenting from 22-9-83. His casual

engagement came to end vide order dated 31-1-1984. The

dispute raised by workman was rejected by Government.

In para-6 of the Written Statement, IInd party has shown

working days of workman from 1982 to 1984. It is reiterated

that as workman was engaged as casual badly mazdoor

and he unauthorisely remained absent, workman had not

completed 190/240 days attendance during any of the year.

Workman left his job. If it is found that enquiry was required

before terminating services of workman, IInd party request

permission to prove misconduct in court. On such ground,

IInd party prays that reference be awarded in its favour.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Jamuna 1/2

mines of Jamuna and Kotma

Areas of SECL in dismissing

the services of Shri Nain Das

S/o Chmu Das, Badli Piece

Rated Loader is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Present dispute is raised by Union Koyla Mazdoor

Sabha challenging termination of services of workman for

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. However Union or

workman failed to participate in the reference proceedings.

Workman failed to adduce evidence in support of

contentions raised in statement of claim. Despite of notices

issued to workman on 30-1-2014, he failed to adduce any

evidence, evidence of workman is closed on 20-3-2014.

The documents produced on the record Exhibit W-1 is copy

of Writ Petition filed in High Court. Only after directions

issued by Hon'ble High Court, dispute was referred by the

Central Government. Exhibit W-2 is copy of termination

order dated 31-1-1984. W-3 is order by Government rejecting

to make reference. Exhibit W-4 is copy of WP No. 3301/96

filed in High Court.

7. Management has also produced document Exhibit

M-1 copy of termination order, M-2 reply submitted before

ALC, Shahdol. M-3 is copy of failure report submitted by

ALC, Shahdol. M-4 is copy of order of reference. M-5 is

copy of entries in Attendance Register.

8. Management's witness Shri P.S. Mundre filed affidavit

of evidence supporting contentions in Written Statement

filed by IInd party that workman had not completed 240

days continuous service during any of the year. Evidence

of management's witness remained unchallenged as

Ist party workman failed to cross-examine witness of the

management. As Ist party failed to adduce any evidence in

support of his contentions, I record my findings in Point

No. 1 in Affirmative.

2948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

(1) The action of the management of Jamuna 1/2 mines

of Jamuna and Kotma Aras of SECL in dismissing

the services of Shri Nain Das S/o Chmu Das, Badli

Piece Rated Loader is proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1380-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ñ,lñvkbZñ 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@2006½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@199@2005&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/06) of the Central.

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Archaeological Survey of India

and their workman, received by the Central Government on

01/07/2015.

[No. L-42012/199/2005-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/58/06

General Secrertary,

All India Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union,

43/305/18, Nai Awadi,

Near Mission Church,

Sikandara, Agra (UP)

........Workman/Union

Versus

Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

GTB Complex, B Block

IInd floor,

Bhopal

......Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of June, 2015

1. As per letter dated 7.9.06 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-42012/199/2005-

IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference ralates to:

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological survey of India, Bhopal in terminating

the services of Shri Manoj Kumar Shrivastava and

Shri Hakim Singh w.e.f. 28.6.04 is legal and justified ?

If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman sbumitted statement to claim through

Vice President of the Union. Case of Ist party is workman

Manoj Kumar Srivastav was appointed as causal employee

on December 2000 against sanctioned post notified on

notice board. His services were terminated orally from

28.6.04. Other workman Hakim Singh was appointed as

casual labour on 31.5.2001 against vacant clear post. His

services were orally discharged illegally from 28.6.04. Both

workmen were discharging duties of pen/watchman. Both

workmen rendered continuous uninterrupted service from

intitial appointment till 20.6.04. He completed more than

240 days continuous service prior to their termination. Both

workmen were not paid retrenchment compensation. Notice

of termination was not served on him. termination of their

service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.

3. Ist party further submits that Indrabhan and Sukhlal

and several others were appointed as casual workers. They

are still continuing in employment of IInd party as such

IInd party violated Section 25-G of ID Act. Principles of

last come first go is violated. IInd party has engaged one

Ram Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav after termination

of services of both workmen, workmen were not given

opportunity of re-employment thereby IInd party violated

Section 25 H of ID Act. On such ground, Ist party prays to

set aside the termination of workman and allow

reinstatement with full back wages.

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

opposing claim of Ist party. IInd party submits that Manoj

Srivastav and Hakim singh were engaged for particular

period. After expiry, the period was not extended. Both

employees were engaged as casual labour for limited period.

They were not engaged against vacant post. Both the

employees are not covered as workman under ID Act.

Simply engaging casual labour for particular work does

not confer any right to the post, IInd party denied both

workmen have completed 240 days continuous service.

Violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is denied. Both workmen

are not entitled to protection of Section 25-F of ID Act.

They are not entitled to retrenchment compensation. That

IInd party is not an industry under ID Act therefore

provisions of ID Act are not applicable in the matter. IInd

party has referred to the award in R/274/97 by this Tribunal.

It is reiterated that both workmen were engaged as casual

labour. They are not entitled to protection of ID Act as

they have not completed 240 days continuous service.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2949

5. Shri Hakim Singh died during pendency. His LRs are

brought on record.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

management of Archaeological

In Negative

survey of India, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri

Manoj Kumar Shrivastava and

Shri Hakim Singh w.e.f. 28.6.04

is legal and justifed?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. Point No. 1- Ist party challenged termination of

Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava and Hakim Singh for voilation

of Section 25-F of ID Act. Affidavit of evidence is filed by

Shri Manoj Srivastava stating that he was appointed as

labour on 1.12.00. Hakim Singh was appointed on 31.5.00

by IInd party. He has narrated about the work performed

by them looking after statues. They were continuously

working till 27.6.04. They were discontinued on 15.6.04.

Affidavit of Manoj Srivastava is also devoted on the point

that the Government of India order dated 10.9.93 allowed

temporary status to the casual employees. The affidavit of

Manoj is further devoted that they were terminated without

notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to them.

Shri Hakim Singh died on 2.10.06 leaving his widow Yeshoda

Davi and one daughter. The evidence of Manoj Kumar

remained unchallenged as management failed to cross

examine him. Management has failed to adduce any

evidence. Considering unchallenged evidence of Manoj, it

is established that services of Manoj and Hakim were

terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. They

were denied opportunity of re-employment. The termination

of both the worken is illegal. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

8. Point No. 2 In view of my finding in Point No. 1

termination of services of workmen are illegal for violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act, question arises whether both

workmen are entitled for reinstatement with back wages.

Shri Hakim Singh has died, LR are broght on record therefore

there is no question of reinstatement.

9. Ist party counsel relies on ratio held in

Case of Devinder Singh versus Municplal Council,

Sanaur reported in 2011 (4) MPLJ-62. Their Lordship dealing

with Section 25-F (a), of ID Act held provisions contained

in Section 25-F are mandatory. Termination of services of

workman which amounts to retrenchment without giving

one month notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchemnt

compensation is null and void. Their lordship further held

Appellant appointed on contract without any

advertisement and consideration of the competing claims

of other eligible persons because of ban imposed by the

State Government Interference by the High Court with the

award of reinstatement of the appellant on said ground is

not justified.

The facts of present case are not comparable in view of

there is no pleading or evidence about ban imposed by

State Government. The ratio cannot be applied in present

case.

Reliance is also placed in case of Durgapur Casual

Workers Union versus FCI reported in 2015 LAB. I.C. 771.

Their Lordship held undertaking of Government which

comes within meaning of industry or its establihsment

cannot justify its illegal action including unfair labour

practice.

Ratio held in this case does not cover controversy

between parties involved in the reference, therefore ratio

held in this case cannot be applied to present case at hand.

Reliance is also placed on ratio held in case of Mackinon

Machenzie & Company Ltd. versus Mackinon Employees

Union reported in 2015-LAB.I.C. 1645. Their Lordship

delaing with violation of Section 25-F of ID Act,

Retrenchment - One month notice not given to concerned

workmen before retrenchment nor one month salary in lieu

of notice was paid to them, It amounts to non-compliance

of conditions precedent to retrenchment as per

Section 25-F (a) & (c) of ID Act, Relief of reinstatement

with back wages was granted.

In present case, evidence of Manoj Srivastava does not

show that they were appointed following recruitment

process, Considering short spam of working from December

& May 2000 till 27.6.04, reinstatement with backwages would

not be justified. In my considered view adequate

compensation would be reasonable. Considering short

spam of working, compensation Rs. 75,000/- to both the

workmen Shri Manoj and Hakim Singh would meet the

ends of justice.

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

(1) The action of the mangement of Archaeological

survey of India, Bhopal in terminating the services

of Shri Manoj Kumar Shrivastava and Shri Hakim

Singh w.e.f. 28.6.04 is not proper and legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 75,000/- each to Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava

and LRs of Hakim Singh Smt. Yashoda Devi within

30 days from the date of publication of award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

2950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1381-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhch,u 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 33@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@79@2003&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1381.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/05) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Central Bureau of Narcotics,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/07/2015.

[No. L-42012/79/2003-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/33/05

Shri Sunil Kumar Kushwah,

S/o Shri Hiralal Kushwah,

78, New Katra,

Dilkush Park,

Allahabad

..... Workman

Versus

Dy. Narcotics Commissioner (Admn.)

Central Bureau of Narcotics,

19, The Mall Road,

Gwalior

..... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 2.5.2005 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-

42012/79/2003-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference

ralates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bureau of Narcotics in terminating the service of

Shri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha verbally w.e.f. 20.9.2001

is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is

entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman sbumitted statement of claim at Page 2/2

to 2/7. Case of workman is that the belongs to Kachhi

caste-a backward caste. He comes from poor family.

Workman received education up to 9th standard. He was

appointed on daily wages by oral order dated 4.7.99 by

Narcotics Commissioner. Thereafter Narcotics

Commissioner came to know that workman was having

licence of light motoer vehicle. Workman was deputed for

driving vehicle for Narcotics deptt. Workman was also

assigned duty of gardner in Narcotic office. Other 25 daily

wage labours were also working in Narcotic Commissioner

office. Ist party workman was continuously working with

IInd party from 4.7.99. His services were orally terminated

from 20.9.01. That he was continuously working more than

240 days during each of the year. He is covered for

protection under Section 25-F of ID Act. His services were

terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him.

3. Workman further submits that as per decisions of

High Court and Apex Court, the persons worked more than

240 days cannot be terminated. He is entitled to be made

permanent.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/5

opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that

workman was engaged intermittently in daily wages as per

exigencies. There is no question of regularization of his

service. Merely completing 240 days/206 days does not

give right to temporary status. Casual labours who were in

employment on the date of issue of O.M. is not applicable

to the Ist party workman. Central Bureau of Narcotics is

not an industry as per Schedule I Rule 3(f). The scheme

dated 1.1.93 was not an ongoing scheme. Temporary status

cannot be classified as casual labours as per clause IV of

the scheme as Ist party workman was not employed beofore

1.9.93. It is reiterated that workman had not completed 240

days continuous service. IInd party has referred to the

judgements by CAT in Case of Rastogi versus Union of

India and judgements in other cases. It is submitted that

casual labours not registered in Employment Exchange

should not be appointed on regular post. That the statement

of claim filed by workman is devoid of merit. On such

ground, IInd party submits that claim of workman deserves

to be rejected.

5. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in

statement of claim.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2951

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

management of Central Bureau of

Narcotics in terminating the

In Negative

services of Shri Sunil Kumar

Kushwaha verbally w.e.f. 20.9.2001

is legal and justifed?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. The terms of reference pertains to legality of

termination of services of workman w.e.f. 20.9.2001.

Workman has pleaded that he had completed 240 days

continuous service during each of the year since his

engagement on establishment of IInd party. His services

reorally terminated without notice.

8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He stated

that he was engaged on daily wages by IInd party from

4.7.99. He was continuously working till 17.8 .00. Thereafter

he was transferred to Head Office. He was also working as

Electrician. He holds driving licence. IInd party was

engaged in continuation of Cannavis. Claim of workman is

opposed by IInd party on the ground that workman had

not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman has

stated that he completed 240 days continuous service prior

to his termination. His services are terminated in violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act Workman in his cross examination

says he was working in Gwalior office on daily wages. He

has produced documents about completing 240 days

continuous service. He was paid wages for 30 days to end

of the month. Appointment letter was not given to him. He

was working in the department from 1999 to2002.

9. Ist party filed application for production of documents

dated 4.2.02. He requested production of documents of

Attendance register in Gwalior Office, Delhi for the period

4.7.99 to 19.9.01. Though IInd party received copy of

application, the documents are not produced neither reply

is filed. IInd party did not adduce any evidence. The

evidence of Ist party workman that he completed 240 days

working during each of the year is not shattered. The

contentions of IInd party that workman not completed 240

days service during any of the year. The documents are

not produced by IInd party to substantiate those

contentions. There is no cogent evidence in rebuttal of the

evidence of workman. I do not find reason to disbelieve

evidence of workman who completed 240 days continuous

service. The evidence of workman that his services were

terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation is not shattered. I therefore hold that

termination of service of workman is in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No. in Negative.

10. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1

services of workman are illegally terminated in violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act, question arises whether workman

is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. As per

evidence of workman, he was engaged on daily wages

from 4.7.99 till date of his termination i.e. 20.9.01. Workman

hardly worked for about 2 years on daily wages. He was

not appointed following selection process. The relief of

reinstatement with backwages would not be justified.

Considering the period of working of Ist party workman,

compensation Rs. 75,000/- would be reasonable.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:

(1) The action of the management of Central Bureau

of Narcotics in terminating the services of

Shri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha verbally w.e.f.

20.9.2001 is not proper and legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 75,000/- 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] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1382-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 91@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@453@2004&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. .1382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/2005) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Western Coalfield Limited and

their workman, received by the Central Government on

01/07/2015.

[No. L-22012/453/2004-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

2952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/91/2005

General Secretary,

Sanyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

CRO Camp Iklehra,

Chhindwara

....Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Western Coalfield Ltd.,

Pench Area, PO Parasia,

Chhindwara

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 1-9-05 by the Government of India,

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

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

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/453/2004-

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

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Pench

Area of WCL in dismissal of Shri Ram Narayan, Tub

loader from services 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 3/1

to 3/2 through SKMS Union. Case of workman is that he

was working as tub loader at Thisgora colliery. As he was

suffering from pain in heart and was not keeping good

health, he was unable to attend duty. He was submitting

intimation to the management. Chargesheet was issued to

him on 25-3-2000. Enquiry Officer was appointed, enquiry

was not properly conducted by Enquiry Officer. Principles

of natural justice were not followed while conducting

enquiry. He was not properly intimated about dates of

enquiry. He was not given opportunity for his defence.

The enquiry was illegally completed. The intimation sent

to workman was returned by postal authority with remark

‘‘workman was not available". Management had issued

code of conduct as workman was not served with notice.

Intimation was issued through public notice. It is reiterated

that enquiry was not properly conducted. The management

issued order of his dismissal illegally. Workman prayed for

his reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/9

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that

WCL is registered under Company's Act. The service

conditions of employees in cola industry are covered by

NCWA, standing orders. The workers are provided facilities

of free accommodation, free water, free medical aid etc.

there is hospital known as Burkui hospital providing the

facilities of medical aid. In serious case, workers are referred

to specialized hospitals in metropolitan cities. Workman

was working as tub loader at Thesgora colliery of WCL,

Pench area who was habitual absentee. Workman put

attendance of 86 days during January 99 to June 99.

Chargesheet was issued to workman on 25-3-00 under

clause 23.30 of standing orders. As reply by workman found

unsatisfactory, Enquiry Officer was appointed to Shri O.K.

Prasad, Y.R. Janulkar was appointed as Presenting Officer

as per order dated 13-6-2001. Workman was issued

memorandum dated 13-6-01. Workman submitted

application for adjournment. Again memorandum was

issued to workman on 19-6-01 enquiry fixed on 22-6-01.

Intimation was received back unserved. Again enquiry was

fixed on 29-6-01. Intimation sent by RPAD received back

unserved. Enquiry was also fixed on 6-7-2001. Memorandum

sent to workman was served. Workman did not present in

the enquiry. It is reiterated that enquiry was conducted

following principles of natural justice. That when was fixed

on 22-2-2002. Memorandum sent to workman was received

with remark "refused to accept". Workman did not inform

management about change of his address. Enquiry Officer

submitted his report. Disciplinary Authority issued show

cause notice dated 13-4-02 alongwith copy of Enquiry

Report. After notesheet dated 12-12-02 was submitted to

Competent Authority passed final order for dismissal of

workman. The workman was unauthoriselly absent.

Management considered his past record. Warnings were

given to workman for unauthorized absence. On such

ground, IInd party submits that punishment of dismissal

against workman is proper. All adverse contentions of

workman are denied. IInd party submits that workman has

not established his claim.

4. As per order dated 23-7-2013, enquiry conducted

against workman is found legal.

5. Considering 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 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

Workman is not

is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging order of his dismissal alleging

that enquiry was not properly conducted. As per order

dated 23-7-2013, enquiry conducted against workman is

found legal. Workman did not participate in reference

proceeding. His evidence is closed on 16-4-2014. As per

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2953

order sheet dated 16-11-2014, management's counsel

Shri A.K. Shashi submits that management does not desire

to lead evidence on other issues. Workman had failed to

lead evidence on Issue No. 1 also.

7. Copies of Enquiry Proceedings are produced.

Documents Page 8/43 shows that management's

representative in his statement narrated working days of

workman from July 99 to December 99. Workman worked

for 86 days. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report that

the charges against workman are proved. Workman has

failed to participate in reference proceeding. No evidence

is adduced by him. Workman also failed to participate in

Enquiry proceedings despite enquiry was repeatedly

adjourned. Management's representative produced bonus

representative remained unchallenged. Management's

witness Shri K.S. Unninathan filed affidavit of his evidence

w.r.t. the enquiry conducted against workman. His evidence

remained unchallenged. Considering the statement of

management's representative and number of working days

narrated in evidence of management's representative, the

charge of unauthorized absence against workman is proved.

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

Affirmative.

8. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1

charge of unauthorized absence against workman is proved.

Workman failed to participate in Enquiry Proceeding as

well as in present reference proceeding. Absolutely no

evidence is adduced by workman on the point of quantum

of punishment therefore I do not find reason to interfere in

the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman.

For above reason, I record my finding in Point No. 2.

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

(1) The action of the management of Pench Area of

WCL in dismissal of Shri Ram Narayan, Tub loader

from services is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1383-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@14@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2007) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Rajendra Navgaon Sub-Area

of SECL and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 01/07/2015.

[No. L-22012/14/2004-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/31/07

Shri Shanker Dutt Sharma,

S/o Shri Ramgopal Sharma,

PO Khairaha,

Distt. Shahdol

...Workman

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Rajendra Navgaon Sub Area of SECL,

PO Khairaha,

Distt. Shahdol

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8th day of June, 2015

1. As per letter dated 20-2-07 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

14/2004-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

‘‘Whether the demand of Shri Shanker Dutt Sharma

S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sharma for withdrawal of

resignation tendered by him and reinstatement back

in service is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is

the workman entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/1

to 4/9. Case of Ist party workman is workman feeling

aggrieved by order dated 24-4-96 accepting his resignation

by IInd party raised the dispute. Workman submits that at

the time of submitting resignation, he was not in fit state of

mind. He was appointed as switchboard attendant in

Rajendra Project, SECL, Token No. 781. Workman suffered

from mental imbalance from 1992 having medical card No.

38/12. Token No. 919 starting from 22-5-93. That till 1995,

workman was posted at Navgaon. He was required to work

as switch board attendant which involved some risk to the

2954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

person mentally disturbed. Workman was transferred to

Rajendra Project from 7-11-95. He was allowed light duty

with lesser risk in view of medical health.

3. Workman submits that he become mentally imbalance,

as such incompetent to understand his actions. Workman

was visiting SECL hospital every day in ambulance for his

treatment in the year 1996, he hardly did any duty. Under

imbalance mental condition, he submitted resignation letter

dated 1-4-96. His friend Shatrudaman Sharma and Shri Kapil

Goutam informed his wife Beena Devi Sharma about his

resignation. Immediately his wife requested in writing to

IInd party No. 2 that workman was not in fit mental state.

