jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
lañ 32]
ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 2 — vxLr 8] 2015] 'kfuokj@ Jko.k 11—Jko.k 17] 1937
No. 32] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 2 — AUGUST 8, 2015, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 11—SRAVANA 17, 1937
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g vyx ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk ldsA
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=ky;ksa ¼j{kk ea=ky; dks NksM+dj½ }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/kd vkns'k vkSj vf/klwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015
dk-vk- 1544.—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vfèfu;e] 1934
¼1934 dk 2½ dh èkjk 8 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼?k½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vt; R;kxh]
vij lfpo ¼fuos'k½] vkfFkZd dk;Z foHkkx] foÙk ea=ky; dks rRdky
izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] Jh jktho egf"kZ ds LFkku ij
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds dsUnzh; cksMZ esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA
[Qk- la- 7@2@2012&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1544.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Reserve
Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Ajay Tyagi, Additional Secretary
(Investment), Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of
Finance, to be a Director on the Central Board of Directors
of Reserve Bank of India with immediate effect and until
fruther orders.vice Shri Rajiv Mehrishi.
[F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1545.—jk"Vªh; cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½ Ldhe]
1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh
daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh
èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk 3 ds [kaM ¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye ¼3½ esa
fofufnZ"V O;fDr; dks mDr lkj.kh ds dkye ¼2½ esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr
ds LFkku ij dkye ¼1½ esa fofufnZ"V ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k esa
rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] funs'kd ukfer djrh
gS%—
3223GI/2015
(3267)
3268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Øe
cSad dk uke
orZeku funs'kd dk
izLrkfor O;fDr dk uke
la-
uke
1
2
3
4
1-
;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
Jh nhid fla?ky]
Jh ,- ds- feJk] eq[; egkizcaèd] tksf[ke fuxjkuh foHkkx]
ihlhth,e ,oa vkjMh]
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] Hkw&ry] xkes±V gkÅl] oyhZ]
fnYyh
eqEcbZ&400 018
[Qk- la- 6@3@2011&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015
S.O. 1545.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,
hereby nominates the persons specified in column (3) of
the table below as Director of Union Bank of India specified
in column (1) thereof in place of the person specified in
column (2) of said Table, with immediate effect and until
further orders:—
Sl.
Name of
Name of the
Name of the Persons
No.
the Bank
Existing Director
proposed
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
Union
Shri Deepak
Shri A. K. .Mishra, CGM, Risk
Bank of
Singhal, PCGM
Monitoring Department,
India
& RD, Delhi
Reserve Bank of India,
Ground Floor, Garment
House, Worli
Mumbai-400 018
[F.No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1546.—jk"Vªh; vkokl cSad vfèfu;e] 1987 ¼1987
dk 53½ dh èkjk 6 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½ ,oa èkjk 7 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½
ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 6 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh Jhjke
dY;k.kjeu ¼tUe frfFk% 28-03-1863½ dks in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k
djus dh rkjh[k ls ikap o"kks± dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa
rd] tks Hkh igys gks] 75]500&80]000@& #i, ds osrueku esa jk"Vªh;
vkokl cSad ds izcaè funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zdkjh vfèdkjh ds :i esa
fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qk- la- 7@9@2013&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1546.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with
sub-section (2) of Section 6 of and sub-section (1) of Section
7 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the
Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sriram
Kalyanraman (DoB: 28.03.1963) as Managing Director &
Chief Executive Officer, National Housing Bank in the scale
of pay of Rs. 75,500-80,000/- for a period of five years with
effect from the date of his assumption of charge of the
post, or unitl further order, whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 7/9/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1547.—dsUnzh; ljdkj vkradoknh vkSj fo?kVudkjh
xfrfofè ¼fuokj.k½ vfèfu;e 1987 ¼1987 dk vfèfu;e la[;k
28½ dh èkjk 13 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, mDr vfèfu;e ds varxZr mÙkj izns'k jkT; esa mijksDr vfèfu;e
dh èkjk 9 ds varxZr xfBr ukfer U;k;ky;] dkuiqj esa fnYyh fo'ks"k
iqfyl laBxu }kjk tkap fd, x, ekeyk la[;k vkjlh
10¼,l½@1993&,llh;w&V@,llh&II@lhchvkbZ@ubZ fnYyh ¼,y Mh
vjksMk eMZj dsl½ vkSj mlls tqM+s vFkok mlds lkFk ?kfVr vU;
ekeyksa dks lapkfyr djus ds fy, ,rn~}kjk Jh dqekj jtr] yksd
vfHk;kstd dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qk- la- 225@43@2014&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1547.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of sub-section 13 of the Terrorist and
Distruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, (Act No. 28
of 1987), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri
Kumar Rajat, Public Prosecutor, CBI as Special Public
Prosecutor for conducting trial of RC 10(S)/1993/SCU.V/
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3269
CBI/SPE/New Delhi (L.D. Arora murder case) in the
Designated Court at Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) constituted
under the provisions of Section 9 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Appeals/
Revisions in Appellate/Revisional Court and any other
matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.
[F. No. 225/43/2014-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1548.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh iqfyl LFkkiuk
vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e la[;k 25½ dh èkjk 3 }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fuEufyf[kr vijkèksa dks fnYyh
fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk }kjk tkap gsrq fofufnZ"V djrh gS uker%µ
¼d½ ¼e/; izns'k½ ekU;rkizkIr ijh{kk vfèfu;e] 1937 ¼1937
dk e/; izns'k vfèfu;e la- 10½ ds vèhu fd, x,
naMuh; vijkè rFkk
¼[k½ mi;qZDr vijkè ,oa mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, vFkok mUgha
rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijkè ;k vijkèksa esa fd, x,
iz;kl] nq"izsj.kk,a vkSj "kM~;a=A
[Qk- la- 228@31@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2015
S.O. 1548.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby
specifies the following offences to be investigated by the
Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:—
(a) Offences punishable under The (Madhya
Pradesh) Recognized Examinations Act, 1937
(Madhya Pradesh Act No. X of 1937) and
(b) Attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation
to or in connection with the above mentioned
offences and any other offence or offences
committed in course of the same transaction or
arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/31/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1549.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu
vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e la- 25½ dh èkjk 6 ds lkFk
ifBr èkjk 5 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, >kj[k.M jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] jkaph dh lgefr ls fnukad
19-05-2015 dh vfèlwpuk la- 10@lhchvkbZ&604@2014&2995 ds
rgr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la[;k 45½ dh
èkjk 420] 467 vkSj 468 ds varxZr dksrokyh ¼fgan ih<+h½ iqfyl
LVs'ku esas fnukad 07-09-2014 ds ekeyk la- 797@2014 ds vèhu
Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk
212 ds vèhu dksrokyh ¼fgan ih<+h½ iqfyl LVs'ku ds fnukad
07-09-2014 ds ekeyksa la- 799@2014 esa mijksDr vijkèksa ds lacaè
esa mdlkus vkSj "kM~;a= ds vUos"k.k ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kfèdkj {ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ
>kj[k.M jkT; ij djrh gSA
[Qk- la- 228@60@2014&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2015
S.O. 1549.—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 Jharkhand, Home Department, Ranchi vide
Notification No. 10/C.B.I.-604/2014-2995 dated 19.05.2015,
hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of
the State of Jharkhand for investigation in the Kotwali
(Hind Pidhi) Police Station Case No. 797/2014 dated
07.09.2014 under sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and Kotwali (Hind
Pidhi) Police Station Case No. 799/2014 dated 07.09.2014
under section 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No.