His resignation may not be considered. Wife of workman

also submitted application to Opponent No. 2, its receipt

was given to her but unfortunately the receipt was not

found. The wife of workman submitted application in writing

on 20-4-96. However IInd party had given its receipt dated

28-4-96. Wife of workman had requested that resignation

of workman cannot be accepted as workman was not in fit

state of mind. However workman had also submitted

application for cancellation of his resignation. However

ignoring all those applications, IInd party accepted

resignation of workman on 24-4-96 passing the order.

Workman was informed on 16-9-97 that the applications

submitted by her not accepted. The workman raised the

dispute. It is further submitted that workman was receiving

treatment from Doctor Pradeep Kumar Joel in 1996. The

legal notice was issued to IInd party and thereafter dispute

was raised. The workman submits that resignation

submitted by him be treated as withdrawn and workman be

reinstated with backwages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the workman. It is submitted that Government had refused

to make reference. Writ Petition No. 2095/2005 was filed

before Hon'ble High Court as per order dated 2006. The

appropriate Government referred the dispute. Ist party

workman Shankar Dutt Sharma was initially appointed as

General Mazdoor 26-10-82. His date of birth is 1-6-62.

Workman was promoted as switch board attendant and

posted at Rajendra Mine. It is submitted that Sohagpur

Area of SECL has several colliery within radius of 7 kms.

Employee are transferred from one to other area as per

requirement of manpower. Both Navgaon Mine and

Rajendra Mines are under control of same General Manager

of Sohagpur Area. Employees of SECL are provided facilities

of free medical treatment in hospitals. In serious cases,

treatment in specialized hospital is provided at cost of the

management. In case of illness, medical certificate is issued

by Medical Officer. Workman had not issued any treatment

for illness of mental imbalance. The workman voluntarily

submitted resignation. It was accepted by management.

Workman was relieved from his service. Workman never

revoked his resignation. Once resignation is accepted, it

becomes final. Workman raised dispute after 8 years for his

voluntary resignation was accepted by the Government.

IInd party denies that workman was not in fit state of mine

when he submitted resignation. It is reiterated that workman

voluntarily submitted resignation which was accepted by

management and the workman was relieved. The transfer

of workman from Navgaon to Rajendra Mine is not

disputed. IInd party submits that workman or his wife have

not submitted any applications. The documents produced

by workman are fabricated. The withdrawal of resignation

submitted by workman is denied. On such ground, IInd

party submits that there is no illegality in accepting

resignation submitted by workman.

5. Workman submitted rejoinder dated 7-10-2010

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

6. Considering pleading 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

In Affirmative

Shri Shanker dutt Sharma

S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sharma for

withdrawal of resignation

tendered

him

and

reinstatement back in service

is legal and justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. The terms of dispute pertains to claim of workman for

withdrawal of resignation submitted by him and

reinstatement in service. The contentions of workman are

at the time of submitting resignation, he was not in fit state

of mind. He as well as his wife has submitted applications

for withdrawal of the resignation. Management is denying

all those documents of the workman.

8. Almost identical affidavit of evidence are filed by

workman Shri Shankar Dutt Sharma and witnesses

Shatrudaman Sharma & Beena Devi, wife of workman. The

substance of the affidavit of evidence filed by them is that

after workman submitted resignation, witness Shatrudaman

Sharma informed about it to his wife Beena Devi,

Beena Devi had approached management not to accept

resignation of her husband. She had submitted application

requesting not to accept resignation. That her husband

submitted application dated 30-4-96. However its

acknowledgement was shown dated 28-4-96. The order of

acceptance of resignation dated 24-4-96 was shown

antedated. That workman had suffered from mental

imbalance and he was receiving treatment from SECL

hospital and thereafter receiving treatment from Doctor

Joel. Shri Shatrudaman Sharma in his cross examination

says that workman is not his relative but his friend. He

denies that his affidavit is drafted on say of the workman in

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2955

1992, he was working in Rajendra Mine. He was unable to

tell in which mine the workman was working in 1992. The

witness was residing in company quarters. Workman was

allotted quarter by management during 1992 to 1996,

workman was not residing in quarter. Witness and workman

were residing in different places. Occasionally he was going

to the house of workman. He was unable to tell how many

time he visited house of workman during 1992 to 1996.

That workman submitted resignation, he was working in

Rajendra Mine as attendant. Workman told him about

submitting resignation after 2-3 days. On that witness did

not take any action. Above said witness says he received

medical card. Free medical treatment was provided to him

and his family members. After card is exhausted, new card

was issued. The used medical card was either relaxed by

Medical Officer or returned to workman. The evidence of

Beena Devi, wife of workman is that she rushed to Manager

of Rajendra Mines. That her husband had submitted

resignation on 1-4-96. She was told about it by friends of

workman. As per evidence of Shatrudaman, workman told

about his resignation after 2-3 days. Thus evidence of wife

of workman and witness Shatrudaman Sharma is not

consistent. Beena Devi, wife of workman proved document

Exhibit W-9. Application submitted to the management.

Exhibit W-9 does not bear date or inward number. It is a

true copy. From evidence of workman, application Exhibit

W-10 is proved. By said application, workman prayed for

cancellation of his resignation. Exhibit W-10 also does not

bear the date, no inward number is mentioned. Mrs. Beena

Sharma in her cross-examination says the employees and

their family members are provided treatment in colliery

hospital. Her husband was also taken to the colliery

hospital for his medical imbalance. She admit that in case

proper treatment is not available in colliery hospital, the

patient was referred for treatment to specialized hospital.

She denies that when her husband submitted resignation,

he was mentally fit. Workman Shankar Dutt Sharma in his

cross-examination says he had submitted application for

withdrawal of his resignation on 20th to Area Manager.

However he mentioned date of its acknowledgment 28th.

His resignation was accepted on 24th. From his evidence,

resignation Exhibit W-10 is proved. The documents of

medical treatment are also admitted in evidence- Exhibit

W-11 to 15. Workman was unable to tell when he last

attended his duty. During 1992 to 1996, he was receiving

treatment in colliery hospital. The medical card is issued.

Medical card is required for receiving treatment. That he

submitted resignation in his own handwriting on 1-4-96 to

Brajendra Pandey Mine Supdt. At that time, there was

commotion. Manager had called two witnesses. Their

signatures were obtained on the resignation.

9. The evidence of management's witness Shri Rajendra

Kumar Pandey that workman submitted resignation of two

witnesses were called. They had signed on their

resignation. His evidence is supported by witness

Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma that workman had submitted

resignation and insisted for its acceptance. Workman at

fag end of his cross-examination says that after his

resignation, he received amount of gratuity after one month.

The amount was deposited in Joint account. Amount of

CMPF was paid. He submitted application for CMPF

amount. If evidence of workman and his witnesses is

considered, in the light of evidence in cross-examination

of workman, it is clear that the evidence of workman and

his witnesses submitting application for withdrawal of

resignation cannot be accepted. As per workman, he

submitted application for withdrawal of resignation on 20th

to the management deliberately in receipt it was dated 28th

whereas the workman has received amount of gratuity after

one month of his resignation for CMPF amount, he

submitted application. It is consistent with evidence of

workman and his witnesses and therefore the evidence of

workman and his witnesses about withdrawal of resignation

cannot be accepted.

10. The application Exhibit W-10 submitted by workman

does not find reference about payment of gratuity amount,

CMPF amount for returning back the amount received by

workman. As a consequence of acceptance of resignation,

workman was paid amount of gratuity and CMPF. If

evidence of workman has accepted that he was not

medically fit and wanted to withdraw his resignation, it

was expected of him to return back the amount of gratuity

and CMPF but no such pleadings is found on record. On

evidence of management's witness Rajendra Pandey that

workman submitted his resignation in his own writing and

he was insisting for its acceptance therefore two witnesses

called Gulam Mohd. and Dinesh Sharma. The witnesses

signed on the resignation submitted by workman.

Management has taken care that resignation submitted by

workman was genuine and got confirmed in presence of

two witnesses. Management's witness Shri Dinesh in his

cross-examination says workman submitted resignation in

the year 1996, he did not recollect the date. Workman had

written resignation. Management's witness claimed

ignorance whether workman was receiving treatment at

that time. The elder brother of workman was working in the

same mine. The information of resignation submitted by

workman was given to him. Wife of workman had not

submitted application for cancellation of resignation as

the workman was not in fit state of mine neither such

application was submitted by workman. Management's

witness rather claimed ignorance about such applications.

After workman signed on the resignation, management

witness Dinesh signed on Exhibit W-10. He was not

knowing about mental state of the workman.

11. The documents submitted by workman Exhibit W-1

is letter dated 24-4-96 accepting resignation of workman

and collecting the dues of gratuity etc. Exhibit W-2 is copy

of order of reference. Exhibit W-3 is copy of order of transfer

of workman from Navgaon to Rajendra Mines. W-4 is copy

2956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of resignation submitted by workman, its details are

discussed supra. Exhibit W-5 is letter given by management

that withdrawal of resignation by workman cannot be

accepted. Exhibit W-6 is copy of failure report of conciliation

report. Exhibit W-7 is copy of legal notice dated 22-9-04.

Exhibit W-8 is copy of order of reference. Exhibit W-9 is

copy of Writ Petition No. 2095/05. All those documents do

not pertain to mental state of the workman. Exhibit W-11 is

copy of OPD Card of SECL Hospital dated 22-5-93. Names

of family members including Beena Devi are appearing in

the card. Most of the entries of medical card are not legible.

Exhibit W-2 is document of treatment of workman by

Pradeep Kumar Joel dated 9-10-98. Exhibit W-13 relates to

treatment of workman by Dr. Pradeep Joel subsequent to

the alleged resignation. Exhibit W-14 is dated 15-2-2001,

W-15 is dated 4-10-94. Workman in his cross-examination

has admitted receipt amount of gratuity after one month of

resignation and for CMPF amount he submitted application,

it gives blow to the evidence of the workman and his

witnesses that resignation was submitted by workman in

unsound state of mind.

12. Learned counsel for workmman Shri Ajay Gupta relies

on ratio held in Case of Punjab National Bank versus P.K.

Mittal reported in 1989 (Supp(2) SCC 175. Their Lordship

dealing with the resignation, notice period for resignation

held waiver of by employer and acceptance of resignation

before expiry held not permissible where rules silent on

acceptance or rejection of the resignation by the employer.

Their Lordship further held the employee could withdraw

his resignation before it became effective. Regulation 20(2)

proviso its scope does not empower the bank to reduce

unilaterally the period of notice.

In case of Srikantha S.M. versus Bharath Earth Movers

Ltd. reported in 2005(8) SCC 314, their Lordship dealing

with withdrawal of after acceptance but before being

relieved. Their Lordship held employee resigning and

seeking to be relieved as per rules. Employer company

accepting the resignation on the same day and directing

him to be relieved with immediate effect. However on same

day Company granting him casual leave for subsequent

period and informing him that he would be relieved at the

close of the day immediately next to the date of expiry of

the same casual leave period. Before that day the employee

having sent a letter to the company withdrawing his

resignation. In such circumstances, the employee held

remained in service upto the postulated day. Hence he

could rightly withdraw his resignation before that day and

the company was bound to give effect to the withdrawal of

resignation before that day.

The facts of present case are not comparable as

workman was not granted and kind of leave. Resignation

of workman was accepted on 24-4-96 as per Exhibit W-2

and he was directed to collect his dues after submitting No

Dues Certificate. Exhibit W-10 is clear that the workman

was relieved from service.

13. IInd party has produced copy of standing orders.

The Clause 32.1 provides—

"workmen (other than those who have executed a

bond to serve the company for a specified period)

who wish to leave the company's service must give

the company one month's notice in the case of

monthly rated workmen and two weeks notice in the

case of others. The management may at its discretion

accept the resignation with immediate effect or

from any date before the expiry of the notice period."

The pleadings and evidence are not clear whether the

workman was monthly rated employee but there is no

pleading by either part that workman was a daily wage

employee therefore one months notice is expected to have

been given. The resignation submitted by workman Exhibit

W-10 does not contain any kind of notice for resignation

given by workman. Even if clause 32.1 of standing order is

considered, one month's notice is necessary. The

resignation of workman could not have been accepted by

management before completion of one months notice

period. The resignation was submitted by workman on

1-4-96, the same was accepted by management on 24-4-96

before completion of one month is illegal.

14. Further reliance is placed by counsel for Ist party in

Case of Shambhu Murari Sinha versus Project and

Development India and another reported in 2000(5) SCC-

621. Ratio relates to the voluntary retirement and not

resignation by employee therefore the principles laid down

cannot be applied to case at hand.

Reliance is also placed in case of Andhra Bank versus

K. Sudha Nagaraj reported in 1999-SCC(L&S) 793. Their

Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with withdrawal of

resignation held conclusion of High Court affirmed that

employer employee relationship between appellant Bank

and respondent could come to an end only when relieving

order was to be issued and before that respondent was

entitled to withdraw her resignation. The withdrawal letter

was written by respondent before she was relieved. The

resignation therefore held did not become effective.

The facts of present case are not comparable, principles

laid down cannot be beneficially applied to case at hand as

withdrawal of resignation by workman prior to 24-4-96 is

not established.

15. The evidence of workman that he was not in fit state

of mind when he submitted resignation application cannot

be accepted in view that he received amount of gratuity

and also submitted application for CMPF. Management

had taken care to confirm resignation by workman in

presence of two persons. However as per Clause 32.1 of

Standing Orders, one months notice is required for

resignation. The resignation is accepted by management

on 24-4-96 before completion of notice period. Therefore

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2957

acceptance of resignation by management is illegal. For

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

Affirmative.

16. Issue No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,

resignation of workman is illegally accepted before one

month notice period, the question arise whether workman

is entitled for back wages. As per evidence, workman is

working as watchman with Private Contractor therefore

workman cannot be allowed backwages. As the resignation

is illegally accepted by Management, the workman is

entitled for reinstatement but without back wages.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

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

(1) The demand of Shri Shanker Dutt Sharma S/o

Shri Ram Gopal Sharma for withdrawal of

resignation tendered by him is legal.

(2) Acceptance of resignation of workman is

quashed. IInd party is directed to reinstate

workman in service with continuity of service but

without back wages.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1384-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 107@2008½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22011@46@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1384.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 107/08) of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between

the management of Food Corporation of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Governemtn on 01/07/

2015.

[No. L-22011/46/2008-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/107/08

The President,

Food Corporation of India (Handling) workers Union,

8654, Arakshan Road,

Paharganj,

New Delhi.

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Food Corporation of India,

16-20, Barakhamba Lane,

New Delhi.

General Manager (Region),

FCI, Regional Office,

Chetak Building, Habibganj,

Bhopal.

Area Manager,

FCI, District Office,

Sarda Bhawan, Rewa Road,

Satna (MP)

Area Manager,

FCI, District Office,

Ashvikash Kendriya,

Napier Town,

Jabalpur.

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of June, 2015

1. As per letter dated 27.10.2008 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22011/

46/2008-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"(i) Whether the action of the management of FCI in

awarding loading/unloading work to contract

workers as against the alleged existing practice of

getting the same work done by the Departmental/

DPS labourers of FCI for years together is resulting

into change in their service conditions?

(ii) If so, whether the above arrangement adopted by

the management of FCI tantamount to violation

of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(iii) To what relief are the affected workmen entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Union submitted statement of claim at Page 2/2 to

2/4. Case of Union is that FCI is corporation set up by

Central Govt. of India under Trade Union Act 1964. Union

has 30,000 members enrolled with it. FCI has godown at

Jabalpur. Direct Payment System was introduced in said

depot. In Food Storage Depot, Rampur, Jabalpur 18 gangs

of Direct Payment System labours were deployed whereas

at Food Storage Depot, Satna 16 gangs of departmental

workers are deployed under supervision of the Manager.

Direct Payment System was introduced from 12.4.91. The

2958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

copies of agreement dated 12.4.91 and 1.11.1994 are

produced. Departmental as well as DPS workers were

discharging their duties. General Manager, FCI Bhopal. FCI

Satna were executing work through DPS workers. That on

22.12.07, tender for execution of food handling operations

through contractors at godowns and railheads was flouted

on approval of FCI by CWC. It is alleged that FCI

management has not taken into account the above FCI,

HQ letter and changed the service condition by allowing

CWC at Satna and Jabalpur including Railheads to replace

contract labour system. It is alleged that the change is

illegal.

3. IInd part filed Written Statement on 15.12.2011

opposing claim of the Union. IInd party has pleaded that

FCI is constituted under the Food Corporation of India Act

1964. FCI is Central Govt. undertaking. Contract system

was introduced in 1989. Prior to 1989, contractors were

required to be appointed. The contract system was replaced

by Mae system. Various notifications was quoted dated

29.11.85, 7.9.90, 1.11.90, 31.12.90, 26.3.91, 27.3.91 for

introducing Direct Payment System. The Direct Payment

system was introduced from 1.1.1994. That Rampur and

Jabalpur Division were brought under Direct Payment

System as per agreement between Union and management

on 12.4.91. That DPS workers and departmental workers

were employed in FCI. They could not be deployed at

Railheads and State Ware Housing Corporation, Write

Corporation, Cement Corporation, Coal Companies etc,

Private Orgnaisations. It is reiterated that worker's demand

that they could be deployed for carrying handling and

transport work in some other department of Central Ware

Housing Corporation, State Ware Housing cannot be

accepted. Such demands are illegal. That illegal demands

cannot be termed as Industrial Dispute. It does not change

the service condition of workman. It is further submitted

that management cannot be forced to do illegal act contrary

to Section 9-A of ID Act.

4. It is further submitted that in May 2000, the Food

Corporation of India had required some space for shortage

of food grains due to exhaustion of the storing capacity

etc. In view of policy decision of Government of India, FCI

Headquarter issued certificate dated 14.4.2000 prohibiting

offices of FCI. IInd party reiterates that service conditions

of departmental and DPS workers are not changed in

violation of Section 9-A of ID Act. On such contentions,

IInd party submits that reference be answered in its favour.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of manage-

In Negative

ment of FCI in awarding

loading/unloading work to

contract workers as against the

alleged existing practice of getting

the same work done by the

Departmental/DPS labourers of

FCI for years together is resulting

into change in their service

conditions?

(ii)

If so, whether the above

In Negative

arrangement adopted by the

management of FCI tantamount to

violation of Section 9-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(iii)

If so, to what relief the

Workmen are

workmen are entitled?

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

6. The terms of reference pertains to non-engagement

of departmental worker labours and awarding loading,

unloading work to contract workers in violation of Section

9-A of ID Act. The claim of workman is denied by IInd

party. Though dispute is raised by Union, it failed to

participate in reference. The evidence of Union is closed

on 21.4.2014.

7. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Vijay

Kumar, S/o Shri Suryug Prasad supporting the contentions

of management in Written Statement. The evidence of

management's witness remained unchallenged. From

evidence of management's witness, documents Exhibit

M-1 to M-3 are proved. Documents produced by Union

are admitted by IInd party are marked Exhibit W-1 to W-3.

Exhibit W-1 is agreement dated 12.4.91 regarding

introduction of payment on piece rate basis to the workman.

Exhibit W-2 is settlement dated 1.11.1994. Clause (a)

provides All workers covered by NIIT Bombay's Award

dated 1.4.91 shall be departmentalized w.e.f. 1.1.1994.

Payment of one time lumpsum amount of Rs. 25,000 per

worker etc. Exhibit W-3 is letter given by Manager (IR) to

Regional Manager of FCI, Chandigarh relates to the

payment to the departmental labours, DPS workers working

in storage capacity. Union has not adduced any evidence

to substantiate its contentions how change in service

condition of departmental workers, DPS workers are in

violation of section 9-A of ID Act. In absence of such

evidence, the contentions of Union cannot be accepted.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1, 2 in Negative.

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

(1) The Union has failed to establish to establish that

the management has changed service conditions

of Departmental and DPS labours of FCI in

violation of Section 9-A of ID Act.

(2) The workers are not entitled to any relief.

(3) Parties to bear their respective costs.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2959

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1385-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ 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[;k 20@2001½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@279@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1385.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 20/2001) of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between

the management of Chinakury Mine No. 1 of BCCL, and

their workmen, received by the Central Governemtn on

01/07/2015.

[No. L-22012/279/2000-IR(C-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 2001

PARTIES :

The management of Chinakury Mine

No. 1 of M/s BCCL

Vs.

Sri Dwarika Gope

REPRESENTATIVES

For the management

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. ECL

For the union (Workman)

none

INDUSTRY

COAL

STATE

WEST BENGAL

Dated: 08.06.2015

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-22012/

279/2000-IR(C-II) dated 01.06.2001 has been pleased to refer

the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Chinakuri

Mine No. 1 Colliery under M/s ECL in dismissing the

services of Sh. Dwarika Gope, Surface Trammer w.e.f

20.04.1998 is justified? If not, what relief the workman

is entitled to?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/279/2000-IR(C-

II) dated 01.06.2001 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 20 of 2001

was registered on 25.06.2001 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.

Case called out. Both of the parties; management as

well as union/workman are absent.

On perusal of case record I find that the union's

representative, Mr. R.K. Tripathi filed written statement on

02.05.2002. But management has not filed written statement

till date. I also find that the union also neither appeared not

took any step after 01.08.2013. Notice was issued on

08.09.2014 i.e. 5 months ago but none appeared to represent

the workman though today is the 2nd date after last notice.

It seems that the union has also lost his interest to proceed

with the case further. The case is also too old—of the year

2001. So I think it just and proper not to keep this old

record pending any more. As such 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 Laobur, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1386-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZvkslh ds izcaèra=

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

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

ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 79@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@64@1997&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

2960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/2001) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s. IOC and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 26/06/2015.

[No. L-30012/64/1997-IR (C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/79/2001

Dated: 12.02.2015

Party No. 1

The Senior Employees Relation

Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Western Region, 254-C, Dr. Annie Besant

Road, Prabhadevi, MUMBAI-400025.

Versus

Party No. 2

Shri B.M. Gharat,

C/o M.R. Dhone,

Kamla Park, Lohara,

Dist. Yeotmal-445001.

ORDER

(Dated 12th February, 2015)

The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

2(A) of Section 10 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947) ("the Act" in short), referred the industrial dispute

between the employers, in relation to the management of

IOC Ltd. and their workman for adjudication to the Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Mumbai as per letter No.

L-30012/64/97-IR(C-I) dated 30.6.1998 with the following

schedule:—

(1) Whether the action of M/s. IOC Ltd, Western

Region, Prabhadevi Mumbai in dismissing the

services of Shri B.M. Gharat, Section Officer,

Grade-I without giving opportunities to defend

this case is justified? If not, what relief should be

granted?"

(2) Whether Shri B.M. Gharat is a workman or an

officer, what relief should be granted for alleged

dismissal from service w.e.f. 16.12.1994?"

Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this

Tribunal for adjudication and disposal according to law, as

per letter No. L-30012/64/97-IR(C-I) dated 13.11.2001.

2. It is necessary to mention here that before the transfer

of the reference to this Tribunal for adjudication, the parties

had already filed their respective statement of claim and

written statement alongwith documents before the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal ("the C.G.I.T." in short),

Mumbai-1.

The case of the petitioner, Shri B.M. Gharat, ("the

petitioner" in short) as presented in the statement of claim

is that M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited ("the party No.

1" in short) is an oil corporation and a Government of India

under taking and he is an employee of party No. 1 and a

"workman' as per the definition of "workman" under the

Act and he joined the service of party No. 1 on 13.05.1981

as per the appointment letter dated 16.04.1981, as a

Teleprinter/Telex Operator and due to his honesty, integrity,

sincerity and heard work, he got number of promotions

and in 1988, he got promotion as Section Officer Grade II

and in 1992, he got promotion as Section Officer Grade 1

and inspite of such promotions, in reality he was carrying

out the work of purely clerical in nature, such as booking

of hotel accommodation and preparing the pay orders for

making payments to the hotels, preparing pay orders for

stationary bills towards the miscellaneous stationary items

required for the official use of senior executives in the head

office, arrangements of lunch/dinner for official meeting

and conference, work of maintenance, like control of

imprest, cleaning and wiping of the office premises and

almost all such type of work, to take care of the attendance

of peon and sweepers and arrangement of deploying them

to the respective and required department and floors and

corners of the office premises and to arrange stationary for

various department from CIP, Trombay and he was

supposed to be always ready for the services to be rendered

to the office executives as and when required and he was

bound to the said works, as the culture of the department

was the same and the works carried out by him were not at

all of supervisory/Managerial/Administrative in nature, but

the same were purely clerical/operational in nature.

The further case of the petitioner is that his service

record was throughout blemish-less and he was working

to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and inspite of the

same, he was issued with the charge sheet dated 21.10.1993,

which was received by him on 04.11.1993, where in it was

alleged that 400 copies of Administrative Manual in Hindi

along with 400 sets of binder covers and separators were

received by him on 17.01.1993, vide MRN No. 018663, when

he was working as S.O. I in the Head Office and even

though, he was contacted by Shri Ruprel, the Chief Estate

Manager, he could not give any details or any satisfactory

reply regarding the receipt of the 400 copies of the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2961

Administrative Manual and it was subsequently under

stood from M/s. Paramount Printing Press that 400 copies

of the Administrative Manual along with binders, covers

and separators were not delivered by the said printing press

and the said Printing Press confirmed that basing on the

acknowledgement on the MRN alleged to be given by him,

a bill was raised and an amount of Rs. 89.300/- was collected

from the corporation and while the above amount since

has been refunded by the printing press to the corporation

and in collusion with the representative of M/s. Paramount

Printing press, he had willfully acknowledged receipt of

400 copies of Administrative Manual in Hindi along with

binders covers and separators on 17.01.1993 vide MRN

No. 018663 dated 17.01.1993 and thus he committed the

mis-conduct of

(i) Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the

business or property of the corporation or the

property of other persons within the premises of

the corporation and;

(ii) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of

the corporation.

The further case of the petitioner is that he submitted

his reply to the charge sheet vide his letter dated 19.11.1993,

denying the charges levelled against him were mischievous

and stale and he raised objection for submission of the

charge sheet on 04.11.1993 for the alleged allegations

pertaining to January, 1993 and that too after his transfer

from Mumbai to Amravati in May, 1993 and he was assured

that since no monetary loss was caused to the corporation,

issuance of the charge sheet was a formality and the enquiry

would be by way of formality and he was asked to give a

formal reply, on the basis of whatever memory at his

command and accordingly, on the basis of his memory, he

submitted his reply.

The further case of the workman is that his signature on

the MRN was taken in a misleading way and when he had

suspected about the same, he had asked the said printer

not to act upon the same and accordingly, the printer had

not acted upon the same till he was working in the Head

Office, Mumbai and it appeared that taking advantage of

his transfer from Mumbai to Amravati, the Printer on the

basis of the said MRN raised the payment against the

corporation in June, 1993 and returned the same in July,

1993 and in all such transactions, he was not benefited at

all and he had not received a paisa from the said printer and

even there was no allegation from the printer that they had

paid any money to him for obtaining his signature on the

MRN and the procedure for submitting of the bills and the

sanction for payments was such a tedious one that it was

impossible for any party to get payment from the corporation

on the basis of the alleged MRN signed by a totally

unauthorized person like him, but still huge payment of

Rs. 89,300/- was claimed by the said printer against the

corporation and the preparing, checking and sanctioning

authority without any application of mind or might be even

with malafide intention and ulterior motive sanctioned and

paid the bill raised by the printer and shockingly, such

sanctioning authorities were not at all been held responsible

for wrongful payment to the said printer and he was only

victimized and was made a scapegoat.

It is also pleaded by the petitioner that the charges

levelled against him were false and vague and the charge

sheet itself was illegal and untenable in law and in breach

of the principles of natural justice and the delay in making

the charges is a sufficient ground for setting aside the said

charge sheet and the enquiry held against him was not at

all fair, proper and legal and he was not given a fair

opportunity to defend himself and material witnesses like

the printer and sanctioning authority were kept back and

material documents were not produced before the enquiry

committee and procedure of the enquiry was not explained

to him and the whole enquiry was a farce and the enquiry

officer was a bias minded person and the charges were not

at all proved in the enquiry and in fact, the alleged incident

against him did not constitute any misconduct and the

findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and illegal and

the order of dismissal is itself illegal and untenable in law

and in fact, his termination amounts to illegal retrenchment

in breach of section 25-F, 25-F and 25-N of the Act and the

Standing Orders and the punishment of dismissal from

service inflicted upon him is shockingly disproportionate,

even to the alleged charges levelled against him and his

blemish less past service record was not considered and

the exuniating circumstances brought to the notice of the

management by him were not considered before or after

his dismissal and he was the only earning member of his

family and he is not gainfully employed after his dismissal.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service

with continuity, full back wages and with other monetary

benefits.

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement, after denying

all the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim,

has pleaded inter-alia that the petitioner was an officer

and the claim made by him is misconceived, untenable in

law and facts and the petitioner at the time of his termination

on 16.12.1994 was functioning as section officer-I in Grade-

A in the scale of pay of Rs. 2500-4820 and having regard to

the nature of duties admittedly performed by him, he is

excluded from the purview of the definition of "Workman"

2962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under section 2 (s) of the Act and he was very cleverly and

deliberately sought to hide the element of supervision,

control and powers entrusted to him in regard to his job

functions and on his own admission, the petitioner was

doing the job of Managerial/Supervisory/Administrative

nature and the present reference is liable to be dismissed in

limini on that ground alone and the issue as to whether the

petitioner is a workman or not under the Act ought to be

decided as preliminary issue.

The Party No. 1 has admitted the appointment of the

petitioner as a Teleprinter/Telex Operator and his promotion

from time to time and his promotion as Section Officer Grade-

I on 11.05.1992 and the duties performed by him as

mentioned in the statement of claim.

It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the petitioner

was working in the Administration Department of the Head

Office of the Corporation at Bandra from 1988 to May, 1993

and in the year 1991, an order was placed by DGM (A&M)

of Head Office with Senior Materials Manager (Western

Region), for printing of 400 copies of Administration Manual

in Hindi and accordingly, an order was placed in September,

1991 on Paramount Printing press for the said 400 copies of

the Manual at a total cost of Rs. 89,300/- and on 17.01.1993,

the petitioner in the capacity of Section Officer-I

acknowledged receipt of 400 copies of Manual alongwith

400 sets of binders, covers and separators, vide material

receipt Note No. 018663 dated 17.01.1993 sent to him

through the representative of the aforesaid printer and on

12.07.1993, the Chief Estate Manager, Headquarters wrote

to the Senior Materials Manager (Western Region) that

the aforesaid copies of Manual as ordered to have not

been received, to which the senior Materials Manager vide

his letter dated 19.07.1993 informed the Chief Estate

Manager about the delivery of the said manuals by the

supplier on 17.01.1993 and enclosed a copy of the MRN

dated 17.01.1993 and the Chief Estate Manager made

enquiries with the petitioner regarding the receipt of the

said manuals, but the petitioner informed the Chief Estate

Manager evasively stating that the manuals would be some

where in the Head Office, but subsequently, it came to

know from Paramount Printing Press, the printer that they

had not delivered the manuals at all and the printers also

confirmed that based on the acknowledgement on the said

MRN, an amount of Rs. 89,300/- was collected from the

corporation and the printer refunded the said amount to

the corporation and it suspected that something was amiss

and accordingly submitted the charge sheet dated

21.10.1993 on the petitioner and the petitioner, who had

been transferred to Amravati in the meantime sought

extension of time to submit his reply, which was given to

him and the petition submitted his reply to the charge sheet

on 19.11.1993, wherein, inter-alia he admitted that as an

officer, he was assigned the job of hotel booking and policy

matters on hotels at Mumbai and all India basis, conference

hall bookings and procuring stationary for the department

for top management and in his explanation, the petitioner

admitted that the MRN was signed by him irresponsibly

and without taking care in haste and disturbed state of

mind and begged excuse for the same and as the explanation

of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, an enquiry

committee was constituted and the petitioner was intimated

accordingly and the enquiry commenced on 09.03.1994 and

the enquiry was concluded on 12.07.1994 and the

Presenting Officer submitted his submissions on 15.07.1994

and the petitioner made his submissions on 26.07.1994 and

the enquiry committee submitted its report and findings on

05.08.1994 and after a detailed analysis of the evidence

adduced in the enquiry, the enquiry committee held the

charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved and

the General Manager (MO), the Disciplinary Authority after

going through the enquiry proceedings, the findings of

the enquiry committee and having regard to the gravity of

the proven misconduct, proposed the punishment of

dismissal of the petitioner and directed issuance of show

cause notice and accordingly, on 22.08.1994, a show cause

notice was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to

give his reply within seven days from the date of receipt of

the show cause notice and the petitioner submitted his

reply on 30.09.1994 and the Disciplinary Authority, by his

communication dated 16.12.1994 informed the petitioner

that since the petitioner had not brought in any new point

in his reply warranting any change in the penalty earlier

proposed, decided to dismiss the petitioner from services

and accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed from service

w.e.f. 16.12.1994 and the petitioner was dismissed from

service w.e.f. 16.12.1994 and the petitioner on 06.02.1995

preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, i.e. the

Executive Director, where in the regretted the mistake on

his part that led to his dismissal and admitted that he

committed the mistake without understanding the

consequences and pleaded for mercy, but after

consideration of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the

Appellate Authority rejected the appeal.

Party No. 1 has also pleaded that the enquiry was

conducted against the petitioner in terms of the conduct,

Discipline and Appeal Rules as applicable to him and the

petitioner fully participated in the enquiry and he was

defended by officer colleague, Shri A.S. Brahme and he

was allowed to cross-examine the corporation's witnesses

and to produce documents and witnesses in his defence

and he was also supplied with the copies of the documents

produced in the enquiry and to verify the same with the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2963

originals and the enquiry was conducted by following the

principles of natural justice and fair play.

The further case of the party No. 1 is that there was no

delay in submission of the charge sheet against the

petitioner and the misconduct of the petitioner came to

light only on 17.09.1993 and the charge sheet was issued

on 04.11.1993, after ascertaining further facts and the

petitioner was working at Bandra head office at the relevant

time and when the misconduct was discovered, he was

already posted at Amravati and the petitioner sought details

of the incident, before he submitted his explanation and he

was never given any assurance by any of the officers of

the corporation as alleged or that the charge sheet was

issued as a formality and the punishment of dismissal is

commensurate with the misconduct committed and proved

in the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner

and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

4. The petitioner did not file any rejoinder, even though

he was given chance for the same.

5. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention that on

16.02.1999, the learned CGIT, Mumbai-1 framed the issues,

"Whether the enquiry was fair and proper against the

workman? And whether the finding of the EO is perverse?"

And fixed the case to 05.03.1999 for hearing. After some

adjourrnments, on 19.05.1999, the petitioner filed his

evidence on affidavit and thereafter, the case was fixed for

the cross-examination of the petitioner. After several

adjournments, on 19.07.1999, the petitioner was directed

by the learned Tribunal for filing of a fresh affidavit on the

issues, "Whether the enquiry was fair and proper? And

Shri B.M. Gharat is a workman?" And the case was posted

to 06.08.1999 for the cross-examination of the petitioner.

On 06.08.1999, the learned advocate for the petitioner filed

an application to direct the party No. 1 to lead evidence at

first, in regard to the issue as to whether Shri Gharat is a

workman or an officer and after hearing the parties, on

28.10.1999, order was passed by the learned Tribunal

directing the party No. 1 to prove that the petitioner is not

a workman. Thereafter, the case suffered adjournments for

adducing evidence from the side of the management and

lastly, at the same stage, the case was transferred to this

Tribunal.

After receipt of the case on transfer, this Tribunal on

1.2.2002, passed orders to decide all the issues at a time

and directed the Party No. 1 to produce evidence regarding

the validity of the enquiry and the punishment alongwith

the issue as to whether the petitioner is a workman or not.

On 20.5.2002, evidence of witness on affidavit was filed

from the side of management. On 18.6.2002, affidavit was

filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the mean time, from

23.6.2003 to 30.3.2004, the post of the Presiding Officer

remained vacant. After some adjournments of the case for

the cross-examination of the witness from the side of the

petitioner, the case was posted for hearing on the validity

of the enquiry. While the case was pending for the said

purpose, the Party No. 1 filed an application to frame the

preliminary issue as to whether the petitioner is a workman

as defined in section 2(s) of the Act. However, the case

then suffered adjournments for the cross-examination of

the management witness. On 17.4.2009, again order was

passed regarding hearing on the validity of the enquiry.

On 16.9.2010, as it was found that the further proceeding

of the case is dependent on the findings of the preliminary

issue as to whether the petitioner, Shri B.M. Gharat is a

workman or an officer, it was decided to take up the said

preliminary issue for adjudication and accordingly, the

matter was heard on 7.12.2010 and by order dated

14.01.2011, it was held that the petitioner, Shri B.M. Gharat

was not a workman, but he was an officer and therefore,

the reference is not maintainable.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.01.2011, the

petitioner, Shri Gharat approached the Hon'ble High Court,

Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 3033/2011 for

redress and the Hon'ble High Court, by order dated

11.01.2012 was pleased to quash and set aside the order

dated 14.01.2011 and remanded the matter back for decision

in accordance with law, after permitting the parties to lead

evidence, oral as well as documentary and to cross-examine

the witnesses if necessary.

6. After remand of the reference, the parties were directed

to lead evidence on the preliminary issues, as to whether

the petitioner is a workman or an officer and as to what

relief or reliefs he is entitled to and to prove their case,

party No. 1 examined the witness, Praveen Kumar

Srivastava, apart from placing reliance on documentary

evidence.

In support of his claim, the petitioner has examined

himself as a witness.

7. It is pertinent to mention that no oral argument was

advanced by both the parties. Both the parties filed their

respective written notes of argument after service of the

copy on each other. It was submitted by the parties to treat

their respective written notes of argument as their oral

argument.

In the written notes of argument, it was submitted by

the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner

joined the service of party No. 1 w.e.f. 13.05.1981 as a

2964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Teleprinter/Telex operator and due to his honesty, integrity

and sincerity, he got several promotions and at the time of

his termination, he was working as Section officer Grade I

and he was under the control of four Officers, namely,

Shri N.A. Hutha, the Assistant Manager, Shri S.S. Bapat,

the Deputy Manager, Shri P. Bhaskaran, the administration

Manager and Shri S.K. Ruperal, the Chief Estate Manager

and it is well settled by the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement reported in (2006) 6

SCC-548 (Anand Regional Cooperative Vs. Sailesh Kumar)

and the Hon'ble Bombay high Court in the decision

reported in 1986 II CLR-479 (Spices and Oil Seeds Vs. S.A.

Kulkarani) that the designation of an employee is immaterial

for deciding whether a particular employee is a "workman"

as defined under section 2(s) of the Act or not and the

nature of the works, which were carried out by the particular

employee at the time of his termination is to be looked into

and even though, at the time of his termination, the

petitioner was designated as Supervisor Grade I, he was

actually doing operational and clerical works and such facts

have been mentioned by the petitioner in his evidence in

affidavit and the evidence of the petitioner is almost

unchallenged and the superior officers of the petitioner,

Shri N.A. Hutha, Shri S.S. Bapat, Shri P. Bhaskaran and

Shri S.K. Ruprel were the only material and relevant

witnesses to say about the duties performed by the

petitioner and party No. 1 did not examine them to depose

about the nature of the works performed by the petitioner

and such material witnesses were withheld, the version of

the petitioner remained unchallenged and for withholding

material witnesses, adverse inference has to be drawn

against the party No. 1 and the only witness examined by

the party No. 1 has admitted that he was not in employment

when the petitioner was in service and he has no personal

knowledge about the work performed by the petitioner and

as such, his evidence is liable to be discarded in limine and

it is to be held that party No. 1 has failed to prove that the

petitioner was not a workman and it is clear from the

unchallenged evidence of the petitioner that nobody was

working under him and the wrong answer given by the

petitioner in his cross-examination should not be given

any weightage, in absence of any material on record to

support the claim of party No. 1 that the petitoner was an

officer and not a workman and it is clear from the material

on record that the petitioner was a workman.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate for

the petitioner palced reliance on the decisions reported in

2005 I CLR 345 (C. Gopinath Vs. Thermax Limited), 1985 (1)

SCALE-59 (Enuga Lakshmamma Vs. Vannapuse Chinna),

2000 I CLR-73 (Hardwarilal Vs. State of UP), 1990 I CLR-465

(Zubeda Bano Vs. The Divisional Controller, MSRTC), 1987

I CLR-62 (Guest Keen Williaums Ltd. Vs. Assistant Labour

Commissioner), 2005 I CLR-628 Sudhir Vs. Kanayalal

Madanlal Factory), 1989 II CLR-248 (The Bombay Dyeing

& Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. R.A. Bidoo), Air 1976

SC-376 (Shrikrishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, 2008 I

CLR-98 (K.L. Kumar Vs. V.P. Patil, and (1979) 3 SCC-371

Shankar Chakravati Vs. Britania Biscuits).