45 of 1860), the abetment and conspiracy in relation to the
above mentioned offences.
[F. No. 228/60/2014-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1550.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu
vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e la- 25½ dh èkjk 6 ds lkFk
ifBr èkjk 5 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, jktLFkku ljdkj] x`g ¼lewg&V½ foHkkx] t;iqj dh lgefr ls
fnukad 21-10-2014 dh vfèlwpuk la- ,Q- 19¼99½ x`g&5@2014
n~okjk v'kksd uxj] iqfyl LVs'ku] ftyk t;iqj nf{k.k esa Hkkjrh; naM
lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la[;k 45½ dh èkjk 420] 467]
468] 471 rFkk 120&[k ds vèhu fnukad 10-06-2014 dks iathd`r
,QvkbZvkj 256@2014 vkSj mDr ekeys esa ?kfVr vU; fdlh vijkè
ds vUos"k.k ds fy, ,rnn~okjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa
dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kfèdkj {ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ jktLFkku jkT; ij
djrh gSA
[Qk- la- 228@73@2014&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2015
S.O. 1550.—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
3270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Government of Rajasthan, Home (Gr. V) Department, Jaipur
vide Notification No. F.19(99) Home-5/2014 dated
21.10.2014, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of
the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to
the whole of the State of Rajasthan for investigation of FIR
No. 256/2014 dated 10.06.2014 under Sections 420, 467, 468,
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kkn~; vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1551.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rnn~okjk
uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vfèlwfpr djrk gS%
vuqlwph
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx
vuq-
o"kZ
mRikn
bdkbZ
U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd
bdkbZ nj
LySc esa
'ks"k
izpkyu frfFk
ekud
Hkkx
cMs iSekus
NksVs iSekus
LySc 1
bdkbZ;ka
la[;k
ij
ij
¼#-½
6419
&
&
1996
lajpuk bLikr dh xSl ifjjf{kr
fdyks
1]79]000-00
1]43]200-00
0-12
lHkh
&
22&06&2015
vkdZ osfYMax ds fy;s osfYMax
xzke
NMsa+ vkSj vukozr bysDVªksM&
fof'kf"V
[lanHkZ% lh,eMh&2@16%6419]
th- xw:pju] egkfuns'kd
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015
S.O. 1551.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the
schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl No. Part
Sec
Year
Product
Units
Minimum Marking Fee
Unit
Units
Remai
Effective
Rate
in
-ning
Date
Large
Small
Slab
Slab-
Scale
Scale
-1
1
6419 -
-
1996
Welding Roads and
KG
1,79,000.00 1,43,200.00
0.12
All
-
22-06-2015
Bare Electrodes for Gas
Shielded Arc Welding
of Structral Steels-
Specification
[Ref : CMD-2/16:6419]
G. GURUCHARAN, Director General
471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of
1860) registered at Police Station, Ashok Nagar, District
Jaipur South or any other offences committed in the course
of the same transaction arising out of the said case.
[F. No. 228/73/2014-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3271
oL= ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 3 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1552.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds
fy,½ jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½ ds
vuqlj.k esa] oL= ea=ky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;]
ftlds 80- ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr
dj fy;k gS] dks vfèlwfpr djrh gS%
Hkkjrh; dikl fuxe fyfeVsM]
Hkouukjk;.k fuy;e fuokl]
dkUosaV jksM] T;ksfr egy gksVy ds lehi]
jk;x<+k&765001 ¼mM+hlk½
[la-bZ&11016@1@2015&fganh]
xhrk ukjk;.k] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2015
S.O. 1552.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Languages (Use for the official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the following office under the aegis of the Ministry of
Textiles, in which more than 80% staff have acquired
working knowledge of Hindi:
The Cotton Corporation of India Limited,
Bhavannarayana Nilayam Nivas,
Convent Road, Near Jyoti Mahal Hotel,
Rayagada-765001 (Odisha)
[No. E-11016/1/2015-Hindi]
GEETA NARAYAN, Jt. Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1553.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWMZusUl QSDVªh ,aM
vkFklZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2014
dk 1½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&14012@30@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015
S.O. 1553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 01/2014
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the industiral
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Ordnance Factory & others and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 21/07/2015.
[No. L-14012/30/2013-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 01 of 2014
Between
Sri Ravi son of Mithai Lal,
Block No. 11,
Kachhi Basti,
Govind Nagar Kanpur.
AND
Senior General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
Kalpi Road,
Kanpur.
Sri Bhupender Singh
Son of Awadhesh Singh Rathore,
EWS 2508 Awas Vikas,
Kalyanpur,
Kanpur & others.
AWARD
1. Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide
notification no. L-14012/30/2013-IR(DU) dated
22.01.2014, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of
Sri Bhupender Singh Kanpur in terminating the
services of Sri Ravi son of Mithai Lal, w.e.f.
10.04.2013 is just fair and legal, If not to what relief
the workman concerned is entitled to?
3. It is alleged by the workman that he was engaged
by the opposite party on 22.02.13 to perform the
work of Safai through contractor Sri Bhupender
Singh, and worked continuously till 24.04.13, when
he was terminated by opposite party no. 1 in an
arbitrary and illegal manner without complying with
the provision of section 25F of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947, in as much as neither any notice,
notice pay nor retrenchment compensation was paid
to him by the opposite parties, therefore, his
termination is in breach of section 25F of the Act
3272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
and accordingly he is entitled for reinstatement with
full back wages, continuity of service and all
consequential benefits.
4. Opposite party no. 2 filed their reply refuting the
claim of the workman on a number of grounds i.e.
that the opposite party no. 2 is not the employer of
the worker as defined under section 2(G) of the
Act, it is not an industry as defined under section
2(j) of the Act, that there had been an contract
between the opposite party no. 1 and 2 and the
applicant during the alleged period had worked for
a few days only and he had never worked
continuously for 240 days, therefore, provisions of
Section 25F is not applicable in his case and the
claim of the worker is liable to be rejected.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite
party no. 2 had filed reply in this case and has
denied the claim of the worker.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that when the case
was taken for hearing on 20.05.2015, the attention
of the tribunal was invited to the affidavit of the
workman paper no. 13/1 in which it is stated by him
that he is not interested in contesting the case and
has prayed that the case be decided as dismissed.