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No. 1 in the written notes of argument that the

petitioner, who joined in the service of the party No. 1 as

Tele-printer/Telex Operator 13.05.1981 was promoted as

Section Officer Grade II in 1988 and as Section Officer Grade

I in 1992 and on such promotions, he became an officer in

the management cadre and he came to be governed by the

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA Rules), 1970

and the departmental enquiry was initiated against the

petitioner under the provisions of the CDA Rules and the

petitioner himself has admitted that he was working in

supervisory capacity and the departmental enquiry, the

petitoner was represented by Shri S.A. Brahme, the Senior

Manage (O) W.r. and the enquiry was conducted under the

provisions of the CDA Rules and petitioner participated in

the enquiry knowing fully well that his services were

governed by the CDA Rules, 1970 and on the basis of the

basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before

this Tribunal, it is established that the petitioner was working

in supervisory and managerial capacity and he did not

come within the definition of section 2(s) of the Act.

It was further submitted by the leaned advocate for the

party No. 1 that the petitioner in his cross-examination has

admitted that he signed the document Ext. M-III as an

officer in the supervisory and managerial capacity and in

his statement of claim, the petitioner has mentioned the

duties which he was performing and from his own showing,

it can be found that performing of such works involved

exercise of managerial decisions and the same cannot be

said to be routine duties given to any sub-ordinate employee

or clerk and the petitioner was performing the duties

independently without the concurrence of any other officer

and the said duties were covered within the administrative

and managerial duties and it is clear that the petitioner was

an officer and not a workman.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate for

the party No. 1 has placed reliance on the decisions

reported in 2008 (1) Bom C R-891 (Karnatak Bank Ltd. Vs.

Sunita B. Vatsaraj), (1994) SCC-510 (S.K. Maini Vs. M/s

Carona Sahu Co. Ltd.), 2008-I-LLJ94 (Dhruba Kumar Vs.

Travel Corporation of India Ltd., 1999 I CLR-458 (German

Remidies Ltd. Vs. Michel Gabriel Lopes), 1999 I CLR-193

(Union Carbide (India) Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumbla), (2005) 3

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2965

SCC-232 (Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ajit

Singh), (2007) 7 Scc-171 (C. Gupta Vs. Glaxo Smithkline

Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), (2001) 7 SCC-394 (Hussan Mithu

Vs. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board), (2006) 6 SCC-548

(Anand Regional Coop. Vs. Sailshkumar), Air 2010 Sc-2939

(Triveni Engineering Vs. Jaswant Singh), AIR 2000 SC-3182

(Rhone Poulenc (India) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.), 2008 (2) mh L

J-416 (Mukund Staff and Officers Association Vs. Mukund

Ltd.) and (2007) I SCC-491 (Muir Mills Unit Vs. Swayam

Prakash).

9. It is the admitted case of the Parties that the petitioner

joined the party No. 1 on 13.5.1981, as a Tele-printer/Telex

Operator and he got his promotions and in the year 1988,

he was promoted as a Section Officer Grade-II and in 1992,

he was promoted as Section Officer Grade-I. According to

Shri B.M. Gharat, though he was promoted as Section

Officer Grade-II and Grade-I, he was carrying out the work

of purely clerical in nature and his work consisted of

booking of hotel accommodation and preparing pay orders

for making payment to the hotels, preparing pay orders for

stationery bills towards miscellaneous stationery items

required for the official use of senior Executives in Head

Office, arrangements for lunch/dinner for official meetings

and conference, work of maintenance like keep and control

impress, cleaning and wiping of the office premises and

almost all such types of work, to take care of the attendance

of the Peon, Sweeper and the arrangement of deploying

them to the respective and required department and floors

and corners of the office premises, to arrange stationery

for various departments from C.I.P. Trombey and to render

service to the office Executives as and when required and

the works carried out by him were not at all the work of any

supervisory/managerial or administrative nature but was

purely clearical/operational nature.

10. The management has also not disputed the duties

were being performed by the petitioner.

11. Before delving into the merit of the case, I think it

necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts in some of

the decisions cited by the learned advocates for the parties,

regarding the test to determine as to whether an employee

is a workman or not.

In the decision reported in (1994) 3 SCC-510 (supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Labour Court-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 2(s)-

"Workman"- Employee doing more than one duties

and functions, whether or not, a workman-Test to

determine-Nature of duties, not designation,

important-Main duties of and not some works

incidentally done by such an employee, held,

decisive."

In the decision reported in (2005) 3 SCC-232 (supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Labour Court-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 2(s)-

'workman"-Definition of, under-requirements of -

Expression "any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,

operational, clerical or supervising work" - Import of

- Clerical work- Ingredients of and determination of

whether an employee performs the same - Held, to

fall within said definition, job of employee concerned

must fall within one or the other categories

enumerated in said expressions-Merely showing that

employees does not ipso facto make him a workman-

Instances given-Moreover, said issue has to be

determined on basis of conclusive evidence.

****

Held, job of a clerk ordinarily implies stereotype work

without power of control or dignity or initiative or

creativeness-Whether the same is being performed by an

employee needs to be determined upon a finding as regards

the dominant nature of job performed."

In the decision reported in (2001) 7 SCC-394 (supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Labour Court-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 2(s)-

"workman'- Definition whetehr covered a particular

employee-Test to determine-Held, designation only

is not decisive, one has to examine the nature of the

employee's duties, powers and functions-

Predominant nature of the service is the proper test."

In the decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC-548 (supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Labour Court-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 2(s)(iv)-

Whether the employee worked in supervising capacity and

was not a workman-test to determine-supervision-Concept

of-Held, not only the nature of his work, but also, the terms

of his appointment in the job are relevant considerations -

Supervision contemplates direction and control - Hence,

in determining the nature of work, essence of the matter

should be considered and the designation of the employee

or the name assigned to his class should not be given

undue importance-Primary duties performed by him are more

important. Existence of subordinates whose work is required

to be supervised is a sine qua non to prove supervisory

work."

In the decision reported in AIR 2010 SC-2939 (supra),

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

2966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Issue arising whether delinquent is workman-Same

had nothing to do with application and interpretation

of Standing Orders - Nature of job, duties and

responsibilities and other such relevant materials are

required to be examined."

In the decision reported in 2008(1) Bom C R-891 (supra),

the Hon'ble Bombay High Court have held that:—

“The mere designation is not determinative factor as to

nature of duties performed by employee. He must have a

controlling power over one or more employees working

under him.”

In the decision reported in (2005) I CLR-345 (supra), the

Hon'ble Bombay High Court have held that:—

"A person who perfoms operational working any

industry would be included in the definition of "workman".

The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the decision reported

in 1987 I CLR-62 (supra) have held that:—

"Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S.2(s)-Workman-

Members of Junior management staff of applicant-Petitioner

Company will not cease to be workmen simply because the

applicant petitioner company has included them in the

category of officers."

Keeping the above mentioned settled principles in mind,

now the present case in hand is to be considered as to

whether the petitioner was a workman or an officer.

12. So far the oral evidence is concerned, the only

witness examined by the party No. 1 has reiterated the

facts mentioned in the written statement, in his examination-

in-chief on affidavit. This witness has also proved the

documents, the promotion order of the petitioner to Section

Officer grade I, joining report of the petitioner dated

12.05.1992 as section Officer Grade I, Charge sheet dated

02.10.1993 submitted against the petitioner, reply of the

petitioner to the charge sheet dated 26.11.1993, reply of the

petitioner to the second show cause notice, material receipt

note dated 17.01.1993, signed by the petitioner in favour of

"Paramount Printing Press" and mercy petition dated

06.02.1995 submitted by the petitioner against the order of

dismissal as Exts. M-II to M-VIII respectively.

In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that

as per records, Shri A.N. Hutha, shri S.S. Bapat, Shri P.

Bhaskaran and Shri S.K. Ruprel were superior officers of

the petitioner and the petitioner was performing the duties

about which he has mentioned in his statement of claim.

13. As already mentioned earlier, the petitioner in his

examination-in-chief on affidavit has reiterated the facts

mentioned by him in his statement of claim.

In his cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted

that the contains of his statement of claim including

paragraph two are true and correct and after his promotion

as Section Officer Grade I, he was made a member of the

Indian Oil Officer's Association and one Shri Brahme, a

member of the Indian Oil officers" Association was his

defence representative in the enquiry and in paragraph

one of his affidavit, he has mentioned about the works

entrusted to him as Section Officer Grade I and those works

were not entrusted to any clerk or class IV employee. The

petitioner has also admitted that he was performing the

works entrusted to him by the Senior Officers through the

employees working under him.

At this juncture, I think it proper to mention here that

the learned advocate for the workman in the written notes

of argument submitted that the admission of the petitioner

that, "he was performing the works entrusted to him by the

sender officers through the employees working under him"

cannot he considered, as the said suggestion was given

without any such pleadings and cited the decision reported

in 1979(II) LLJ-194 (SC) (Supra) and 2008 I CLR-96 (Bombay)

(Supra). However, with respect I am of the view that the

said two decisions have no application to the case in hand

as the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are

quite different from the facts and circumstances of the cases

referred in the said decisions. The admission made by the

petitioner in this case is not in ignorance of legal rights or

under duress or leading of evidence without any pleadings.

Hence, there is no force in the contention raised by the

learned advocate for the petitioner.

14. Perused the record including the evidence, both oral

and documentary adduced by the parties. Considered the

submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties.

From the materials on record, it is found that the

petitioner was promoted to the post of Section Officer

Grade-I in the grade of Rs. 2500-4820(Gr. A) by order dated

11.05.1992 and the petitioner accepting the terms and

conditions mentioned in the said promotion order joined in

the said post on 12.05.1992. It will not be out of place of

mention here that in the written notes of argument, it was

pointed out that in the promotion order dated 11.05.1993,

the party No. 1 has mentioned that, "You are required to

attend a training program to be conducted by HQ Trating

Centre for Grade-IV workmen appointed as grade-A" and

the said order shows that the petitioner was treated as

"Workman" at the time of his appointment as Section

Officer Grade-A.

However, on perusal of the promotion order dated

11.05.1993, it is found that the petitioner was directed to

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2967

attend the training program as Section Officer grade-I to be

held at the venue i.e. at Training Centre for grade-IV

workmen and he was not treated as a workman by the party

No. 1.

In his statement of claim in paragraph two and in his

affidavit, in paragraph one, the petitioner has categorically

mentioned about the duties which were being performed

by him. It is to be mentioned here that in the statement of

claim, no where the petitioner has mentioned that he was

doing the duties entrusted to him, in consultation with and

as per directions of Shri N.A. Hutha, Shri S.S. Bapat, Shri R.

Bhasuram and Shri S.K. Ruperal or that he was loaded with

additional work of looking after maintenance of the office

premises in respect of cleaning, Sweeping and such type

of work and he was working under Shri S.S. Bapat, who

was Deputy Manager, Maintenance and control imprest

and Shri Bapat used to assign him work in connection with

control of imprest, about which he was mentioned in his

evidence on affidavit. In absence of any pleading in the

statement of claim, the evidence of the petitioner on

affidavit in those regards cannot be considered.

The petitioner in his statement of claim has in clear and

unambiguous terms has mentioned that one of his duties

was to take care of the attendance of peon/sweepers and

arrangement of deploying them to the respective and

required department and floors and corned of the office

premises. Such averment clearly shows the peon and

sweepers were working under the petitioner and he had

control over him and he had to deploy them to do different

work and to supervise them. It is also found from the own

admission of the petitioner and the other duties mentioned

by him in his statement of claim and affidavit that the duties,

which he was performing were managerial functions.

15. It is also found from the materials on record that

admittedly, the petitioner had been drawing salary exceeding

Rs. 1600/- which bring the case of petitioner out of section

2(s) (iv) of the Act.

It is to be mentioned here that in his reply dated

30.09.1994 to the second show cuase notice, the petitioner

has mentioned that, "I approached Shri C.T. Anantha

Krishna, Vice-President, Indian Oil Officers's Association

to seek legal assistance in any capacity as primary member

who was kind enough to examine my papers and he had

come to the conclusion that collusion was not proved and

in order to prove collusion, M/s. Paramount Printing Press

shoud have been put on the question box."

The above mentioned admission of the petitioner shows

that he was an officer and not a workman.

16. Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble

Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Courts as mentioned

above to the present case at hand and taking into

consideration the pleadings of the parties, the contentions

raised by the learned advocates for the parties, the nature

of works, being done by the petitioner and the evidence,

both oral and documentary evidence documents adduced

by the parties, it is found that the main duties of the

petitioner was supervisory work alongwith some manual

and clearical works. Hence, I find that the petitioner,

Shri B.M. Gharat was not a workman but he was an Officer.

Hence, the point No. 2 of the reference is answered against

Shri B.M. Gharat, holding that he was not a workman but

an Officer.

It is to be mentioned here that as the facts and

circumstances of the case in hand as discussed above are

quite different from the facts and circumstances of the cases

referred in the decisions cited by the learned advocate for

the petitioner regarding non-examination of material

witnesses, with respect I am of the view that those decisions

have no clear application to the case in hand. Hence it is

ordered:—

ORDER

In view of the findings on point No. 2 of the reference,

i.e. Shri B.M. Gharat was not a workman and he was an

officer, the reference is not maintainable and as such, there

is no question of determination of the first point of the

reference i.e. whether the action of M/s IOC Ltd., Western

Region, Prabhadevi, Mumbai in dismissing the services of

Shri B.M. Gharat, Section Officer, Grade-I is justified or not.

The reference is disposed of accordingly.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1387-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y ds izcaèra=

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

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

uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 332@1999½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@396@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 332/1999) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. CCL and their

workman, received by the Central Government on 26/06/

2015.

[No. L-20012/396/1999-IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

2968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram

Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 332 OF 1999

PARTIES

Shri Banshi Dhari Dubey,

C/O Shri N.K. Dubey

Rameshwaram, Bariatu Road, Ranchi

Vs. The Project Officer,

Rajrappa Project of M/s. CCL, PO:

Rajrappa. Dist: Hazaribagh

Order No. L-20012/396/99-(C-I)

dt. 03.12.1999.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. C.S. Pathak

Workman's

Representative

On behalf of the Management

Mr. S. Prakash &

P.N. Mishra as

Management's

Representatives

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 17th April, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

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

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

Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/396/

99-(C-I) dt. 03.12.1999.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Rajrappa

Project of M/s. Central Coal fields Ltd., PO; Rajrappa,

Dist; Hazaribagh in dismissing Shri Banshi Dhari

Dubey, Cat. I (PIS No. 11146388) from the services of

the Company w.e.f 17.12.1998 vide Dismissal Order

No. CGM(R)/Pers. 6/98/2447 dt. 15/16/12/1998 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman entitled?

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/396/99-(C-I) dt.

03.12.1999 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 332 of 1999 was registered on 14.12.1999, and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own

Representative appeared respectively, and contested the

case.

2. The case of the workman Banshi Dhari Dubey

S/o Shri Bharat Dubey is that he was appointed by the

Competent Authority Shri J.N. Singh, G.M. (Pers. & Admn.)

of M/s. C.C.L., Ranchi as per the Order dt. 04.01.1996. The

workman and other persons as well were interviewed by

the officer and other Representatives of the G.M. concerned

and their photographs were affixed on their appointment

orders as per the directions endorsed in the Appointment

letter of the workman. On completion of his six months'

probation, the police verifications were done and the

workman was confirmed in Cat. I w.e.f. 29.06.1996. He had

joined his service on 29.01.1996 since then the service

condition and Certified Standing Order of CCL became

applicable to him, but not prior to the date of his

appointment. He had excellent record of continuous service

w.e.f. 29.1.1996 to 17.2.1998. In spite of it, the Director (P),

CCL, Ranchi on the pressure of E.D. (Vigilance) as per his

secret letter dt. 17.06.1997 directed among others GM(R),

Rajrappa, to suspend the workman from service and then

to issue charge sheet as framed by Vigilance Department.

Consequently, the Project Officer of Rajrappa Project as

per direction of the GM(R) suspended him mechanically

and arbitrarily as per order dt. 11.09.1997, and the

chargesheet was issued on 15/16.10.1997 though the

Project Officer had no power to appoint or take any

disciplinary action for it. Accordingly he was dismissed

from his service as per the order dt. 15/16.12.1998 w.e.f.

17.12.1998 after a pretended enquiry. It resulted in the

Industrial Dispute u/s 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947. The order of

dismissal in respect of the workman was perverse, entirely

illegal and unjustifed in the eye of law and facts as well. It

was rather a clear case of vindictive victimisation. Further

alleged on behalf on the workman is that the Enquiry Officer

A.S. Prasad did not act fairly in conducting the enquiry, so

his enquiry report was only is ipse dixit as an ex-parte

because the workman was entirely deprived of his right to

his representation in the enquiry proceedings. Moreover,

the order of dismissal from service was not only harsh but

also disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The

workman was not furnished with any materials or relevant

documents of the Vigilance so he was also not given fair

opportunity for his due explanation to the chargesheet.

Rajrappa Protect was a project of N.C.D.C Ltd., to which

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2969

the CCL is the successor. No Model Standing Order was

applicable to the Project of Rajrappa, but even then a

Sr. Vigilance Officer was appointed as Management

Representative beyond the Certified Standing Orders of

the CCL. The purported Enquiry Report discloses the

Management witnesses to have submitted their prepared

written joint statement. It clearly shows none of them had

made any oral individual deposition before the Enquiry

Officer. The workman had also protested by a written letter

dt. 25.03.1998 against unilateral proceeding. The Enquiry

Officer had also unreasonably refused the request of the

workman to summon the then G.M., (P &A) issuing him his

appointment letter also to others as well who had processed

the case; as such the Enquiry Report was all along laconic

and arbitrary and casual without any justified reasons. The

workman had also submitted his comments on the Enquiry

report as per his letter dt. 20.08.1998. At last, the workman

was unreasonably punished for the unproved misconduct.

Hence the workman is entitled for his reinstatement with

his full back wages with all consequential benefits

retrospectively.

3. The workman in his rejoinder has specifically denied

all the allegations of the O.P./Management as false and

misleading, further stating that the case has no substantial

evidence nor any proof of the charges levelled against the

workman and the entire enquiry proceeding was not free

from partiality and prejudice.

4. Whereas the case of the OP/Management as

represented in their written statement-cum-rejoinder is that

instant reference is legally unmaintainable; that the

workman Banshidhari Dubey S/o Bharat Dubey had

fraudulently managed to secure his employment in CCL as

Trainee Cat.-I as per his appointment letter dt. 4.1.1996

under the Land Looser Scheme of N.K. Area of CCL without

approval of the Competent Authority. The Management of

M/s C.C.L. had acquired lands under Plot Nos. 848(P),

894(P) and 896of Khata Nos. 126 and 143 at Village Nagra,

P.S. Balumath, Dist: Palamu for mining operation in the

year 1995. As per the usual procedure, the Management

offered an employment to one dependent of land looser of

the village for his lands acquired by the Management for

that purpose. For the aforesaid lands, Shri Sashibhusan

Prasad s/o Khushi Dayal Sao, the owner of the said lands

was appointed as dependent/nominee of the Land Owner

as per the letter dt. 22.12.1995. The file of aforesaid

Sashibhusan Prasad was forwarded by the Area Office after

examining relevant documents for his appointment. But

workman Banshidhari Dubey had no relationship with the

said land holder, so he had not right to get employment

against the lands as dependent of the land owner. Yet he

got his employment in connivance with certain officers of

the Management at the Head Quarters on basis of

fraudulently fabricated note sheets without any base file

of the Area concerned in respect of the lands acquired etc.

Thus the workman had fraudulently entered into the

services of the Company on the basis of his purely

fabricated letter of appointment dt. 4.1.1996.

5. Further alleged that when the fraudulent employment

of the workman came to the knowledge of the Management

in the year 1997, the workman was issued the chargesheet

dt. 15/18.10.1997, calling for an explanation from him about

the commission of his dishonest act in fraudulently securing

the employment. The workman submitted his reply to it,

denying the entire allegation levelled against him. As per

the Office Order dt. 9/10.12.1997 of the Management,

Shri A.S. Prasad, C.E. (M.S.), C.C.L, Ranchi and Shri U.K.

Tripathy, Sr. Vigilance Officer, CCL, Ranchi, were appointed

as the Enquiry Officer and the Management Representative

respectively for the departmental enquiry into the charge-

sheet of the workman. On the notice of the enquiry by the

Enquiry Officer, the workman though attended the enquiry

on the dates fixed, yet evaded to participate in it on some

pretext or other. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statements

of the witnesses on the fourth setting on 14.4.1998. The

workman was offered the opportunity to cross-examine

them for defence, but he declined to do so, seeking an

adjournment for it on the ground of non-engagement of

his co-worker for it. Even then, he failed to bring any worker

as also to participate in it. He had practically no defence on

the charges, and he abandoned the enquiry on some pleas

or other. At last, the finding non co-operation attitude of

the workman in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted

his enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority examined

the enquiry report and the relevant documents with the

proceedings and issued the Second Show Cause Notice

with the copy of the Enquiry report to the workman. In fact,

the workman had not any ground to challenge the enquiry

report. On perusal of all the relevant documents and the

approval of the CGM of the Area concerned, the

Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from his

service. The action of the Management in dismissing the

workman from his service was legal and justified. So the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

6. The OP/Management in their simultaneous rejoinder

has categorically denied all the allegations of the workman

as totally incorrect, baseless and imaginary, further alleging

that Shri J.N. Singh, posted as Director (Pers.) WCL, was

also chargesheeted in that regard, and the department

enquiry was proceeded against him by the Central

Government as per the usual procedure for taking action in

respect of Directors of the Company. A false and fabricated

note sheet was made at the Head Quarter by the interested

officers and appointment letters on that basis were issued

to more than 24 workers including the workman through

fraudulent means.

FINDING WITH REASONS

7. In the instant case, after hearing both the parties at

the preliminary issue over the point of the departmental

enquiry in the aspect of natural justice, the Tribunal as per

2970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

order No. 41 dt. 24.10.2013 held the domestic enquiry in

accordance with principle of natural justice. It resulted in

hearing the final arguments of both the parties on merits.

The argument advanced on behalf of the workman is

that he was legally appointed by Shri J.N. Singh, the GM

(P&A), the Competent Authority on the basis of his name

sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He was given

the employment after due interview. But his employment

was not against any land, as he had neither land neither

claimed for his such employment. It is also submitted that

the reference of land on his appointment letter was a mistake

of the Management, for which no rectification of it could

be done by the responsible officer even after the personal

meeting of the workman with him. Further urged on behalf

of the workman is that the dismissal order passed by the

incompetent Authority, the Project Officer, other than the

Appointment Authority, on the basis of the vague/

unproved charges is illegal and void abinitio as held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Union

Vs. B.B.L. Hajelay and another reported in SCLJ Vd-10 at

110. The ruling to be the year 1972 refers to: 'Dismissal

order not approved under S.33 (2) (b) of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947. It clearly bars dismissal of a workman

for any misconduct unconnected the dispute during

pendency of its proceeding unless approved by the Labour

Court/Tribunal under Sub-sec.(2)(b) of the Sec. 33 of the

Act with Heading: "Condition of service, etc. to remain

unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency

of proceeding." So the ruling being distinct from the factum

of the instant reference holds not good with it. The workman

has nowhere any such pleading nor any tangible evidence

over his plea about his personal contact with the

responsible officer for rectification of his alleged

appointment letter regarding the land mentioned therein.

Hence his plea is baseless and unreliable.

8. Whereas the contention of Mr. S. Prakash, Sr. Manager

(Pers.) as Representative for the OP/Management is that the

workman has claimed to have got his appointment as Trainee

Cat.-I as per his appointment letter No. PD/MP/Apptt./Land

Loser/87-88 R-15 dt. 04.01.1996 (Ext.M.5/12=W1). The very

alleged appointment letter of the workman stipulates his

service liable to be terminated at any time without any notice

if any information relating to his claim for employment, relating

to his employment, relationship, educational qualification

etc. found. There was no proposal for employment of workman

Banshidhari Dubey ever initiated by the concerned Unit/

Area for the Lands acquired as a pre-requisite to employment

under the Land Looser Scheme. Further it has been

contended that the workman was issued Chargesheet

dt. 15/18.10.95 by the Disciplinary Authority to which he

had submitted his reply. Finding his reply unsatisfactory,

the Disciplinary Authority as per his letter No. 2497

dt. 09/10.12.1997 constituted the Departmental enquiry in

details into the chargesheet against the workman.

Consequent upon the due and fair enquiry, the workman

was found guilty of very serious misconduct of obtaining

his employment with the OP/Management fraudelently under

the Land Looser Scheme. The charges levelled against the

workman were conclusively established against him.

Thereafter the workman was issued the 2nd Show Cause

Notice along with the copy of the enquiry report for his

further any defence, if any. On the consideration of all the

materials of departmental enquiry, the enquiry Report and

reply of the workman to the 2nd Show Cause Notice, only

the dismissal of the workman was thought fit for the ends of

justice. Therefore the workman was dismissed from his

service w.e.f. 17.12.1998 as per the Dismissal Oder of the

Disciplinary Authority dated 15/16.12.1998. It is also

emphatically submitted on behalf of the Management

Representative that the action of the OP/Management in

dismissing the workman from his service in view of his grave

misconduct is fully justified. Thus, the workman deserves

his dismissal for his gross-misconduct.

9. Having gone through the entire records of the case, I

find that the workman had not a bit of any defence against

the charges of his misconducts for getting his employment

fraudulently in connivance with the Higher Authorities

concerned of the Management under the Land Looser

Scheme for the same land Shri Sashi Bhusan Prasad, S/o

Sri Khusi Dayal Saw, the genuine Land Holder under Khata

123 and 126 at Village Nagra, P.S. Balumath, Distt. Palamu

had earlier got his appointment as per the Appointment

letter dt. 22.12.1993 issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel

Manager (I/R) of the Management. Thus the punishment

to the workman with his dismissal appears to be quite

proportionate to the very grave nature of his misconduct

in the case.

In such circumstances, it is hereby, in the terms of

Reference responded and accordingly awarded that the

action of the Management of Rajrappa Project of

M/s Central Coal Fields Ltd., P.O. Rajrappa, Dist. Hazaribagh

in dismissing Shri Banshi Dhari Dubey Cat. I (PIS No.

11146388) from the service of Company w.e.f. 17.12.1998 as

per the Dismisssal Order No. CJM (R)/Pers. 6/98/2447 dt.

15/16.12.1998 is quite legal and justified in the eye of law.

Hence the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1388-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj Vh,l,y ds izca/

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

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

U;k;ky; uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 06@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@98@2006&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2971

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O.1388.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2007) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of M/s TSL and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 26.06.2015.

[No. L-20012/98/2006-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

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

REFERENCE NO. 06 OF 2007

PARTIES

The Joint General Secretary,

Bahujan Mazdoor Union, Mines Rescue

Station, PO:

Dhansar, Dhanbad,

Vs. The General Manager, (J)

M/s Tata Steel Ltd., At & P.O. Jamadoba,

Dhanbad.

Order No. L20012/98/2006-IR(CM-I) dt.

02/04.02.2007.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr. R.R. Ram, Ld.

Advocate

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld.

Advocate

State: Jharkhand Industry

: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the May 13, 2015.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

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

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

Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/98/

2006-IR (CM-I) dt. 02/04.02.2007.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Sijua

Colliery of M/s Tata Steel Ltd., in not providing

employment to Sri Dhananjay Kumar Paswan,

Dependant son of Shri Mundrika Paswan, justified

and legal? If not, to what relief is the dependant son

of Shri Mundrika Paswan entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/98/2006-IR (CM-I)

dt. 02/04.02.2007 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 06 of 2007 was registered on

20.02.2007 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Counsels

appeared respectively, and contested the case.

2. The case of petitioner Dhananjay Kumar Paswan as

represented by the Bahujan Mazdoor Union is that his

father Mundrika Paswan, Ex-Heavy Tyndal was a

permanent workman in Sijua Colliery of M/s Tata Steel Ltd.

He had been sincerely performing his job since his

appointment in 1981. He was regularized as permanent on

01.04.1983. The workman had been suffering from Heart

disease since his sudden sickness of it on 17.03.2004.

Though he got better treatment in the Company's Hospital

of Sijua Colliery, he could not be fully cured of his disease.

So he was referred to Tata Central Hospital at Jamshedpur

where he was admitted on 17.04.2007. But he was medically

declared unfit for his original job on 18.08.2007. Thereafter

he had also himself represented before the Management

on 20.09.2004 for employment of son Dhananjay Kumar

Paswan @ Dhananjay Prasad in accordance with the

Circular and provision of NCWA of the Company, as his

aforesaid son is enrolled in the Employee Dependent

dependent of the workman is employed in the company. In

spite of the workman's approach to the Higher Authority

on 29.10.2004 for it, the Management never heard of his

grievance nor provided an employment to his dependent

son. The action of the Management in denying employment

to the aforesaid dependent son of the employee is

unjustified and illegal. So the petitioner as the dependent

son of the workman is entitled to employment on the ground

of his medically unfit under the circular and passion of the

company.

The Union Representative in his rejoinder has

specifically denied the allegations of the OP/Management,

justifying the maintainability of the reference. Unfortunately

workman Mundrika Paswan died on 25.04.2009 at his native

village. Factually, the workman had entered in the service

on 01.04.1983, and had completed his 21 years of his service,

but he superannuated from his service on 27.08.2004 on

the ground of medically unfitness. The workman had

2972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fulfilled all criteria of the Company for employment of his

dependent son on compassionate ground. There is no need

of vacancy or requirement for it.

3. Whereas contra pleaded case of the OP/Management

is that the Industrial Dispute has been raised by the Bahujan

Mazdoor Union which is neither recognized nor functioning

in any of the Establishments of the Company. It has no

lucas standi to raise it. The employment of a dependent is

not an automatic condition of service. Since Shri Dananjay

Kumar Paswan has never been in the employment of the

Steel Company, the Industrial Dispute in lack of employer-

employee relationship cannot be raised on his behalf.

Moreover, mere enrolment of dependent's name in the

Employee's Dependent Register does not confer any right

for his employment on the strength of service of the

guardian employee.

The O.P/Management in their simultaneous rejoinder

has categorically denied the allegations of the Union,

further stating that the provisions of NCWA is not

applicable in respect of the Establishment of the Tata Steel

Ltd. The dependent of an employee is entitled to register

the name of his dependent in the 'Employees Dependent

per the Employment procedure applicable to the Company.

The dependents of such employees whose names are

enrolled in the EDR are considered for employment in case

of vacancy/requirement in view of the number of years of

service rendered by guardian employees concerned.

Besides, there is no provision for providing employment

to the dependent of an employee declared medically unfit.

Thus, the action of the Management in not providing an

employment to Shri Dhananjay Kr. Paswan as dependent

of the workman concerned is legal and justified.

FINDINGS WITH REASONS

4. In the instant reference, PWI Dhananjay Kumar

Paswan, the dependent son of the workman concerned on

behalf of the Union, and MWI Dinesh Kumar Sharma, the

Head Clerk, H.R. Deptt, Jamadoba GM Office for the OP/

Management have been respectively examined.

Mr. R.R. Ram, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner,

submits that the workman Mundrika Paswan, the father of

the petitioner was medically declared unfit for his original

job on 18.08.2004 and was accordingly discharged from

service on 30.08.2004; his son petitioner was enrolled in

the Employees Dependant Register (EDR) but on

representation of the workman to the Management for

providing an employment to his son Dhananjay Prasad

under the provisions of the NCWA as the Tata Steel Ltd.,

covered NCWA in IV, V and VI till March, 2006, the petitioner

was not given any employment by the Management on

that ground, in spite of the workman having completed his

service for 21 years; under such circumstances, the

petitioner is entitled to employment in place of his medically

unfit Father worker.

Whereas the contention of Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Counsel

for the OP/Management of the TISCO is that the Tisco has its

own procedure of employment quite distinct from the NCWA,

as the NCWA III and V in footnotes ascertain their

inapplicability to the TISCO in this regard. Mr. Verma further

submits that the names of Dhananjay Prasad (Petitioner) and

Manjesh Pd. Paswan, the two sons of the workman are already

enrolled and admittedly there are large number of dependants

in seniority awaiting for the employment, so whenever their

numbers come, they would get their emplopyment.

5. On perusal and due considerations of the materials

available on the case record, it appears undoubtedly

workman Mundrika Paswan, Heavy Tyndal (P. No. 214045),

Sijua Colliery was declared medically unfit for his original

job as per the medical Report No. TCH/51-11355/2004

dt. 18.08.2004 (Ext. M.2) as also affirmed by the TISCO letter

dt. 25/27th Aug., 2004 (Ext W.1) according to which he was

discharged from the company's job w.e.f. 30.08.2004 on

medical gound. It is also evident that between the two

representations dt. 20.09.2004 and 29.10.2004 of the workman

Mundrika Paswan (now deceased), the OP/Management as

per their letter Form-V of the Company dt. 24.09.2004 has

clearly affirmed the names of S/Shri Dhananjay Pd. (Kumar

Paswan) (petitioner) and Manjesh Pd. Paswan (1st and 2nd

Choice respectively) having been enrolled in the Employees

Dependant Register for their employment on the strength of

their father workman's service in the event of vacancy in the

Colliery/Departments of the Company. It is also an

acknowledged fact that as per the letter of the Vice President

(E & RM) dt. 27th Nov., 1997 related to the procedure for

employment of employee-wards at Jharia group of Collieries

(Ext. M.1), in case where any employee is declared unfit to

continue in employment, one of his dependents in the

approved category will be offered employment.

Under such circumstances, it is, in terms of the reference,

hereby responded and accordingly awarded that the action

of the Management of Sijua Colliery of M/s Tata Steel Ltd.

in not providing employment to Shri Dhananjay Kumar

Paswan (whose name is also as Dhananjay Prasad)

dependent son of Shri Mundrika Paswan (now deceased)

is unjustified and illegal. Hence the dependant son of

aforesaid workman Mundrika Paswan is entitled to

employment in place of his said father, as he was medically

declared unfit, and was discharged from his service on that

score, after completion of his more than 15 years of

satisfactory services as the case of deceased workman

stands covering his 2nd choice as well.

Management is directed to implement the Award within

a month after receipt of its copy following its publication,

in the Gazette of Notification by the Government of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2973

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1389-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2000½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&06&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@329@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1389-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award (Ref. 19/2000) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

26-06-2015.

[No. L-20012/329/1999-IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHABAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Diuspute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 19 OF 2000

PARTIES

Manoj Pathak,

C/o The General Secretary,

National Coal Workers Congress,

Anne Villa, Rameshwar,

Bariatu Road, Ranchi-834009.

Vs.

The Project Officer,

Rajrappa Washery Project, PO: Rajrappa,

Distt. Hazaribagh

Order No. L-20012/329/99(C-I) dt. 28.1.2000

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman/Union: Mr. C.S. Pathak, Rep of

the workman

On behalf of the Management

: Mr.

Prakash,

Manager

Management

Representative

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 13th April, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

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

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

Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/329/

99(C-I) dt. 28.1.2000.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Mgt. of Rajrap Washery,

M/s. C.C.L., PO: Rajrappa, Dist.—Hazaribagh in

dismissing Sri Manoj Pathak from Services of C.C.L.

w.e.f. 08.02.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/329/99(C-I) dt.

28.1.2000 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 19 of 2000 was registered on 01.03.2000 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

workman and the O.P./Management through their own

Union Representative and Management Representative

appeared respectively, and contested the case.

2. The case of workman Manoj Pathak as represented

by himself in his written statement, shorn of unnecessary

details, is that he was legally appointed as per the office

order dt. 13.10.1995 of Shri S.N. Singh, the G.M. (Pers. &

Admn.), the Competent Authority of the CCL, Darbhanga

House, Ranchi after due selection process. The G.M. (P &

A) was appropriate Disciplinary Authority but not the

Project Officer. The workman had joined his duty on

31.10.1995. On his joining, the police verification report

was obtained at the order of the Appointment Authority,

and the workman was allowed to continue his service. On

successful completion of training and probation, once again

the police verification was obtained and the workman was

confirmed w.e.f. 30.04.1996 on the post of Cat-I NCWA. He

was posted at Rajrappa Washery as per the order of the

Appointment Authority whereas the Project Officer of the

Rajrappa Washery had no such power for posting. the

service of the workman was to be regulated under the

provisions of Certified Standing Orders of CCL & NCWA.

His service record was excellent. There was not any cause,

ground or a complaint against him for initiation of a

disciplinary proceedings, but the Director (Pers.), CCL,

Ranchi, the Appellate Authority as per the Secret letter No.

538 dt. 17.6.997 on the motivated instigation of the Vigilance

2974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Department unmindfully ordered the immediate suspension

and chargesheet to the workman and others.

Further case of the workman is that no suspension/

charge sheet was issued to the workman in the absence of

any prima facie case of his misconduct till the complaint of

Shri Amal Bhattacharya of CITU affiliated Union in collusion

with Sri U.S. Tripathi, Sr. Vigilance Officer in course of the

enquiry to Shri A.S. Prasad C.E.(MS) about non-compliance

the orders of the Director (P & Ed) (Vigilance). On that

complaint the alleged Chargsheet cum Suspension order

dt. 21/22.03.1998 was mechanically issued by the Project

Officer of Rajrappa Washery without any authority. The

charge sheet was very vague. Neither details thereof nor

copies of the relevant documents such as Vigilance Enquiry

Report and the Statements of witnesses during the vigilance

enquiry etc. were furnished to the workman with the charge

sheet. It is a violation of the principle of natural justice.

Though the workman as per his letter dt. 03.04.1998 had

sought the opportunity for an effective explanation on the

charge, the workman was deprived of it. Further it is alleged

that the Enquiry Officer arbitrarily and unilaterally

determined the workmen's right of representation with a

co-worker of the Company's roll only, but not by a legal

practitioner or a retired employee. Thus the right of the

hearing of the workman was foreclosed, in result, the

Enquiry Officer advanced the proceedings ex-parte even

before its commencement, as on the first day of May 2,

1998, the Enquiry Officer had conducted himself as a

persecutor and refused to record the pleadings of the

workman. His letter dt. 21.5.1998 for his representation

through a legal practitioner or by a Trade Union official as

well as for his right to received the called for documents

prior to commencement of the enquiry was also rejected,

though the Enquiry Officer had no right to hold any

proceedings or to act an Presenting Officer in absence of

Project Officer on the said date. Being aggrieved with gross

illegality and open partiality of the Enquiry Officer

concerned, the workman represented before the Project

Officer for replacement of Enquiry Officer with one honest

and impartial one and also for copies of the documents,

but the Project Officer refused to give any reply or any

decision much less on his letters dt. 12.05.1998 and

03.06.1998, and later on his letter dt. 16.06.1998 was also

refused to accept by the Enquiry Officer. At last, the Enquiry

Officer, proceeding was held ex-parte as an empty formality

which stands vitiated as unfair play.

3. The Enquiry Officer had allowed Mr. Amal

Bhattacharjee, the Vice President of CITU and Outsider as

co-worker for his representation after refusing his prayer

for keeping Mr. K.N. Singh of CMPDI as Co-worker in the

enquiry. Likewise it is alleged his representation to the

Appellate Authorities including those of the Management

went unheeded in clear violation of the Certified Standing

Order. Similarly the alleged Enquiry Report of the Project

Officer concerned based on ex-parte proceedings was quite

perverse without a mention of his series of representations

including those dt. 02.12.1998 and 22.12.1998 as well as

without any proposed punishment. It is also alleged the

order dt. 8.2.1999 of the dismissal of the workman as not a

speaking one, and it is totally based on perverse findings.