He has also made an endorsement on the order
sheet that neither he shall not file any rejoinder nor
he is willing to adduce any evidence in the case.
Opposite party no. 2 has also made an endorsement
on the order sheet that they too have not to adduce
any evidence in the case.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the present claim of the worker is dismissed
as prayed by him and it is held that the worker is
not entitled for any relief pursuant to the reference
order.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1554.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfdZ;ksykWftdy
losZ vkWQ+ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 2006 dk
56½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@20@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015
S.O. 1554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 56 of
2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Archaeological Survey of India and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 21/07/2015.
[No. L-42012/20/2006-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 56 of 2006
Between—
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh,
Vice President,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress (Intuc),
80 Lauries Complex,
Namner Chauraha,
Agra, U.P.
AND
Superintending Archaeologist
Archaeological Survey of India,
Agra Division,
22, Mall Road,
Agra.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification no. L-42012/20/2006-IR(DU) dated
21.07.06, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of
Archaeological Survey of India, Agra Cricle, 22 Mall
Road, Agra in terminating the services of Sri Keshav
son of Sri Bajrang, Sri Brij Kishore son of Sri Rajo,
Sri Fauram Singh son of Sri Gulab Singh, Sri Ram
Dass son of Sri Mani Ram with effect from
01.10.2004, is legal and justified? If not to what relief
the concerned four workmen are entitled to?
3. The present case was taken up for hearing on
05.02.15, when the Union raising the present dispute
moved an application alleging therein that despite
repeated information given to the workmen
involved in the case did not turn up, therefore, it
appears that the concerned workmen are working
somewhere else. Under these circumstances, the
union has prayed for closing the case.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3273
4. It is made clear here that none of the parties have
adduced their evidence in the case as such
opportunity for evidence was closed by the tribunal
vide order dated 29.10.12.
5. From the above it is quite evident that the union
raising the dispute is not interested to contest the
case. It is also evident that it is a case where none
of the parties have led their evidence.
6. In view of above the tribunal has left with no option
but to decide the reference against the union and
in favour of the management holding that the union
is not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present
reference order.
7. Reference is decided accordingly.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1555.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy gkbZos vFkkWfjVh
vkWQ+ bafM;k ,aM vkFklZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-
2011 dk 86½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@72@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015
S.O. 1555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 86 of
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the National Highway Authority of India
& others and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 21/07/2015.
[No. L-42012/72/2011-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT,
KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 86 of 2011
Between—
Sri Bablu Rai, son of Sri Hari Narain Rai,
Village and Post Aura Gaon,
District Azamgarh.
AND
1. The Project Director,
National Highway Authority of India, Hansraj
Colony, Vaihava, Gandhi Nagar, Malviya Road,
Basti.
2. The Project In-charge
M/s. Nagarjun Construction Company Limited, Site
National Highway No. 28, Project-V Village
Sansaripur, Post Bhadwal, Basti.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-42012/72/2011-IR (DU) dated
19.09.2011 has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of M/s. Nagarjun Construction
Company Basti, working under the Principal
Employer ship of Project Director National Highway
Authority of India, Basti, in terminating the services
of Sri Bablu Rai, Grader Operator with effect from
23.05.08 is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?
3. In the instant case after receipt of reference several
notices were issued to the parties concerned
workman appeared in the case and filed his
statement of claim on 06.03.13 and likewise opposite
party no. 2 also filed its objection against the claim
filed by the workman.
4. From perusal of the order sheet it appears that
representative for the worker is not attending the
proceedings of the case and from the side of
opposite party his representative is attending the
case. Workman after availing of sufficient
opportunity in the case did not turn up for his
evidence and he also did not file any document in
support of his claim.
5. Therefore, it is clear that the workman is not
interested to press his claim before the tribunal as
such no option is left before the tribunal except to
decide the reference against the workman.
6. Accordingly reference is decided against the
workman and the workman is not entitled for any
relief for want of evidence and proof.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1556.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy FkeZy
ikoj dkjiksjs'ku] lksuHknz ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV
3274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
¼lanHkZ la[;k 2011 dk 73½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@68@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015
S.O. 1556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 73/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the management
of the NTPC Sonebhadra and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 21/07/2015.
[No. L-42012/68/2011-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 73/2011
Between—
1. Sri Sarabjeet Ram,
Son of Sri Shanker Prasad,
Villege Bichchi, Post Bichchi,
Robertsganj, District-Sonebhadra.
AND
The General Manager, In-charge,
NTPC, Rihand Nagar Power Project,
Rihand Nagar, District Sonebhadra.
2. The General Manger,
M/s. U B Engineering Limited, Sahyadri Sadan,
Tilak Road, Pune.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-42012/68/2011 IR (DU) dated
02.08.2011 has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of M/s. U.B.
Engineering Limited, Pune, who worked under the
Prinicipal Employer-ship of NTPC, Rihand Power
Project, Rihand District Sonbhadra, in terminating
the services of Sri Sarabjeet Ram, helper with effect
from 30.12.90 is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?
3. In the instant case after exchange of pleadings
between the parties, the workman stopped attending
the proceedings of the case nor did he appear for
his evidence oral or documentary. Management of
NTPC appeared on each and every date before the
tribunal in the present proceedings of the case.
4. Therefore, from the conduct of the workman it is
amply clear that he is not interested in prosecuting
his case.
5. As such the reference is answered against the
workman and in favour of the management for want
of evidence.
6.
Reference is answered accordingly.
RAM PRAKASH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1557.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj 509 vkehZ csl
odZ'kkWIl] vkxjk dSaV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 2011 dk 95½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&14011@05@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015
S.O. 1557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 95 of
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the 509 Army Base Workshops, Agra
Cantt. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 21/07/2015.
[No. L-14011/05/2011-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Present Sri Shubhendra kumar, HJS
Industrial Dispute No. 95 of 2011.
Between—
There General Secretary,
509 Employee Union
509 ABW Agra.
AND
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3275
The Commandant & Managing Director,
509 Army Base Workships,
Agra Cantt.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification no. L-114011/05/2011-IR (DU) dated
14.10.2011, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal-
2. Whether the action of the management i.e. The
Commandant & Managing Director, 509 Army Base
Workshop, Agra Cantt. for granting of 2nd ACP to
eligible employees of 509 ABW Agra is just and
according to Govt. orders (DOPT)? What relief the
concerned employees as claimed by the Union are
entitled to?
3. In this case after receipt of the reference order from
the Ministry several Opportunities were provided
to the contesting parties but neither anyone
appeared on behalf of the union nor filed their claim.