Moreover, the workman was alleged to have secured the

appointment order dt. 13.10.1995 by furnishing false

information as alleged. Whereas he had not joined his duty

prior to 31.10.1995, as on or before 30.10.1995, the Standing

Order was inapplicable, so no disciplinary action could be

taken under the provision of any standing Order. Neither

the Appointment Authority had initiated any disciplinary

action nor he was cited or examined as witness in the formal

enquiry into the charges constituting not any misconduct

as alleged against the workman. As such, the order of his

dismissal being entirely perverse and illegal on facts and

law is liable to be quashed. So the workman is entitled to

his reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service

with seniority and all other consequential benefits.

4. The workman Manoj Pathak in his rejoinder has

specifically denied all the allegations of OP/Management

as entirely mala fide, false, misleading and baseless, further

stating that he was duly appointed by the Competent

Authority after due process of selection test and interview,

and there was no misconduct committed during his service

period at Barkakana and Rajrappa. The Project Officer of

Rajrappa Washery had no authority equivalent to that of

the Appointment Authority in the matter of the appointment

or the disciplinary action.

5. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the

Reference on the point of law, the contra pleaded case of

the OP/Management is that workman Manoj Pathak S/o

Sri Rameshray Pathak fraudulently managed to get his

employment as the Trainee, Category-I in M/s. CCL as per

the letter dt. 13.10.1995 under the Land Looser Scheme of

Piparwar Area of the Company by falsely representing

himself as the nephew of Salkhu Hazam (Thakur) without

approval of the Competent Authority. The land of Sri Salkhu

Hazam (Thakur) was also included in the acquisition of the

Lands by the Company under Plot Nos. 183, 198, 500(P),

395, 431, 337, 278, 388, 349, 359, 51, 43, 45 and 46 of Khata

Nos. 65, 35, 105 and 65 at Vill. Bahara, P.S.Tandwa, District

Chatra in the year 1995 for carrying on mining operations.

The name of Sri Chetlal Thakur, son of Sri Salkhu Hazam

(Thakur) was forwarded for his appointment in the offer of

his employment against the acquisition of his land as per

the usual procedure. But on a fabricated note sheet of

some officers of the Company in connivance with some

interested persons in course of processing the Original file

related to the appointment of the dependents of the

residents of Bahara Village against the acquisition of their

land, the instant workman had got his employment as the

nephew of Sri Salkhu Hazam of that village for his same

land as per the letter dt. 30.10.1995. Whereas Shri Chetlal

Thakur was also issued the appointment letter dt. 13.11.1995

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2975

as the son of Salkhu Hazam against his referred Land

acquired at the village Bahara. Thus two sets of workmen

one set genuine dependents against their land and other

set based on the manipulation of record on payment of

huge amount to the officers concerned—were employed.

6. Further, it is alleged that workmen Manoj Pathak in

his statement in the Vigilance enquiry admitted to have

neither himself nor his father possessed any land at

Vill:Bahara nor ever lived there. His confession also revealed

the payment of a sum of Rs. 49,000/- by him to Sri

Akhilashwar Prasad at his resident at Harmu, Ranchi and

accordingly procurement of his fake appointment dt.

13.10.1995. Prima facie involvement of some officers of

the Company in getting the false persons employed on the

basis of concoctions and fabrications against the same

lands under the Scheme revealed by the workman himself.

At the knowledge of it to the Management, the instant

workman was issued charge sheet cum suspension letter

dt. 21/23.3.1998, calling for his explanation for commission

of the grave misconduct under the provision of the Certified

Standing Order. The workman also submitted his reply to

it, denying the allegations levelled against him.

Consequent upon the denial of the charges by the

workman, the Management as per Memo No. dt. 10.04.1998

has appointed Shri A.S. Prasad, the then C, E. (MS), CCL,

Ranchi and Mr. U.K. Thripathi, Sr. Vigilance Officer, CCL,

Ranchi as the Enquiry Officer and the Management

Representative (in short the M.R.) respectively for the

departmental enquiry into the charge sheet. On notices of

the enquiry to the workman, the enquiry was conducted

by the Enquiry Officer in presence of the workman on a

number of days, but the workman did not co-operate in it

on some pretext or the other. It resulted in recording the

evidence of the Management witnesses at the tenth sittings

in his presence and the relevant documents marked as Ext.

(M.E. 1 to 7). Despite offering the workman the

opportunities to cross the Management witnesses, he

declined to do so, requiring for an adjournment for it on the

next day. In spite of giving several opportunities on fixed

different dates, the workman accordingly evaded to cross

-examine on some pretext or other. Lastly he abandoned

the enquiry by observing that he had no case of defence,

so he desired to resort to litigation for his benefits of

employment on the basis of some legal plea and others

before the Court of Law. The Disciplinary Authority on the

receipt of the Enquiry report issued him second Show-

Cause Notice enclosed with a copy of the Enquiry Report

for his representation to it, if any. The workman tried his

best to make out a case of litigation by submitting his

representation with various allegations against the Enquiry

Officer. On full examination of the entire issue, the

Disciplinary Authority found not any merit in the

contention of the workman and passed the dismissal order

towards the workman from his service w.e.f. 01.02.1999. As

such, the action of the Management in dismissing the

workman from his service was alleged to be legal, bona

fide and justified. So the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

Further, the OP/Management in their simultaneous

rejoinder has categorically denied the allegations of the

workman as fully illegal, baseless and and imaginary. Finally,

the OP/Management sought an permission for afresh

evidence to prove the misconduct against the workman in

case the Enquiry held as unfair and improper.

FINDING WITH REASONS

7. At the preliminary point over the fairness of the

domestic enquiry, the MWI Mr. A.S. Prasad, the Retd. Chief

Engineer as the Enquiry Officer on behalf of the OP/

Management and Manoj Pathak, the workman himself on

his affidavited Chief for his sake were examined

respectively.

On perusal and due conideration of evidence of both

the parties at the preliminary issue, the Tribunal as per

order No. 43 dt. 18.12.13 held the domestic enquiry quite

fair, proper and in accordance with principle of natural

justice towards the workman. In result, the case came up

for hearing the final arguments of both the parties on merits

for an adjudication.

The argument of workman Manoj Pathak (himself C/o

General Secretary of the Union concerned, as advanced as

per his written one as well is that he was dismissed for

securing employment fraudulently, but not a single paper

has been filed by the OP/Management as a roof of the fact

that he had got his employment under the Land Looser

scheme. It is also submitted that he neither has a piece of

land nor applied under the Land Looser Scheme, rather on

sponsoring his name by the Employment Exchanage, he

appeared at the interview as per the guidelines issued by

the OP/Management, he was selected for the post of ITI

Cat. I and he was appointed by the General Manager (P &

A), Headquarters, and his service was confirmed after police

verification and satisfactory training, but the OP/

Management by mistake referred some plot numbers in his

Appointment letters as brought by the workman to the

notice of the Management; therefore, the Official Mr.

Akhileshwar had orally assured him of its rectification, but

the management did not rectify it, and instead of it

dismissed him illegally. But all the facts about the mistakenly

reference of some plots Nos by the Management in his

appointment letter his request for its rectification and the

refusal of the Management to do so are beyound his

pleading; so such pleas are inadmissible. The Order of his

dismissal dt. 8.2.1999 passed by the Project Officer lower in

rank than the Appointing Authority is alleged to be entirely

illegal and unjustified. Further submitted on behalf of the

workman is that on that score alone the dismissal was held

illegal and void abinitio by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Delhi Transport Union Vs. B.B.L, Hajelay &

2976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ors, but the ruling appears to be not specifically quoted

hence inapplicable to the case. It is further alleged that the

workman is entitled to reinstatment in his service.

8. On the other hand, Mr. S. Prakash, Sr. Manager (Pers.)

as Representative for the OP/Management has contended

that workman Manoj Pathak was appointed as the nephew

of the Land holder concerned as per letter No. PD/MP/

Appt./Land Looser/87-88/R-809 dt. 13.10.1995 against the

lands acquired at village Behara, Block Tandawa, Dist:

Chatra under the Land Looser Scheme (Ext. W.1), but neither

his appointment/employment offer to the workman under

the said Scheme was with his nomination as nephew by

the owner of the Land nor any proposal for such

employment was initiated by the Unit/Area concerned under

the mandatory procedure of the said scheme. The workman

was issued the chrge sheet dt. 21/22.03.1998 to which he

had also submitted his reply. On finding his reply

unsatisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority as per letter dt.

10.04.1998 directed the departmental enquiry in details into

it. The workman was given full opportunity for his defence.

After holding the departmental enquiry fairly, the workman

was found guilty of very serious misconduct for his getting

fraudulently employment with the OP/Management under

the Land Looser Scheme. The Disciplinary Authority

carefully examined the Enquiry Report and issued second

Show-Cause Notice along with the Enquiry Report to him

for his representation. The workman also submitted his

reply to the second Show-Cause. The Disciplinary

Authority on due consideration of the all the facts found

only the dismissal of the workman for the end of justice.

Accordingly the workman was dismissed for his service

w.e.f. 08.02.1999. As per the letter dt. same of the Disciplinary

Authority. As such the action of the Management in

dismissing the workman from the service of the Company

is fully justified; as such he is not entitled to any relief

whatsoever.

9. After due consideration of all the materials, I find that

the workman Manoj Pathak had factually got his

appointment letter dt. 13.10. 1995 as Trainee Cat.-I (IIT) as

the nephew of the Land Holder-Chetlal Thakur S/o Salkhu

Hazam (Thakur) as specified under Khata & Plot Nos at

Village: Bahera, P.S. Tandwa, Dist: Chatra under the Land

Looser Scheme in a fraudulent manner in collusion with

higher official. Whereas Chetal Thakur S/o Salkhu Hazam

Thakur by caste, the real owner of the land acquired at said

village under the same scheme was appointed as Trainee

Cat.—I as per the letter 3.11.1995 later on. Thus the workman

appears prima facie to be different caste having no

relationship with the Land Holder. The alleged appointment

of the workman appears to be prima facie fraudulently

obtained by the workman few days earlier from the OP/

Management.

In result, it is hereby responded and accordingly

awarded in the terms of the Reference that the action of the

Management of Rajrappa Washery of M/D CCL, PO:

Rajrappa, Dist: Hazaribagh in dismissing Sri Manoj Patham

from the service of CCL w.e.f. 8.2.1999 is quite legal and

justified. Hence the workman concerned is not entitled to

any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ 2015

dkñ vkñ 1390-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

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

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;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; uñ 2] /kuokn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@1996½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@67@1995&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1390-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/1996) of the Central

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 2, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s BCCL and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 26/06/2015.

[No. L-20012/67/1995-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 43 OF 1996

PARTIES

The Secretary.

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad,

Vs.

The General Manager,

Govindpur Area No. III of M/s BCCL,

PO : Sonardih Dist. Dhanbad.

Ministry's Order No. L-20012/67/

95-I.R.(Coal-I) dt. 19.03.1996.

APPREANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union: Mr. K. Chakraborty,

Ld. Advocate

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2977

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld.

Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th April, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise

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

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

Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/67/

95.I.R.(Coal-I) dt. 19.03.1996.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the General Manager,

Govindpur Area No. III of M/s BCCL P.O. Sonardih

Dist. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Shiba Bhuiya M/

Loader w.e.f. 13.11.1991 is justified? If not, to what

relief is the concerned workman is entitled."

2. Neither any Union Representative for Bihar Colliery

Kamgar Union, Jharnapara nor workman Shiba Bhuiya

appeared despite three Regd. Notices for appearance. Mr.

D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management is

though present, yet no Management witness produced for

his evidence on merits.

On perusal of the case record, it is quite clear that this is

the oldest case of the year 1996, which has been all along

pending for the evidence of the Management on merits

since 09.05.2006, following the Order No. 57 dt. same of the

Tribunal whereby the domestic enquiry conducted by the

Enquiry Officer was held not fair and proper in accordance

with the principle of natural justice. Since then not a single

witness on behalf of the Management produced or examined

on merits in spite of ample opportunities to the OP/

Management, even after giving last chance for it.

Under these circumstances, I find that when the OP/

Management has been totally failure in proving the charges

of any misconduct against the workman on merits before

the Tribunal, the case has been closed and accordingly, in

the end of justice it is hereby ordered and responded in the

terms of the Reference that the action of the General

Manager, Govindpur Area No. III of M/s BCCL, PO;

Sonaridh, Dist. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Shiba Bhuiya,

M/Loader w.e.f. 13.11.1991 is totally unjustified; hence the

workman is entitled to reinstatement in his service with

50% back wages retrospectively.

The Management is directed to implement the Award

within one month from date of its receipt after publication

in the Gazette by the Government of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ 2015

dkñ vkñ- 1391-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSñ lhlh,y 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@Je

U;k;ky; uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 306@1999½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@198@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1391-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 306/

1999) of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/06/2015.

[No. L-20012/198/1999-IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 306 OF 1999

PARTIES

Sri Jaypal Singh,

C/o Sri Sukhdeo Singh,

At Rajhara Colliery 7 No., P.O. Rajhara

Colliery, Dist; Palamu.

Vs.

The Chairman cum Managing Director,

M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd.,

Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

Order No. L-20012/198/99(C-I)

dt. 19.11.1999.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr. C.S. Pathak,

workman

Representative

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. P.N. Mishra &

Swayam Praklsh, as

Management Reps.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

2978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th April, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of

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

Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

198/99(C-I) dt. 19.11.1999.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Jay Pal Singh from

Services by the Management of M/s. CCLtd, is

proper, justified and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the order No. L-20012/198/99(C-I) dt.

19.11.1999 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

case No. 306 of 1999 was registered on 08.12.1999 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

workman and the O.P./Management through their

Representatives appeared respectively, and contested the

case.

2. The case of workman Jaypal Singh as stated in his

written statement is that he was appointed as per the order

dt. 04.01.1996 of Sri J.N. Singh, the G.M. (Pers. & Admn.),

the Competent Authority of M/s. CCL, Ranchi, following

its due process such as interview and selection. The

appointment order was widely circulated, directing the

Principal, CETI (BRK), Barkakana, to get police verification

of the workman earliest. Accordingly, he continuously

rendered his loyal service since his joining on 06.02.1996

up to his dismissal order dt. 4.12.1998. He was suspended

by the Project Officer concerned as per the Letter No. DP/

Sectt./Secret/33/538 dt. 17.06.1997 of the Director (Pers.),

CCL, Ranchi. The Project Officer, Rajrappa washery as

pretended Disciplinary Authority mechanically issued him

the stereotype charge sheet as framed and directed by the

Vigilance Department for the misconduct of fraudulently

securing employment under CCL 17(1) (o) of the Certified

Standing Order of M/s. CCL without approval of the

Competent Authority. In spite of his letter dt. 18.10.1997,

the charge sheet was issued him a formality without

relevant documents and statement of witnesses as the

requirement of natural justice. The workman got deprived

of his defence. The genuiness of the appointment order

was admitted in the charge sheet as also affirmed by the

Appointing Authority J.N. Singh, but its non approval by

the Competant Authority was not the fault of the workman.

So alleged enquiry as per the memo dt. 13.12.1997 of the

Director (P) and ED (Vig) was again mere a formality. The

Enquiry Officer not fairly but arbitrarily held the joint enquiry

to the prejudice of the workman, despite his protest. On

the first day of the enquiry, the relevant objections of the

workman to legality of the charge sheet, locus standi of the

Project Officer and representation, etc. were unconsidered

even in non-representation of the Presenting Officer, the

delinquents were forced to sign the proceeding under

protest.

3. Further alleged that his objection to the written or

joint depositions of three witnesses instead of their

statement was also unconsidered. It was one reproduced

from the Computer Floppy. The alleged joint deposition of

the Vigilance Officials investigating the case was

inadmissible as no evidence. Not any document produced

tested in presence of the accused. All the alleged documents

including the statements of witnesses and Vigilance Enquiry

report taken as exhibits by the Enquiry Officer are fabricated

as evidence. The alleged Enquiry Report of Sri A.S. Prasad,

the Enquiry Officer as the quasi judicial Authority being

laconic was no enquiry report except his ipse-dixit. His

representation dt. 28/29.4.1998 over the alleged enquiry

report was also unconsidered. The entire disciplinary

proceeding exparte as well as the finding of enquiry was

entirely biased and prejudiced. Thus the dismissal order

dt. 04.12.1998 also as ex parte concerning the workman was

entirely perverse, so legally void, as prima facie misconduct

neither made out nor proved under any Standing Orders,

Standing or Certified, prior to his appointment on or before

04.01.1996. None other than the Appointing Authority had

to take disciplinary action against the workman. The order

of dismissal from service is harsh and disproportionate

even if assumed the quasi judicial proceeding as fair and

some charge as proved. The workman is legally entitled to

reinstatement with full back wages and consequential

benefits.

The workman in his rejoinder has specifically parawise

denied the allegations of the OP/Management as false and

misleading.

4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the OP/

Management with categorical denials is that the present

reference is unmaintainable in law and facts both, as the

workman had fraudulently got his employment in M/s. CCL.

The Management issued workman Jaipal Singh S/o Shri

Sukhdeo Singh the charge sheet dt. 15/17.10.1997 for

fraudulently securing employment as Trainee Cat. I in the

CCL as per the appointment letter No. PD/MP/Apptt/LL/

87-88/R-17 dt. 4.1.1996 under the Land Looser Scheme of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2979

N.K. Area, CCL without approval of the Competent

Authority, as son of the owner of the Land under Khat

No. 2 Plot Nos. 367 and 539 at Vill: Tumand, P.S. Khelari,

Dist: Ranch, acquired by the CCL for mining operation, but

on enquiry, it was found that the workman was neither a

son nor a nominee of the owner of the said land for his

employment, rather against the aforesaid land the

appointment was already given in the CCL to Sri Subodh

Kumar Singh S/o Shri Pramod Singh as per the appointment

letter No. PD/MP/Apptt/LL/87-88/750 dt. 11.02.1993. The

workman Jaipal Singh submitted his reply dt. 24.10.1997.

Thereafter, Sri A.S. Prasad and Sri U.K. Tripathi were

appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer

respectively by the Management for holding the enquiry

into the charge sheet againt the workman. The

Management's witnesses were examined in presence of

the workman concerned in the enquiry, in which he was

allowed by the Enquiry Officer to cross examine them, but

the workman declined to do so. The Enquiry Officer gave

him the full opportunity for his defence during the enquiry

proceeding. Thus the domestic enquiry was conducted by

the Enquiry Officer in accordance with the principle of

natural justice. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer submitted

his enquiry report based on the evidence and deposition

of the witnesses as stated before him, concluding the

charges levelled against the workman full established. After

examining and finding the enquiry report proper, the

Disciplinary Authority issued the 2nd Show Cause along

with the copy of the enquiry report to the workman for his

further defence. The workman submitted his reply to it. He

had got employment falsely, producing false and fabricated

documents. One due consideration of all the facts and

finding not extenuating circumstances for the workman,

the Disciplinary Authority came to conclusion that only

the dismissal of the workman would meet the end of justice.

The workman was dismissed for his gross misconduct;

hence the dismissal order of the Management is legal and

justified. The OP/Management has sought for permission

to adduce fresh evidence to prove the misconduct, in case

the domestic enquiry held unfair and improper.

The OP/Management in their simultaneous rejoinder

has categorically denied the allegations of the workman as

incorrect, misleading and irrelevant, further stating that

the workman has failed to show how as prejudiced in the

face of giving him full opportunity for his defence.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. In the instant reference, after hearing both the parties

at the preliminary issue over the fairness of the departmental

enquiry, the Tribunal as per the order No. 43 dt. 17.12.2013

held the domestic enquiry as fair, proper and in accordance

with the principle of natural justice. It resulted in hearing

the final arguments of both the parties on merits for an

adjudication.

The instant Industrial Dispute has been raised by

workman Jaipal Singh himself who has been contesting

the case all along filing his written statement and rejoinder

under his signature. The plea of the workman as per his

written argument irrespective of irrelevant facts is that he

was appointed by Sri J.N. Singh, the G.M. (P&A) as per his

appointment letter dt. 4.1.1996 after interview, but not

against any land because no scheme for appointment

against loss of land was prevalent in the year 1996. Further

the workman has to contend that the reference of Land in

his appointment letter was a mistake of management, for

the rectification of which he had personally met the

responsible Officer concerned, but the Management made

out a false case against the workman prior to its

rectification. But such pleas of the workman about his

appointment not under the Land Looser Scheme and his

personal meeting with a responsible Officer appear to be

quite baseless, as these facts are unpleaded. Rather, the

stance of the workman himself stands quite clear that

admittedly he was appointed for Cat.-I under the Land

Looser Scheme as evident from his claimed appointment

letter dt. 4.1.1996 (Ext. W.1), though he admittedly had not

any land for the employment.

Further contention of the workman is that he was

admittedly appointed by the General Manager (P&A), H.Qr

but his dismissal was done by the Project Officer of the

Colliery lower in rank than the Appointing Authority, so it

is illegal and void abinitio as held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Delhi Transport Union Vs. B.B.L.

Hajelay reported in SCL J Vol. 10 at 110. Though the ruling

has not been properly cited, it appears to be of the year

1972. It relates to the dismissal of a workman by the

Subordinate authority as per the delegation of power by

the Appointment Authority. But the workman concerned

appointed before such delegation and his dismissal order

was not approved u/s 33 [Sub 2(b)] of the Industrial Dispute

1947. The Sec. 33 of I.D. Act stipulates "Conditions of

service etc, to remain unchanged under certain

circumstances during pendency of proceeding". But the

instant case is quite ndependent of any previous pendency

of proceeding of any Industrial Dispute, as such the ruling

being different from the factum of the Reference appears to

be inapplicable to the case under adjudication.

6. On the other hands Mr. S. Prakash, Sr. Manager (Pers.)

as the Representative for the OP/Management has

submitted that the workman Jaypal Singh was appointed

as Trainee Cat.-I as per his appointment letter No. 401/1996

dt. 4.1.1996 (Ext. W.1), it stiputates the termination of his

services at any time without any notice if any information

concerning his claim for his employment, relationship etc,

found incorrect. But he got it as the son of the owner of the

land concerned at Village: Tumang, Kerkatta, P.S. Khelari,

Dist. Ranchi, under the Land Looser Scheme, and the

workman himself has admitted in his statement before the

Tribunal not to have possessed himself or any member of

2980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

his family any piece of the said land; as such his

employment as per his appointment letter devoid of his

relationship as the son of the Land Holder was false. Further

it is submitted on behalf of the OP/Management that after

due departmental enquiry into the charge sheet dt. 15/

17.10.1997 (Ext. M.1) which was issued to the workman, the

workman was found guilty of serious misconduct of

fraudulently securing his employment under the Company.

After due consideration of the workman's reply to the 2nd

Show Cause Notice, the Disciplinary Authority, the Project

Officer of Rajrappa Washery, who is inherently the

Competent Authority as per order dt. 04.12.1998 (Ext. M.7)

dismissed his services with immediate effect, which is

entirely justified and legal; thus the workman is not entitled

to any relief whatsoever.

7. On the perusal and due consideration of the materials

available on the case record, I find that the workman prima

facie appears to have fraudeulently got his employment as

per his appointment letter dt. 04.01.1996 under the Land

Looser Scheme for the same lands under plots 367 and 539

of Khata No. 2 against which Sri Subodh Kumar, son-in-

law of Arun Nath Sahdeo at Village Tumang/Karkatta,

Bishrampur, Block Burmu, P. S. Khelari, Dist. Ranchi, was

three years earlier genuinely appointed as the overseer

(Civil) in Tech. & Sup. Gr. 'C' as per letter No. PD/MP/

Apptt./Land Looser/87 dt. 12.02.1993. In view of the grave

nature of misconduct proved against the workman, his

dismissal from the services of the company is quite

proportionate to it.

In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby

responded and accordingly awarded that the dismissal of

Shri Jay Pal Singh from service by the Management of

M/s. CCL is absolutely proper, justified and legal. Hence,

the workman is not at all entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1392-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky;] uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2014½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@94@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1392-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2014) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 26/06/2015.

[No. L-20012/94/2013-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram

Presiding Officer

In the matter an of Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2014

PARTIES

The Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Jharapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad

Vs. The General Manager,

Lodna Area of M/s BCCL, Khas

Jeenagora, Dhanbad.

Ministry's Order No. L-20012/94/2013-

IR(CM-I) dt. 17.02.2014

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman/Union

: None.

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld.

Advocate.

State

: Jharkhand

Industry

: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 08th 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-20012/94/

2013-IR(CM-I) dt. 17.02.2014.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Lodna

Area of M/s BCCL in not regularizing Sri Santosh

Kumar Bauri in the post of Sr. Attendance Clerk is

fair and justified? To what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?"

2 Neither any Union Representative nor the workman

Santosh Kumar Bauri appeared nor written statement with

any documents filed on behalf of the workman. Mr. U. N.

Lal, is the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management present

as usual.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2981

On perusal the case record, it appears that the case has

been pending since its registration for filing the written

statement along with the documents of the workman, for

which three registered notices dt. 22.04.2014, 03.09.2014

and 10.12.2014 were issued to the Secretary of the Union

concerned on his address as noted in the Reference itself,

but neither the Union Representative nor the workman

could respond to any of the notices. The Union

Representative and the workman by their gross negligent

conducts appear to be quite reluctant to pursue the case

for final adjudication. Under these circumstances, it

appears to be no longer an Industrial Dispute. Hence the

case is closed accordingly, and it is passed an order of "No

Dispute Award."

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1393-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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

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

uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 102@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@52@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1393-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 102/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/06/

2015.

[No. L-20012/52/2012-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE No. 102 OF 2013.

PARTIES

The President,

Bihar Shramik Sangh,

Qr. No. A-32, A Block, PO: Bhuli,

Distt. Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

Sijua Area of M/s BCCL, PO: Sijua

Dhanbad.

Ministry's Order No. L-20012/52/2012-

IR(CM-I) dt. 05.03.2012

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman/Union: None.

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld.

Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th 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-20012/52/

2012-IR(CM-I) dt. 05.03.2013.

SCHEDULE

"Whether Sh. Vishnu Deo Bhuia, son of Late Bali

Bhuia is entitled for employment and other benefits

as per provision of NCWA since his father was alive

on the date of Award by the Hon'ble CGIT (Dhanbad)

dated 06.04.2006, which was Notified in the Gazette

of India's Notification on 15.05.2006? To what relief

is the dependent of the deceased workman is entitled

to?"

2 Neither Union Representative for the Bihar Sharmik

Sangh, Bhuli, nor petitioner Vishnu Deo Bhuia appeared

nor any written statement with any documents filed on his

behalf despite several opportunities for it. Mr. D.K. Verma,

the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management is present.

On perusal the case record, I find that despite three

Registered notices dt. 07.05.2013, 28.01.2014 and 14.03.2014

having been issued to the President of the Union on his

address as noted the Reference itself for filing Written

statement of the petitioner, the Union Representative or

the workman failed to respond to any the notices. The

Union Representative and the petitioner by their such

conducts appear to be quite reluctant is pursuing the case

for its finality.

Under these circumstances, it seems no longer an

Industrial Dispute; hence the case is closed as No Industrial

Dispute; and accordingly it is passed 'No Dispute Award'.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

2982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1394-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ,lvks 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@Je

U;k;ky;] uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@59@2012&vkbZñvkjñ ¼lh,e&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1394-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s. ISO and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 26/06/2015.

[No. L-20012/59/2012-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 01 OF 2013.

PARTIES

The Dilip Kumar Shah,

Bhartiya Khani Vidyapit Swayatsashi

Karamchari Sangh,

House No. 124, PO: Bhaga, Dhanbad.

Vs.

The Chief Executive/Manager

M/s International Security Organization,

171, Park Street, Kolkata-17.

Ministry's Order No. L-20012/59/2012-

IR(CM-I) dt. 26.12.2012

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman/Union: Mr. S.N. Ghosh, Ld.

Advocate.

On behalf of the Management

: None.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 08th 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-20012/59/

2012-IR(CM-I) dt. 26.12.2012

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of

International Security Organization, Contractor in

transferring Sri Anil Rakshit, Security Guard from

Dhanbad to a far place (though he was engaged in

contract job particularly for ISM, Dhanbad) is legal

and justified? To what relief is the concerned

workman entitled?"

2. Workman Anil Rakshit with Mr. S.N. Ghosh, Ld.

Advocate for the workman present and files a written

petition bearing their signatures for passing a needful order.

But none appeared for the Management. Mr. Ghosh, the

Ld. Advocate for the Union/workman submitted that the

Reference is still pending for an afresh corrigendum over

two points, as sought by the Union which are still awaiting

from the Ministry; but meanwhile, the workman is not

interested to proceed with the case voluntarily; as such

the Union Representative Dilip Kumar Shah and the

workman have expressed their desire to withdraw the case.

An Industrial Dispute once referred by the Ministry of the

Labour & Employment, Government of India, is not

withdrawable. Hence in view of the aforesaid circumstances

of reluctancy of the Union Representative as well as that

of the workman, it is no longer the Industrial Dispute.

Therefore, it is closed as "No. I.D.", and accordingly an

order is passed as No Dispute.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1395-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky;] uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2001½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@368@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1395-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2001) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute

between

the

management

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2983

M/s. BCCL and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 26/06/2015.

[No. L-20012/368/2000-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE No. 01 OF 2001

PARTIES

The Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Jharnapara, Hirapur, Distt. Dhanbad.

Vs.

The General Manager,

Moonidih Area of M/s. BCCL,

P.O. Moonidih Distt: Dhanbad

Ministry's Order No. L-20012/368/

2000(C-I) dt. 20.12.2000

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Workman/ : Mr. K. Chakraborty,

Union

Ld. Adv.

On behalf of the

: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Adv.

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th April, 2005

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

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

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

Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/368/

2000(C-I) dt. 20.12.2000

SCHEDULE

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

BCCL in not making the payment of wages/

subsistence allowance to Shri Nagendra Jha Diesel

Mechanic of Moonidih Coal Washery, Dhanbad for

the period from 27.10.97 to 22.11.1998 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?"

2. Neither the Union Representative nor the workman

Nagendra Jha appeared nor any witness on his behalf

produced. Mr. D.K. Verma Ld. Advocate for the OP/

Management is present as usual.

From perusal of the case record, it appears the case has

been all along pending for the evidence of workman since

17.10.2006. Even on three Regd. Notices dt. 17.06.2014,

19.08.2014 and lastly 17.10.2014 issued to the Secretary, of

the Union concerned on his addresses noted in the

Reference itself for the evidence of the workman, neither

the Union Representative nor the workman responded to

any of the Notices. The Union Representative as well as

the workman by their conducts appears to be quite

reluctant in the pursuit of the reference case for its finality.

The instant Reference relates to an issue over the non-

payment of wages/subsistence allowance for certain period.

Under these circumstances, it seems no longer an Industrial

Dispute existent. Hence; it is accordingly passed an order

of "No Dispute Award".

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1396-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds izcaèr=

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

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

uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@1993½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@367@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1396-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/1993) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of the M/s. ECL and their

workman, received by the Central Government on 26/06/

2015.

[No. L-20012/367/1991-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD

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

1947

Reference: No. 47/1993

Employer in relation to the management of Kapasara

Area, M/s. ECL

2984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

Their workmen

Present:

Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

None

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated: 16.4.2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/367/1991 IR (C-I) dated 06/01/

1993, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

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

Ltd, Kapasara Area in denying promotion to

Shri D.C. Agarwal, Special Grade Clerk in

Technical and Supervisory Grade A w.e.f. 24/07/1987

is justified? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.

But none appears on behalf of the workman inspite of Regd.

Notice. 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] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1397-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; u- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 40@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@47@2009&vkbZñvkjñ ¼lh,e&1½]

,eñdsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1397-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2009) 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 26.06.2015.

[No. L-20012/47/2009-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

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

I.D. Act. 1947

Reference No. 40 of 2009

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 Employer :

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman :

Sri K.N. Singh, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 13/5/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/47/2009 IR-(CM-I), dated 09/07/

2009 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in

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

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

Disputes Act. 1947, referred the following disputes for

adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Welfare

Department of M/s BCCL, Koyla Bhawan in not

providing employment to dependant of Shri Prahlad

Mishra, Office Superintendent, under the provision

of NCWA clause 9.4.0 is justified and legal? (ii) To

what relief is the dependant of Shri Prahlad Misshra

entitled?"

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

17.07.2009. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the Sponsoring Union for the workman files their

written statement on 30.09.2009. After long delay the

management also files written statement-cum-rejoinder on

02.04.2012. Management's document marked as M-1 to

M-6. One witness examined from each side.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2985

3. The Short point to be decided in the case as to whether

the dependant son of the disabled workman Prahalad Mishra

is to get job in place of his father.

4. The workman submitted that as he was disabled that

was almost blind his dependant son is to get a job.

5. On the other hand the management submitted that

the workman was retired after completion of his job,

therefore there is no provision in NCWA to give job to the

dependant son after retirement.

6. The workman in his evidence has clearly stated that,

he retired after attaining 60 years age and he further stated,

that he has already received all his retirement benefits.

Therefore giving his dependant son in job through

backdoor is not at all warranted.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Welfare

Department of M/s BCCL, Koyla Bhawan in not providing

employment to dependant of Shri Prahlad Mishra, Office

Superintendent, under the provision of NCWA clause 9.4.0

is justified, Hence his claim is refused, and he is not entitled

to get any relief.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1398-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; u- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 5@2015½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@151@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1398-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2015)

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

26.06.2015.

[No. L-20012/151/2014-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. 05 of 2015.

Employer in relation to the management of W.W. Zone of

M/s. BCCL,

AND

Their workmen.

Present:

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman

Shri S.S. De, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 05/05/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/151/2014-IR (C-1), dated 12/02/2015,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of Moonidih

Coal Washery under W.W. Zone of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd.

in not regularizing Sri Ramesh Prasad in Clerical Grade

is fair and justified, To what relief the concerned

workmen is entitled?"

2. This case is received from the Ministry on 19.02.2015.

After receipt of the reference, the Sponsoring Union for

the workman is appears and files a petition, submits their in

that the management is fulfill the demand of the workman

and regularized him, Now disputes have been resolved in

the meantime, Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1399-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;y;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2014½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@25@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

2986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1399.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2014) 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 26/06/2015.

[No. L-20012/25/2014-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. 41 of 2014

Employer in relation to the management of Lodna Area

of M/s. BCCL,

AND

Their workmen

Present:

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

Shri S.C. Gour Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 05/05/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/25/2014-IR (C-I), dated 22/04/2014,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of North

Tisra Colliery, Lodna Area of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. is not

regularizing Sri Mahendra Kumar Deo, Elec. Helper

to the post of office Asstt. And typist in clerical Grade

II is fair and justified, to what relief the concerned

workmen is entitled?"

2. This case is received from the Ministry on 05.05.2014.

After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed, though

they took steps for certain dates, the Sponsoring Union

for the workman is appears and files a petition, submits

that the management is fulfill the demand and regularized

him. Now disputes between parties have been resolved in

the meantime, hence no dispute award is passed.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1400-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,Ykñ 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;y;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@239@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1400-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2004

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 26/06/2015.

[No. L-20012/239/2003-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. 26 of 2004

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area

M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present:

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances

For the Employers

Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 11/5/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/239/2003-IR (C-I), dated 12/03/2004,

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

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2987

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Godhur

Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL in

denying employment to Sri Hari Surendra Nonia

claiming to be dependant son of Late Panwa Kamin

is fair and justified? If not, to what relief is Sri Hari

Surendra Nonia, the said dependant of Late Panwa

Kamin entitled?"

2. This case is received from the Ministry Labour &

Employment on 19.04.2004. After receipt of reference, both

parties are noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 27.07.2004. The management files their written

statement on 24.03.2005. One witness each has been

examined from both side. Document marked as W-1 to W-3

by the workman. The management is also files four

documents.

3. The short point to be decided in this reference is that

Sri Hari Surendra Nonia is dependant or not of Late Panwa

Kamin.

4. The applicant raised the dispute, that he is the

dependant son of late Panwa Kamin and as such he is to be

engaged in place of her deceased mother as per the

provision of the NCWA.

5. On the other hand the management submitted that

the applicant is not the son of deceased workman Late

Panwa Kamin and as such not entitled for job under it.

6. It is submitted by the management for getting death

benefits including job, the applicant approached the

Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Court ordered to grant

death monetary benefit to the legal heir and to decide,

whether the applicant is entitled to job and to give reasoned

order.

7. The management after enquiry found that the applicant

not the son of the deceased workman but the son of the

husband's brother of the deceased workman.

8. The applicant has not submitted any authentic

documents or photo I.D. Card to prove his parentage nor

he produced such documents either at the enquiry or before

this Tribunal.

9. Moreover the workman files document marked as

W-1 to W-3. In W-2 there is letter No. and date is not

mentioned nor any signature and seal of office. Therefore

this Tribunal, unable to satisfy himself that the applicant is

the son of he deceased workman.

10. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Godhur Colliery

under Kusunda Area of M/S BCCL in denying employment

to Sri Hari Surendra Nonia claiming to be dependant son of

Late Panwa Kamin is fair. Hence he is not entitled for job,

claim is refused.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1401-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhññlhñ,yñ ds

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

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

U;k;y;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 75@1994½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@79@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1401-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/1994)

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 26/06/

2015.

[No. L-20012/79/1993-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

1947.

Reference No. 75/1994

Employer in relation to the management of Moonidih

Project of M/s. BCCL,

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

Inudstry-Coal

Dated 12/05/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/79/1993-IR (C-I), dated 16/03/1994,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

2988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 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 action of the management of Moonidih

Project under Moonidih Area of BCCL, P.O. Moonidih, Dist.

Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Anand Gope with effect from

24/08/1990 from the service of M/S. BCCL is justified? If

not to what relief the workman is entitled and from which

date?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.

But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

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] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1402-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ ds

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

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

U;k;y;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 114@2003½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@173@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1402-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 114/

2003) 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 26/06/

2015.

[No. L-20012/173/2003-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. 114 of 2003

Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area

of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present:

Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri U.P. Sinha, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Inudstry-Coal

Dated 12/5/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/173/2003-IR (C-I),

dated 10/11/2003, the Central Government in the Ministry

of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the BMS from the

management of P.B. Area of M/S. BCCL for

regularizing S/Shri Nand Kishore Pandey and 26

others (as per list) in the service of the company is

justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned

workmen entitled and from what date?"

Annexure

List of workmen

Nand Kishore Pandey

Rajesh Kumar

Sahadeep Yadav

Bindeshwari Pd. Verma

Kishore Ram

Kamakhaya Pandit

Bijendra Kumar

Jaykumar pandit

Dhananjay Kumar

10.

Sanjay Prasad

11. Arvind Kumar

12.

Shambhu Kr. Sinha

13. Ajay Kumar Sinha

14.

Rajendra Prasad

15. Ashok Prasad

16.

Ram Pukar Prasad

17. Mahabir Yadav

18.

Daya Raaut

19. Uday Ram

20.

Satyadeo Prasad

21. Ranvijay Kr. Singh

22.

Ramkrit Das

23. Bhishm Kumar

24.

Rajesh Ram

25. Dharmendra Kr. Singh

26.

Atul Kr. Singh

27. Sahde Yadav

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

24.11.2003. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed, But after long delay the Sponsoring Union files

their written statement on 24.06.2006. After long delay the

management also files written statement-cum-rejoinder on

28.01.2009. Both side adduce one witness each on their

behalf. Workman's document marked as W-1 & W-2 Series.

3. The short point to be decided in this reference, as to

whether the applicants Sri Nand Kishore Pandey and 26

others are to be regularized under the management of BCCL

or not.

4. It is the case of the workmen that they were engaged

by co-operative society and were engaged in the

underground of the mines.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2989

5. On the other hand the management submitted that

the workman concerned were never engaged by them much

less at under ground. It is submitted that some persons are

trying to enter into job through back door.

6. But in this case the concerned workmen except filing

some chits, unable to file any authentic documents, that

they were either engaged or worked under the management.

The chits filed have not been proved that the concerned

workmen worked under the management.

7. In cross examination of WW-1 the concerned workmen

himself submits that "I can not file any documents to show

that I was a member of Koylanchal servicing co-operative

society. The facts stated in para-2 is correct. I can not

produce any appointment letter give to me by the co-

operative society. No. ID card was given to me. BCCL has

also not given any appointment letter nor any pay slip".