4. From the perusal of whole record of the case it is
clear that even the union raising the dispute on
behalf of their workers have not filed any authority
letter in the case authorizing any one to represent
the caps before the tribunal. Rather the opposite.
party has filed letter of authority in the case. It is
also very much clear that the union has filed
repreated application for adjournment in the case
but has never moved any application for granting
time to file claim statement in the case.
5. Therefore, from the conduct of the Union it is quite
apparent that the Union is not interested in
prosecuting the present case before the tribunal.
6. Accordingly a no claim award in the case is passed
against the union as they are not interested in
pressing the present reference before this tribunal
for want of pleading and proof.
7. The reference is therefore, answered against the
union holding that they are not entitled for any
relief pursuant to the present refence order.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR,Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1558.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhfu;j DokfyVh
vLlqjk.k ds LFkkiuk ¼Leky vkElZ½] dkuiqj ds izcaèra= ds lac)
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2014 dk 112½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&14012@22@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015
S.O. 1558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 112 of
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Senior Quality Assurance
Establilshment (Small Arms), Kanpur and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on 21/07/
2015.
[No. L-14012/22/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
KANPUR
Industrial dispute No. 112 of 2014
Between—
Smt. Kanak Lata Singh,
G/1/T/1138 Armapore Estate,
Post Armapore, Kanpur, U.P.
AND
The Senior Quality Assurance Officer,
Sr. Quality Assurance Estt. (Small Arms)
Armapore, Kanpur. 208009
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delh, vide
notification No. L-14012/22/2014-IR (DU) dated
16.09.2014, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of SQAO
(SA) in not allowing to join the post to Smt. Kanak
Lata Singh, LDC/Record Clerk O/o SQAO(SA)
Kanpur and not paying salary without assigning
any reason is just and fair? If not what relief the
complainant workman is entitled to?
3. Worker has not filed any claim in response to the
issue of notice after receipt of the reference instead
worker has moved an application paper no. 6/1,
stating that she has already filed OA No. 841/14
before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad,
wherein the issue raised in the reference order is
also a point of controversy to be decided by
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad.
4. She has further alleged that she does not want to
contest the present reference in view of pendency
of the same issue before Central Administrative
3276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Tribunal Allahabad, therefore, she has prayed to
dismiss the present I.D. Case.
5. Management has filed objection against reference
order paper No. 1/1 praying that the reference in
question may be dismissed with costs.
6. Here it may be pointed out that tribunal is not
clothed with the powers to dismiss the reference
order made to it by the appropriate government for
decision. If the management is inclined to get
reference order dismissed it is open for them to
raise the question before appropriate forum but in
any case the reference order cannot be dismissed
by this tribunal as prayed by the opposite party.
7. Considering above facts this tribunal is of the view
that neither this reference can be dismissed as
prayed by the management nor the reference can
be returned unanswered.
8. As the worker has either filed any pleading nor has
adduced any evidence and is not ready to contest
the present case on the ground that similar issue is
pending before Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad.
9. In view of above the present reference is decided
against the worker and in favour of the opposite
party without grating any relief to the worker.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1559.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tokgj uoksn;
fo|ky;] Xokfy;j ds izcaèra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@164@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@219@98&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015
S.O. 1559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.
CGIT/LC/R/164/99) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labourt-Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya, Gwalior and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 21/07/2015.
[No. L-42012/219/98-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/164/99
Shri Lakhanlal Kushwah,
Vill. Garhi, PO Sukha Parhi,
Tehsil Dabra,
Distt. Gwalior
.... Workman
Versus
Principal,
Jawahar Navoydaya Vidyalaya,
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Govt. of India, Pichore Dabra, Gwalior
.... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of June, 2015
1. As per letter dated 16-20/4/99 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-42012/219/98/IR(DU). The
dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of
Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Gwalior
in terminating the services of Shri Lakhanlal
Kushwah is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at
Page 1/1 to 1/3. Case of workman is that he was
appointed as cook by IInd party No. 2 in October,
1994. Workman performed his duties honestly. On
14-2-98, his services were orally terminated without
assigning any reasons. Workman further submits
that he belongs to backward class. His services are
terminated by victimization. He was not served
one month's notice neither he was paid one month's
pay in lieu of notice. As workman had requested
for regularization of his service, IInd party got
annoyed an orally terminated him. IInd party did
not pay retrenchment compensation. Termination
of his service is in violation of Section 25-F.G.H of
ID Act. That he completed 240 days continous,
service. His services are terminated illegally. On
above contentions workman prays for his
reintstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to
5/3 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3277
submits that workman was not appointed. Any
appointment letter was not received by IInd party.
From October, 94, workman was engaged on daily
wages as per exigencies. He was paid wages for his
working days. On 14-2-98, when teachers told
workman to fill drinking water for children, workman
misbehaved with them, used unhealthy language.
It is reiterated that workman was engaged on daily
wages, he was not regularly appointed. Workman
was not covered under ID Act. Workman has made
false allegations to take undue advantage. Services
of workman were not terminated, the allegations of
workman are imaginary.
4. Rejoinder is filed by workman at Page 6/1 to 6/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
That his services were terminated without notice.
IInd party has not disclosed break in his service.
That IInd party had not allowed him on duty.
Workman has shown his 243 working days in para
5 of the rejoinder.
5. It is also seen that further Written Statement is filed
at Page 17/1 to 17/3. IInd party submits that it is
discharging sovereign functions regarding
education in school, it is not an industry. IInd party
has adopted Civil Service Rules, the reference is
not tenable. That cases relating to service matters
of Navodaya. Vidyalaya were decided by CAT as
per Administrative Tribunal Act, 1995. The
notification dated 17-12-98 under section 14(2)
provides for transfer of cases to Central
Adiministrative Tribunal w.e.f. the date on which
jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal in relation
to any other court/authority. IInd party reiterates
that workman has not completed 240 days
continuous service. Workman is not entitled to
retrenchment compensation.
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 dispute under
reference is tenable?
In Affirmative
(ii) Whether the action of the
management of Principal
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Gwalior in terminating the
services of Shri lakhanlal
Kushwah is legal and
justified?
In Negative
(iii) If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to ?"
As per final
orders.
REASONS
7. The terms of reference pertains to legality of
termination of services of workman. The reference
is made as per order dated 16-4-99 by Government
of India, Ministry of Labour. The order of reference
is not challenged by IInd party. Ist party workman
claimed that he was appointed as cook. Apparently
there is no pleading that workman was engaged in
discharging of managerial work. Therefore workman
is covered under Section 2(s) of ID Act. IInd party
has not advanced any argument to substantitate
his contentions about bar of jurisdiction of this
Tribunal therefore I record my finding in point No.1
in Affirmative.
8. Point No. 2- workman filed affidavit of evidence.
He has stated that he was appointed in October, 97
as Mess Cook Helper in IInd party. His services
were orally terminated on 14-2-98. In para-3 of his
affidavit, workman has shown his working days.
That he had completed more than 240 days service,
he was not served with notice, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to him. From his
evidence, documents Exhibit W-1 to W-6 are
admitted. In Exhibit W-1, there is reference about
action to be taken for appointment of workman on
the post of cook. In Exhibit W-2, 3 certificates issued
by Mess Incharge, it is shown that workman had
worked for 81 days from 1-10-94. In Exhibit W-4,
principal has certified that workman was working
in the mess from October, 94. Exhibit W-5 is legal
notice issued by workman. Exhibit W-6 is copy of
reply filed to the legal notice issued by workman
denying engagement of workman. The denial in
Exhibit W-6 is contrary to the contents of document
Exhibit W-2 to W-4.
9. Workman in his cross-examination says that he
worked with IInd party from 1994 to 14-2-98.
Appointment letter was not given to him. He denies
suggestion that he remained absent from work
without intimation. Management did not examine
any witness to substantiate its contentions that
workman abandoned job. Therefore reliance is
placed in case of G.T. Lad and other versus Chemicals
and Fibres of India Ltd. relied by learned counsel
for workman Shri N.B. Sharma need no detailed
discussion. In cross- examination of workman, there
is no suggestion that workman had not completed
240 days continuous service. The engagement of
workman by IInd party is corroborated by document
Exhibit W-1 to W-4. The evidence of workman about
working more than 240 days preceding his
termination is not shattered. His services are
3278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
terminated without notice, no retrenchment was
paid to him. Therefore termination of service of
workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of
ID Act. for above reasons, I record my finding in
point No.2 in Negative.
10. Point No.3- In view of my finding in point No. 2
that termination of service of workman is in violation
of section 25-F of ID Act, question arises whether
workman is entitled for reinstatement with back
wages. The evidence on record shows workman
worked from 1-10-94 to 14-10-98 for more than
3 years. Workman was not given appointment letter.
Considering the period of working, compensation
Rs. 75,000 would be appropriate. Accordingly I
record my finding I Point No. 3.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Principal,
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Gwalior in
terminating the services of Shri Lakhanlal
Kushwah 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 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] 23 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1560.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iksLVekLVj
tujy iz/kku Mkd?kj] dkuiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la- 2012 dk 10½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
21-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40011@33@2012&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015
S.O. 1560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 10 of
2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Post Master General, Head Post
Office, Kanpur and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 21.07.2015.
[No. L-40011/33/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 10 of 2012
Between
Shri Hardwar Sharma,
Son of Late Phool Chand Sharma,
Resident of D-355 Barra World Bank Colony,
Kanpur
AND
Post Master General,
Head Post Office, Kanpur.
AWARD
1. Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-40011/33/2012-IR(DU) dated
09.01.2012, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of Post
Master General, Department of Post, Kanpur, in not
according benefits of Group C employee with effect
from April, 1987 to Shri Hardwar Sharma, Carpenter,
posted in CSD, Kanpur is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled?
3. At the outset it may be pointed out here that there
appears a major mistake in the statement of claim
and is going outside the scope of reference order.
To make it clear it may be mentioned here that from
the reference order it is crystal clear that denial of
benefits of group C employee by the department to
the workman with effect from April, 1987, is justified
or not whereas the workman in his claim statement
has claimed the above benefit with effect from
21.09.87, therefore, the relief claimed by the workman
in the present case is outside the reference order. A
labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or the National
Tribunal, as the case may be, is required not to
travel beyond the reference order in terms of sub
section (4) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, therefore, the relief claimed by the
workman in the instant case is misconceived and
cannot be entertained at the hands of the tribunal.
4. Be that as it may, the workman has filed his claim
statement claiming therein that he is entitled to get
the benefit of Group "C" employee being posted as
Carpenter and due to arbitrary action on the part of
the opposite party he was prevented from the above
benefits with effect from 21.09.87.
5. The opposite party has neither filed its reply nor
adduced any evidence in the case, therefore, their
opportunity to file reply and evidence was closed
by the tribunal.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3279
6. The workman has adduced his evidence on
affidavit apart from filling certain documents per
list dated 22.11.2012, but he was not cross examined
by the opposite party as none was present before
the tribunal on 17.05.2013, when the case was taken
up for hearing therefore, opportunity to cross
examine the workman was also closed.
7. Although in the instant case, the evidence of the
workman remains uncontroverted still he could not
be held entitled for any relief for the defects as
pointed out above appearing in his claim statement.
8. As per the notification filed by the workman dated
21.10.87, which is paper No. 5/4, it reveals that by
this notification post of carpenter is treated as
Group 'C' non gazetted, and if workman so desires,
he may make representation before the authorities
of the department claiming the relief as is claimed
by him before this tribunal, and considering the
request of the claimant, the authorities in its wisdom
may grant the relief to the workman.
9. For the above discussion, the claim of the workman
is not found to be maintainable and accordingly it
is held that the workman is not entitled for any
relief pursuant to the present reference order.
10. Reference is answered accordingly against the
workman and in favour of the management.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1561.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkjphyksftdy losZ
vkWQ bafM;k] vkxjk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la- 61@12] 62@12] 63@12] 64@12] 65@12] 66@12] 67@12]
70@12] 71@12] 72@12] 73@12] 74@12] 75@12 vkSj 91@12½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-07-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@112@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@113@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@114@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@115@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@116@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@117@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@118@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@119@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@120@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@121@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@122@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@123@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&42012@124@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½,
la- ,y&42012@19@2012&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015
S.O. 1561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 61/12,
62/12, 63/12, 64/12, 65/12, 66/12, 67/12, 70/12, 71/12, 72/12,
73/12, 74/12, 75/12 & 91/12) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the
Archaeological Survey of India, Agra and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government
on 21/07/2015.
[No. L-42012/112/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/113/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/114/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/115/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/116/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/117/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/118/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/119/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/120/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/121/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/122/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/123/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/124/2011-IR(DU),
No. L-42012/19/2012-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 74/12, 72/12, 73/12, 75/12,
61/12, 62/12, 63/12, 64/12, 65/12, 66/12, 67/12,
70/12, 71/12 & 91/12.
BETWEEN:
S/Shri Satish Yadav, Laxman,
Shri Yogesh, Shri Ram Nath,
Shri Lokendra, Shri Rakesh,
Shri Pankaj, Shri Vimal Kumar,
Shri Sriniwas, Shri Hariom,
Shri Komal Singh,
Shri Chail Behari,
Shri Vijendra Singh, &
Shri Shiv Shanker.
All C/o Shri Shishu Pal Singh, 119/449, Darshan Purwa,
Kanpur.
3280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
AND
The Superintending Archaeological Chemist,
Archaeological Survey of India,
Northern Zone, Inside Military Gate,
Agra Fort, Agra.