8. Without any authentic document and basis, this

Tribunal is unable to pass order of regularization, specially

when the Tribunal is unable to satisfy himself that the

workman were actually working or not. Therefore the claim

of the workman is not accepted.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the demand of the BMS from the management of

P.B. Area of M/S. BCCL for regularizing S/Shri Nand Kishore

Pandey and 26 others (as per list) in the service of the

company is not justified. Hence they are not entitled to get

any relief.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1403-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVy cSad vkQ

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2] eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼dsñlñvkSñ

vñ 50@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

07@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@50@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015

S.O. 1403-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2006

)of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the industrial

dispute between the management of Central Bank of India,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/07/2015.

[No. L-12011/50/2006-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/50 of 2006

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

The Assistant Manager

Central Bank of India

Mumbai Main Office

M.G. Road

Mumbai- 400023.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The National General Secretary

All India Central Bank Bahujan Samaj

Karmachari Union

Central Bank of India

Mumbai Main Office, Ground floor

Fort,

Mumbai 400023.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employer

MR. L.L. D'Souza

Representative

For the Workmen

Mr. J.H. Sawant,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 9th April, 2015.

AWARD PART -II

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-12011/50/2006-IR (B-II),

dated 04.09.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Mumbai, Main Office, Mumbai in

Imposing the punishment of dismissal from service

on Shri Chandrakant Koli, Clerk is legal and justified?

If not, what relief Shri Chandrakant Koli is entitled

to?"

2. The second party workman was the employee of the

first party Bank. It was alleged that the second party

workman has stolen Bankers cheque leaves, prepared false

vouchers, forged signatures in seven transactions and

committed fraud to the extent of Rs. 4,66,000/- For the said

2990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fraud and misappropriation management lodged Police

complaint. Police arrested the workman and filed charge-

sheet before Metropolitan Magistrate. The workman

requested the management to stay the domestic inquiry till

decision of the criminal case. However, management did

not wait and conducted the domestic inquiry against the

workman. He was held guilty and the disciplinary authority

has terminated the services of the workman. The workman

raised industrial dispute. As conciliation failed, on the basis

of report of ALC @ the Central Labour Ministry sent the

reference to this Tribunal. In Award Part-I the inquiry was

held fair and proper and the findings of the Inquiry Officer

are declared not perverse and the parties were directed to

argue or lead evidence on the point of quantum of

punishment.

3. In this Part-II Award following are the remaining issues

for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the

reasons to follow:

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Is punishment adequate?

Yes.

What order?

As per order below.

REASONS

Issue no. 3:

4. On the point of punishment, it was submitted on behalf

of the second party workman that, the Inquiry Officer did

not give any weightage to the fact that Court of

Metropolitan Magistrate has acquitted him of all the

charges. The point was also reiterated that the management

did not wait and initiated inquiry before the decision of the

Criminal Court. The Criminal Court has examined the

evidence on record and acquitted him.

5. In this respect it was alrady discussed in Part-I award

that, criminal trial and domestic inquiry are two different

actions and can be taken simultaneously. The standard of

proof in criminal case is very high and the charges are

required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts

whereas in the departmental inquiry, mere preponderance

of probablity suffices the purpose. Therefore, the said fact

need not be taken into account specially while considering

the point of punishment. In this respect. Id. adv. for the

first party cited Apex Court ruling in Ajit Kumar Nag V/s.

General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. AIR

2005 SC 4217 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed

that:

"Acquittal by criminal court will not preclude

employer from holding departmental proceedings—

Nor will ipso facto absolve employee from liability

under departmental proceedings of employer

company."

6. In short, the fact of acquittal by Crimnal Court does

not extend any help to the second party while considering

the point of punishment.

7. In this respect the Id. adv. for the first party submitted

that the workman was employee of a Bank and high degree

of honesty and integrity is expected from the employees of

the Bank. In support of his argument Id. adv. cited Apex

Court ruling in Union of India V/s. Bhihari Lal Sidhana 1997

(3) LLM 73. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect

of reinstatement of Govt. Servant, accused of defalcation

of public money observed that,

'Reinstatement would be a charter for him to indulge

with impunity in misappropriation of public money."

8. The Id. adv. further submitted that when the employee

is found guilty and the employer has lost confidence such

an employee cannot be continued in the service of the

establishment. In support of his argument Id. adv. cited

Apex Court ruling in U.P. State Road Corporation V/s.

Mohan Lal Gupta Ors. 2000 III CLR 407 wherein Apex Court

on the point observed that:

"The employee has been found guilty of

misappropriation and in such an event if the appellant

Corporation loses its confidence vis-a-vis the

employee, it will be neither proper not fair on the part

of the Court to substitute the finding and confidence

of the employer with that of its own in allowing the

reinstatement."

9. In this respect the Id. Adv. for the second party has

submitted that, there is no previous reocrd of misconduct,

therefore, terminating the service for the first misconduct

is shockingly disproportionate. In this respect the Id. Adv.

for the first party submitted that, once misappropriation or

fraud is proved, it is not necessary to consider the past

record of the employee and court cannot substitute the

penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. In support

of his argument the Id. Adv. cited Apex Court ruling in

Janatha Bazaar V/s Secretary Sahakari Naukrara Sangha

etc. 2000 III CLR 568 wherein Hon'ble Court on the point

observed that:

"In case of proved misappropriation, there is no

question of considering past record. It is the

discretion of the employer to consider the same in

appropriate cases."

In the same ruling the Hon'ble Court further observed

that:

"Law is well-settled that once act of misappropriation

is proved may be for a small or large amount, there is

no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and

reinstating the employee in service and as such

impugned order passed by High Court and the award

of Labour Court are set aside."

10. In the light of the facts discussed hereinabove and

the Apex Court rulings, I come to the conclusion that, in

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2991

the case at hand when workman was found guilty of

misappropriation, no uncalled sympathy can be shown to

him. Accordingly, I hold that the order of termination cannot

be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved

misconduct. Accordingly I decide this issue No. 3 in the

affirmative that punishment is adequate. Consequently I

hold that the workman is not entitled to any relief prayed

for. Thus I pass the following order.

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

Date: 09.04.2015

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1404-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk 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; eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼dsñlñvkSñvñ 11@2008½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07&07&2005 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@106@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015

S.O. 1404-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2008)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2

Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the management of Canara Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

07-07-2015.

[No. L-12012/106/2007-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERFENCE NO. CGIT-2/11 of 2008

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF CANARA BANK

The Deputy General Manager

Canara Bank

Disciplinary Authority Disciplinary Action Cell

13th floor, Maker Tower 'E'

Cuffe Parade

Mumbai- 400005.

AND

Their Workman

Shri Chandrakant G. Kawle

Shivshankar Nagar

Salt Pan Road

Near Sonali Classes

Wadala

Mumbai - 400052.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

MR. S.V. Alva,

Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. J.H. Sawant,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 12th December, 2014

AWARD PART -II

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-12012/106/2007-IR (B-II),

dated 28.01.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank in imposintg the punishment of Dismissal

without Notice on Shri Chandrakant G. Kawle, sub-

staff vide Order dated 29.01.2003 is legal, proper and

proportionate to the gravity of misconduct allegedly

committed by Shri Chandrakant G. Kawle? If not, to

what relief Shri Chandrakant G. Kawle is entitled to

and from which date and what other orders are

necessary in the matter?"

2. The workman was serving as sub-staff in the first

party Bank. He was chargesheeted for having stolen an

amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the strong room of the Bank

where he was employed. He kept an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/

- in between the glass door and main gate of the Bank. It is

alleged that Police recovered an amount of Rs. 45,000/-

from the residence of the workman. The Inquiry Officer

held the workman guilty and on his report the disciplinary

authority dismissed the workman from service without

notice. Criminal case was also lodged against the workman

wherein the criminal court acquitted him. The workman

raised the industrial dispute. In this reference in Part-I Award

the inquiry was held fair and proper and findings of the

Inquiry Officer were declared not perverse. Both the parties

were directed to argue or lead evidence on the point of

quantum of punishment. Both the parties have submitted

their written arguments on the point of punishment. They

are at Ex.-28 and 29.

3. In this Part-II Award following are the remaining issues

for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the

reasons to follow:

2992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether the punishment

Partly affirmative

of dismissal from service

is shockingly disproportionate

to the proved misconduct?

Whether second party

workman is entitled to be

reinstated with back-wages?

What order?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Issues nos. 3 & 4.

4. In respect of the punishment it is submitted on behalf

of the workman that the Metropolitan Magistrate has

acquitted him and due consideration should be given to

the judgement of Metropolitan Magistrate who has

acquitted him. In this respect at the outset I would like to

point out that law on the point is well settled by various

Apex Court rulings that the yardstick and standard of proof

in criminal case is different from the disciplinary proceeding.

Criminal case is required to be proved beyond all reasonable

doubts whereas in departmental inquiry, preponderance of

probability suffices the purpose to prove the guilt. On the

point detailed discussion is in the Part-I Award wherein

two Apex Court ruling were also cited and relied upon. In

short, the order of acquittal in a criminal trial is not at all

helpful to the second party workman.

5. In this respect it was submitted on behalf on the first

party that the second party was serving in a Bank who is

custodian of public money and employee of the Bank is

expected to be honest and trustworthy. Therefore it was

submitted on behalf of the first party that, the punishment

of dismissal without notice cannot be called shockingly

disproportionate and the Tribunal should not interfere

therein. In this respect I fully agree with the submission

that no dishonest person should be employee in any Bank

and when charges of theft and misappropriation are proved

against the workman, question of his reinstatement in the

service does not arise. At the same time the Id. Adv. for the

second party invited my attention that the wokrman was

serving as a sub staff. He is a very poor person. He also

pointed out that though an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs was

taken away, same night an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- was

kept back. The Id. Adv. for the second party also submitted

that extreme poverty is the reason of such dishonesty.

Therefore he prays that leniency may kindly be shown to

the workman. He further submitted that workman has also

admitted the guilt and most of the amount misapproriated

or stolen was deposited in the Bank and the Bank has not

substained any monetary loss. These facts should be taken

into account. I do appreciate the fact that workman has

come from a poor background and may be in dire need of

money. However, as an employee of the Bank, his action

cannot be jusified. Therefore though he is not entitled to

be reinstated looking into the social and financial poor

background of the second party and the fact that he has

admitted the guilt and most of the amount is already

recovered instead of dismissing the second party from

services, to meet the end of justice I think it proper that

such a poor person should not be further deprived of

financial benefits such as gratuity and other pensionary

benefits. His act of theft/misappropriation occurred due to

poverty and dire need of money. It will not be proper to

drag the poor into more poverty especially when he has

repented and admitted the guilt. Therefore on humanitarian

ground instead of dismissal from service, I think it proper

that, he should be made to retire compulorily with all

pensionary benefits so that he can get gratuity and all

other pensionary benefits. Accordingly I decide this issue

no. 3 partly in the affirmative and issue no. 4 in the negative.

Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) Reference is partly allowed with no order as to

cost.

(ii) The punishment of dismissal from service is set

aside and substituted by punishment of

compulsory retirement with all pensionary

benefits.

Date: 12.12.2014

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2014

dkñvkñ 1405-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eqEcbZ iÙku

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼dsñlñvkSñvñ&3@2007½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@07@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015

S.O. 1405-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Mumbai

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07/07/2015.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2993

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-2/3 OF 2007

(Arising out of Ref. CGIT-2/78 of 2003)

Transport & Dock Workers Union

P.D'mello Bhavan

P.D'mello Road

Carnac Bunder

Mumbai 400038.

...Complainant

V/s

Mumbai Port Trust

Port House,

S.V. Marg

Ballard Estate,

Mumbai 400038.

...Opponent

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

No appearance.

FOR THE OPPONENT

Mr. Umesh Nabar,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 10th April, 2015

AWARD

This Complaint is filed under Section 33-A of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter for brevity referred as I.D.

Act. According to the complainant the opposite parties

has violated the provision of I.D. Act by issuing orders

and thereby changing the service condition of the Tally

Clerks concerned in the Ref. CGIT-2/78 of 2003 during the

pendency of the reference. In the month of July 2004, the

seniority ratings of 47 Tally Clerks have been altered by

the Opposite party by placing the said Tally Clerks below

junior persons and thereby adversely altering the seniority

of the present Tally Clerks. Therefore complainant prays

that the opposite party be restrained from altering the

seniority ratings of the Tally Clerks either by way of

promotion or by implementing the Rota System and to quash

and set aside the altered promotion notice dt. 8/1/2007.

2. Opposite Party resisted the complaint by filing their

written statement at Ex-5. The Opposite Party denied that

they have contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the

I.D. Act as alleged by the complainant union. They denied

that the promotions were given wrongly to the employees.

According to them the promotions were given in

accordance with the Rules for Promotion and on the basis

of merit-cum seniroity of the eligible employees. Therefore

they pray that the complaint be disposed of.

3. This Complaint was filed on 29/03/2007. Thereafter

complainant filed application for interim relief (Ex-6). The

matter was kept for hearing on Ex-6. Since complainant

remained absent, orders were passed on Exhibit-6 on

01.07.2010 for keeping the application with main complaint.

Thereafter matter was adjourned for filing affidavit by the

complainant. Even after number of adjournments

complainant failed to lead their evidence and "No affidavit

from complainant" order was passed on 01.03.2012. On

23/08/2012 opposite party filed purshis stating that they

did not wish to lead oral evidence.

4. Meanwhile on 19.10.2011 Award was passed in Ref.

CGIT-2/78 of 2003. Complaint was to be disposed of as

complainant was not interested in pursuing the matter. The

complaint remained pending inadvertenly. Same was

brought to my notice after carrying out physical verification

of pending cases. Since the complainant is absent, the

complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, I think it proper

to dispose of the same. Thus the order:

ORDER

The complaint stands dismissed with no order as to

cost.

Date: 10/04/2015

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1406-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

LVkj esuVkbZe vtu'kh izkbosV fyñ 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; eqacbZ ds iapkV

¼dsñlñvkSñvñ&41@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 07@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&31011@06@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015

S.O. 1406-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 41/2006) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s Areebee

Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 07/07/2015.

[No. L-31011/06/2006-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/41 OF 2006

2994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Employers in relation to the Management of

1. Areibee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

2. Zim Integrated Shipping Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.

The Director

M/s. Arebee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

Raheja Centre Point, 3rd floor

294, CST Road,

Near Mumbai University,

Santacruz (E),

Mumbai-400 098.

M/s. Zim Integrated Shipping Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Raheja Centre Point, 3rd Floor

294, CST Road,

Near Mumbai University,

Santacruz (E),

Mumbai-400 098.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary

Transport and Dock Worker's Union

P.D'mello Bhavan

Carnac Bunder

Mumbai-400 038.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYERS :

Mr. S.D. Rege, Advocate.

FOR THE UNION

Mr. A.M. Koyande,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 9th April, 2015.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-31011/6/2006-IR (B-II), dated

29.06.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the

following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

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

Areebee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Macwan

w.e.f. 07.12.2003 is justified? If not, what relief the

workmen, Shri Ramesh Macwan is entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were served

with notice. In response to the notice second party union

filed its Statement of claim at Ex-7. First party resisted the

statement of claim of the union by filing written statement

at Ex-8. Thereafter by Ex-18, first party management sought

amendment in the written statement and consequent to

that union also amended their statement of claim by

impleading M/s. Zim integrated Shipping Services (I) Pvt.

Ltd. as a party to this reference. Issues were again framed

at Ex-26 after amendment in Statement of claim and Written

Statement. The matter was fixed for hearing on 18/05/2015.

3. Today both parties remained present and by

Application Ex-28 requested to take the matter on today's

board. Orders were passed on Ex-28 allowing the

application. Both parties filed joined purshis at Ex-29 stating

that the reference may be disposed of as the matter is settled

and they do not want to pursue the reference further. Hence

the order:

ORDER

Referene stands disposed of as settled and withdrawn.

Date: 09.04.2015

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1407-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eqEcbZ iÙku

U;kl 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; eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼dsñlñvkSñvñ&1@2015½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015

S.O. 1407-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1/2015) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Mumbai

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07-07-2015.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-2/1 OF 2015

(Arising out of Ref. CGIT-2/13 of 2015)

The General Secretary

MbPT General Workers Union

Kavarana Building, 1st floor

26/4, P.D'mello Road

Wadi Bunder, Masjid(E)

Mumbai 400 009

...Complainant

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 11] 2015@vk"kk<+ 20] 1937

2995

V/s

The Chairman

Mumbai Port Trust

Port House, 2nd floor, S.V. Marg

Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001.

Shri Ravi Parmar, IAS, Chairman

Mumbai Port Trust

Port House, 2nd floor, S.V. Marg

Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001.

Shri Nitin Borvankar, Chief Mechanical Engineer

Mumbai Port Trust

Mazgaon,

Mumbai-400 010

...Opponents

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Mr. V. Narayanan,

Mr. V.S. Naik,

Representatives.

FOR THE OPPONENTS

Mr. Umesh Nabar,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 6th April, 2015.

AWARD

This Complaint is filed under Section 33-A of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter for brevity referred as I.D.

Act. According to the complainant the opposite parties

has violated the provision of I.D. Act by issuing orders

and thereby changing the service condition of Shri Ajay

Appa Kadam and Shri Genubhau Mahadeo Auti (concerned

workmen in Ref. CGIT-2/13 of 2015) during the pendency

of the conciliation proceedings. The Opposite parties on

5/3/2015 by a transfer letter indicating demotion from

Wiremen to Mazdoor directed both the above workmen to

report at Butcher Island from their earlier posting i.e. Pir

Pau. Therefore complainant prays to direct the MbPT

management (opposite parties) to restore their posting as

Wiremen in the OPL Pirpau as per their promotion and

posting no. BI/DPC/800 dt. 27.12.2013.

2. By application dt. 25/03/2015 (Ex-7) complainant

requested to take matter on board of 25/03/2015. After

passing orders on Ex-7, matter was taken on board and

since opponents were absent, matter was adjourned to

27/03/2015 with notice to Opponents, matter was again

adjourned to 6/4/2015. On 6/4/2015, Opponent filed

application (Ex-12) to dispose of the complaint as the

relieving orders dt. 5/3/2015 is withdrawn, without

prejudice to their rights and contentions in Ref. CGIT-2/13

of 2015. Complainant endorsed their say on Ex-12. Orders

passed on Ex-1 as per Ex-12. In the circumstances complaint

deserves to be disposed of. Thus the order:

ORDER

The complaint stands dismissed with no order as to

cost.

Date: 06/04/2015

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1408-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vªk

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

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

U;k;ky;] eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼dsñ lñ vkSñ vñ& 9@2014½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@82@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi the 7th July, 2015

S.O. 1408-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 9/2014) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 2,

Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/07/2015.

[No. L-12011/82/2013-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/9 OF 2014

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

The Dy. General Manager

Bank of Maharashtra

Pune City Region Yashomangal

F.C. Road

Pune.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN.

The General Secretary

Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari Sangh

185, Shaniwar Peth

Pune-411 030.

2996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 11, 2015/ASADHA 20, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES:

For the Employer

No appearance

For the Union/Workman

No appearance

Mumbai, dated the 20th March, 2015.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-12011/82/2013-IR (B-II),

dated 07.02.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Maharashtra, Dehugaon branch by not filling the

vacancy of Head Cashier since December 2006 and

depriving the eligible person for getting functional

allowance is justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to

both the parties. Notices were served on Union vide Ex- 3

& again vide Ex-5 Till date, neither second party union nor

concerned workman appeared in the proceeding or filed

their statement of claim. Since nobody appeared on behalf

of the union and filed statement of claim, it seems they are

not interested in pursuing the matter further. Without

statement of claim award cannot be passed on merits.

Therefore I think it proper to dismiss the reference for want

of prosecution. Thus I pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

No order as to cost.

Dated: 20.03.2015

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1409-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky;] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@125@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015

S.O. 1409-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 36/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

7-7-2015.

[No. L-12012/125/2006-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk 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. 36/2007

Employer in relation to the management of

Bank of India, Hazaribagh

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-Banking

Dated

12/6/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/125/2006 IR (B-II) dated

06-07-2007, 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 Bank of

India, Nawada Branch (Hazaribagh District) to

terminate Shri Subhash Kumar Lal Badli Sub Staff

from the service of the Bank without adhering to

Bank Rule governing the service condition of Badli

Sub-Staff is legal and justified? If not what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.

But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

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

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.