AWARD
1. Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide
Notification No. L-42012/113/115/112/114/2011-
IR(DU) dated 20.07.12, vide Notification No. L-
42012/121/123/124/122/2011-IR(DU) dated
18.07.2012, L-42012/118/117/116/119/120/2011-
IR(DU) dated 19.07.2012 and L-42012/19/2012-
IR(DU) dated 09.10.2012 has referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of Dy.
Superintending Archaeological Chemist,
Archaeological Survey of India, Agra, in terminating
the services of S/Shri Satish Yadav, Shri Laxman,
Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ram Nath, Shri Lokendra,
Shri Rakesh, Shri Pankaj, Vimal Kumar, Shri Sriniwas,
Shri Hariom, Shri Komal Singh, Shri Chail Behari,
Shri Vijendra Singh and Shri Shiv Shanker workmen
with effect from 15.10.05 is just fair and legal? If not
to what relief the workmen concerned is entitled
to?
3. It may be pointed out here that as the schedule of
reference order is common and the date of
termination of the services is also common,
therefore, for the sake of brevity instead of
mentioning separate schedule as common schedule
as above is framed.
4. It is to be noted here that all the above cases have
been consolidated by order dated 04.03.12 of this
tribunal and Industrial Dispute No. 74 of 12 was
made the leading case in which contesting parties
evidence has been recorded.
5. In short the case of the workers involved in all the
above case is that they had been engaged by the
opposite party on 01.12.96 at the post of chemical
cleaner on daily rate basis in Tajmahal Agra. All of
them have completed 240 days of continuous
service in each calendar year. Their services were
terminated by the opposite party with effect from
15.10.2006 without assigning any reason and
without affording notice. Prior to this termination
the oposite party had already terminated their
services with effect from 21.02.04 but on the
intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), Kanpur, the opposite party informed the
said authority vide its letter dated 17.11.04 that the
opposite party are ready to take back in service the
workers involved in the present dispute either on
the same department or in some other department.
Opposite party has given their consent for taking
back in service all the workers because they have
worked more than 240 days of continuous service
under the opposite party. It is also pleaded that
after 3-4 months of their engagement, the opposite
party again dispensed with the services of these
workers from 15.10.2006. The opposite party after
terminating the services of 27 workers on 15.10.2006,
again engaged 30 workers on daily wages from
07.11.2005 at the same place where these workers
were working. All the persons engaged on 7.11.2005
were junior to the workers of the present case. It is
the claim of the workers that the above action on
the part of the opposite party in terminating their
service is in breach of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and accordingly they
have prayed that the action of the opposite party
be held unjust, unfair and illegal and they be
reinstated in the services of the opposite party with
full back wages and continuity of service.
6. The opposite party has filed their reply refuting
vehemently the case of the workers on a number of
grounds. It may be pointed out here that the
opposite party has drawn a very lengthy and
exhaustive reply running into 129 paragraphs as
against the claim petition of the worker running
into 10 paragraphs.
7. I may it clear that only those pleadings of the written
reply will be dealt with those are necessary for
deciding the present reference.
8. It is alleged by the opposite party that the workers
involved in the case were never appointed against
any sanctioned post, they were never subjected to
regular recruitment process, no appointment letters
were issued in their name, and their names have
never been sponsored from the employment
exchange. All the workers involved in the present
case have never put in 240 days of continuous
service in any of the calendar year what to say
preceding 12 calendar months from the date of their
alleged termination. As such provisions of Section
25F, 25G and 25H of the Act are not attracted to the
facts and circumstances of the case. It is alleged
that opposite party takes up short term Time Bound
Project Work of casual and intermittent nature of
Chemical Preservation of monument and these
project work is executed against the approved
estimates of different nature requiring the different
category of labour for brief spell of time and these
projects mainly depend upon the sanctioned
conservation plan and availability of funds. It is
claimed by the opposite party that the engagement
of the workers came to an end by efflux of time on
the expiry of the project and that they have never
terminated their services in any manner whatsoever.
It is also alleged that these workers are trying to
seek back door entry in to the services of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3281
opposite party by abusing process of law. The
workers have invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble
High Court, Allahabad, by filing CMWP No. 20677
of 05 praying for a direction to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central) Kanpur, to follow the
provisions of Section 33 of the Act, which was
ultimately dismissed as infructuous vide order dated
23.05.06. Some of the workers involved in the
present case have also moved before Labour Court,
UP Agra, under Section 33-C-2 of the Act, and the
said application of the workers were dismissed in
default.
9. The workers then filed an OA No. 641 of 2006 before
Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad, which
was finally disposed off on 05.09.2008, with a
direction to the competent authority to decide the
representation of the petitioner by a speaking and
reasoned order and the representation under
question was finally decided and rejected by the
competent authority of the opposite party.
10. These workers then again filed yet another Original
Application No. 1575 of 2010 PSCCW Union versus
Union of India challenging their termination which
was finally decided by order dated 15.11.2010.
Being so the matter had attained finality, therefore,
the present claim of the workers is barred by
principle of Res-Judicata and is liable to be rejected.
11. Rejoinder has also been filed separately in each of
the cases but therein nothing new has been pleaded
besides what has been contended in their claim
petition by the workers.
12. The workers have filed 14 documents in the nature
of photocopies vide list dated 04.03.2013. As
against it the opposite party has filed 3 documents
vide list dated 22.04.13. Out of which document
No. 8/2-4 is the certified copy of judgment and order
dated 19.10.2010 in OA No. 1575/10 of Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. From the array
of parties of OA No. 1575/2010 it is quite obvious
that the names of the workers involved is appearing
as petitioners before CAT, Allahabad in the above
OA.
13. One Shri Satish Yadav, worker in I.D. No. 74/12
(which is a leading case) has examined him as
W.W.1, whereas Shri J.P. Singh has examined
himself as M.W.1.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that workman has
not summoned the original documents from the
management; therefore, photocopies of the
documents filed by the worker cannot be taken as
acceptable evidence.
15. The workers witness in his evidence filed on
affidavit has mainly reiterated the same grounds
that are mentioned in his claim petition.
16. W.W. 1 in his cross examination has admitted the
fact that he along with others were working as daily
rated workers. He has also admitted the fact that
the projects on which they were utilized were time
bound. Witness has also admitted that no
appointment letter was given to them. He never
gave any application for his appointment.
17. Witness has denied the suggestion of the opposite
party that their services were came to an end by
efflux of time. Their attendance was marked. The
witness has also denied the suggestion that neither
he nor the other workers involved in the case had
not worked continuously for 240 days. It is correct
to suggest that he has not filed any document in
the court showing that they have worked for 240
days. Witness has also admitted that after
termination of his service he filed an application
before CAT, Allahabad and the decision of the
tribunal is paper No. 8/2. After the decision of CAT,
Allahabad, he moved before the department and
when department did not come into action he
moved before the ALC©, Kanpur and on the basis
of the report of the ALC© Kanpur, the present
reference is pending in this court.
18. The management witness in his affidavit has almost
asserted the same grounds as were given in the
reply of the opposite party. In his cross examination
the witness has asserted that on 15.10.2005, services
of the workers were not terminated, rather their
services were come to an end automatically by efflux
of time. He goes on to state that workers involved
in the case themselves stopped coming on the place
of work. To a specific question that why opposite
party did not wait for 2 or 3 days for these workers
and why fresh hands were inducted in to the service
of the opposite party. To it the witness has
specifically replied that it is not the recruitment
rather the services of the workers are utilized on
need basis and as the work cannot be stopped,
therefore, at the time of need whosover are available
they are engaged. Witness has also admitted that
no appointment letter was ever given to these
workers.
19. I have heard the arguments of the contesting parties
at length and have perused the whole record
carefully.
20. Learned representative for the workers contended
that workman Satish Yadav and all other workers
were working as daily rated workers from 01.12.96
and their services were terminated without any
notice with effect from 15.10.05. They have worked
for 240 days continuouly in a year. Before this their
service were also terminated on 21.02.04, they
moved an application before ALC©, Kanpur, where
3282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
the management vide their letter dated 17.11.2004,
submitted that they are willing to take back workers
in the service and after taking service for 3 or 4
months their services were again terminated with
effected from 15.10.05.
21. Learned counsel of the management has contended
that the workmen have not filed any evidence to
establish that they had worked for 240 days in a
year. It is further contended that services of the
workers were never terminated by the opposite
party and their services automatically came to an
end by efflux of time on completion of project work
as they were working on time bound project. It is
further contended by the opposite party that after
completion of the survey and the test of monument
the work of daily rated workers came to an end and
this fact was admitted by worker witness Satish
Yadav in his cross examination and worker witness
has also admitted that he had not filed any evidence
to show that either he or any of them have at any
point of time worked continuously for 240 days or
more. It is further submitted that workman Satish
Yadav and other had filed a case against their
termination order dt. 15.10.05 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal as OA No. 1775/10 PSCCW
Union versus Union of India which was decided
finally on 15.11.2010. As such present claim of the
workers is barred by principle of Res-judicata. This
fact is also admitted by worker witness Shri Satish
Yadav in his cross examination.
22. After appreciating the materials on record and
considering the arguments of the contesting
parties, it is proved that these workers were never
appointed by the opposite party, these workers
were engaged on a project, their services came to
an end automatically by efflux of time on completion
of project and that they were never terminated by
the opposite party and lastly they were never in
continuous employment of the opposite party for
240 days nor they filed any evidence to this effect
before the court.
23. The learned representative for the opposite party
has placed reliance on the case 2007 (112) FLR 152
between Gangadhar Pillai versus Siemens Ltd,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
project employees-appointment of applicant
petitioner on temporary basis-for duration of
projects/site work and on completion thereof his
services used to be terminated. Service availed in
various projects in India and in Iraq has worked for
more than 2500 days only in Rourkela Steel Plant.
His services came to an end on 10.05.2000. There
was no unfair labour practice. Project related
employees cannot as a matter of right, demand any
status and privileges of permanent employees.
24. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex
Court, I am of the opinion, that the principle laid
down (supra) by Apex Court fully apply to the facts
and circumstances of the present. Therefore, the
workers involved in the case being engaged on a
project cannot claim any status or privilege of
regular and permanent employee as matter of right.
25. Similarly opposite party has further placed reliance
on the case law reported 2009 (120) FLR 834 C
Balachandran and others and State of Kerala,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
judgment of apex court in Jacob's case had to be
read in its entirety and not as a provision of a status-
Apex Court in Jacob's case had no occasion to
consider the cases of daily wagers appointed
against a particular project and whose service had
been terminated after project had come to an end.
The decision cited as above applies with full swing
to the facts and circumstances of the case.
26. Next it was contended by the opposite party that
workers have not filed any evidence or proof to
show that they had worked for 240 days
continuously. On this point the management
representative has placed reliance on the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
following cases viz. 2002 (94) FLR 622, 2004 (109)
FLR 1077 and 2006 (110) FLR 552.
27. I have given my due consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the case cited above and after
considering the proposition of law settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (supra). It is held
that the laws applies with full swing to the facts
and circumstances of the present case as it was the
burden of the workers to prove that they had
worked for 240 days continuously prior to
termination of their services and since they have
failed to discharged their burden by filing cogent
and acceptable evidence in the case, therefore, it is
held that they never worked for 240 days
continously. As such they cannot be held entitled
for the benefit of any of the provisions of the Act
like 25F, 25G, & 25H of the Act, as claimed by them.
28. Lastly it has been argued by the representative for
the opposite party that the present claim is barred
by principle of res-judicata as all the above workers
have challenged their respective termination jointly
before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad by filing O.A. No. 1575 of 2010, he had
drawn my attention to the judgment and order dated
15.09.2010 of the Tribunal. This document is paper
No. 8/2. I have gone through the judgment and
order of the Administrative Tribunal and find that
the said petition was filed in joint capacity by all
the workers involved in the present case and
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3283
their names also appear in the body of the
judgement. Sri Satish Yadav W.W.1 appearing as
witness on behalf of all the workers has also
admitted this fact in his evidence before the tribunal.
Thus it is fully established that the present case is
barred by principle of Res-judicata because the
decision of Central Administrative Tribunal has
attained finally.
29. The authorized representative for the opposite
party has placed reliance on the following case laws
reported as below:—
(a) 2004 (103) FLR 460 (S.C.) in between Executive
Engineer ZP Eng. Division and another and
Digambara Rao etc. etc.
(b) 2006 (108) FLR 837, Allahabad High Court, in
between SARAT CHANDRA MISHRA AND
OTHERS AND STATE OF ORRISA AND
OTHERS.
30. I have carefully gone through the rulings cited by
the representative of the opposite party. In earlier
ruling the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that their
plea that they were entitled to continue in service
specifically rejected. In that view of the matter, the
proceedings initiated before the Labour Court
questioning the orders of termination passed
against the appellant for their reinstatement with
full back wages, in our opinion, was wholly
misconceived. Such a plea was barred under the
principles of Res-judicat. It is now well settled that
the general principle of res-judicat applies to an
industrial adjudication.
31. In the later the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has
held that Res-judicata-Proceedings initiated by
before the labour Court-clearly barred by the
principle of constructive Res-judicata. As the
respondent No. 3, whose services were terminated,
having got an adverse order in writ petition-cannot
re-agitate the issue again before the labour court. It
was further held that Doctrine of Election-once the
employee has elected to pursue his remedy by
filing a writ petition-cannot pursue another remedy
before another forum on the same.
32. In another case law 2006 (108) FLR 837 in between
Sarat Chandra Mishra and another and State of
Orissa and others decided by Hon'ble Supreme
Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
Res-judicata-Judgement and order of Tribunal has
attained finality-Principal of Res-judicata would
apply in the instant cases. The judgement and
order of the Tribunal dated 09.03.92 passed in OA
No. 1200 of 90, thus attained finality. The principle
of Res-judicata would therefore, apply in the
instant casse. The applicability of the principal of
Res-judicata in a proceeding before the Tribunal
is not disputed. It is also not a case where the
jurisdiction of the tribunal is in question. As the
principle of Res-judicata was applicable, the
Tribunal had no jurisdiction reopen the issue. This
court could not and did not confer a jurisdiction
upon the Tribunal which it did not have.
33. As it has already been observed above, that the
present workmen had already knocked the doors
of the Administrative Tribunal Allahabad
challenging their respective termination and when
they failed they came before this tribunal for the
same cause of action which has already been
decided by the Tribunal. Therefore, the principle of
law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as by Hon'ble High Court applies with full
swing to the facts and circumstances of the present
case. Accordingly it is held that the claim of each
worker is barred by principle of Res-judicata.
34. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that
none of the worker involved in the instant case is
entitled for any relief as claimed by them in their
respective reference order. Accordingly reference
is decided against each of the worker and in favour
of the management.
35. It is further ordered that a copy of this award be
placed on the record of each connected files.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1562.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj f=os.kh LVªDpjy
fyfeVsM] bykgkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la- 2012 dk 102½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@51@2012&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015
S.O. 1562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 102 of
2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Triveni Structural's Ltd., Allahabad
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 21.07.2015.
[No. L-42012/51/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
3284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 102 of 2012
Between:
Santosh Kumar,
General Secretary,
Triveni Structural's Karamchari Union,
TSL, Naini, Allahabad.
AND
The Managing Director,
Triveni Structural's Ltd.,
Naini, Allahabad.
AWARD
1. Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-42012/51/2012-IR(DU) dated
07.12.2012, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of Triveni
Structurals Ltd., Naini, Allahabad, in suspension
of service of Sri Santosh Kumar and re-employment
of concerned workman on certain un-reasonable
terms and conditions are justified? If not to what
relief the workman is entitled for?
3. Case of workman in short is that he is under the
employment of the opposite party as skilled worker-
III having personnel No. 13190. It is alleged that
Nand Lal Singh, Deputy Commandant Security had
lodged a NCR under section 323/504 IPC at PS Naini
against S.W. Hasan, O.P. Yadav and Santosh Kumar.
The workman was issued a show cause notice dated
05.04.2010 by one Sri Surendra Singh, Dy. Manager
(Production), whereby the workman was charged
that workman at about 4.30 p.m. on 12.10.2009 with
some news reporters tried to enter into the factory
through main gate whereupon the Deputy
Commandant ( Security) asked the news reporters
to get gate pass. The workman attacked and
manhandled with Deputy Commandant and also
attacked on the head of the Commandant through
a stick as a result of which he sustained serious
injuries and blood came out from his head. The
workman was directed to reply the show cause
notice within three days. Opposite party received
the reply on 20.04.2010. Opposite party vide
communication dt. 26.04.2010 informed the workman
that his reply to show cause notice was not found
satisfactory and ordered domestic inquiry against
the workman on the above charge. Sri Rajesh Kumar
Mishra, Advocate was appointed as Enquiry Officer
and Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, Assistant Law
Officer as presenting officer. Enquiry officer
conducted the inquiry totally ignoring the
principles of natural justice inasmuch as before
initiation of domestic inquiry he did not inform
anything to the workman regarding procedure to
be adopted by him to conduct the domestic inquiry,
he also did not inform to him that for putting his
effective defense workman could bring his defense
representative. Enquiry against the rules of natural
justice established the charges against the
workman, workman was not provided with the
copies of statement of management witnesses to
enable him to cross examine them effectively, even
he was not provided opportunity to cross examine
the management witnesses who stated in the inquiry
against the workman, the opposite party on the
basis of enquiry report dismissed the workman from
the service of the opposite party with effect from
24.09.2010, the workman preferred an appeal against
order of his dismissal from service under the
provisions of Certified Standing Orders requesting
therein to reinstate him in the service by setting
aside the order of the dismissal, the workman on
20.01.2011 produced letter of Guard Shyam Roop
Ram and Requested that he be directed to appear
in person before the authorities of the company to
clarify the position so that the matter may be
reviewed and on 23.09.2011 he appeared before the
authorities of the company and confirmed his
previous statement, the opposite party sought
advice from advocate of High Court and the
authorities of the opposite party were advised that
by appointing another Inquiry Officer, may get the
matter inquired a fresh for finding the correctness
of the allegations against the workman, thereupon
the workman was informed that it has been decided
by the appellate authority to hold equiry de-novo,
the workman vide letter dated 19.02.2011 was
informed that he is required to appear before the
Inquiry Officer Sri B.R. Singh (Retd. Assistant
Labour Commissioner) and after concluding the
inquiry the Enquiry Officer placed his inquiry report
before the opposite party and in his report the
Inquiry Officer clearly exonerated the workman of
the allegations leveled against him, on the basis of
second inquiry report the dismissal order of the
workman was withdrawn by the management by
order dated 17.03.2011, it is also alleged that the
opposite party had reinstated the workman in the
service with certain arbitrary conditions which is
against law.
4. On the basis of above, it has been prayed by the
workman that the action of the management be held
illegal and the condition imposed on extraneous
and arbitrary considerations be set aside.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3285
5. Despite availing of sufficient opportunity opposing
party he did not file any reply against the claim of
the workman.
6. Workman apart from filling of docoment has also
filed evidence on affidavit and appeared in the
witness box for his examination. As none appeared
from the side of the management they were debarred
from cross examining the workman.
7. The workman vide his application paper No. 3/10
has filed 14 documents which are in the nature of
photocopies out of which document no. 14 of the
list of documents is very much relevant. It is dated
09.04.2011 whereby the workman was reinstated in
service with certain conditions.
8. I have gone through this document carefully and
the document reveals that the workman was
reinstated in the service of the workman with the
conditions viz., 1. He will not be entitled for any
amount by way of salary for the period he remained
outside the employment, 2. The grade in which he
was at the time of his dismissal, he will be placed a
grade below the same at the time of his
reinstatement, 3. Give an undertaking in writing to
behave in good manner in future so that further
recourse may be taken and lastly that he will not
file any case in future before any competent court
of law.
9. I may make it clear that after going through the
above conditions imposed in the reinstatement
order by the opposite party is highly shockingly
and smacks with bias. It is not at all clear that when
the workman was exonerated of the charges in the
second inquiry by the competent authority, how
above conditions could be imposed upon the
workman at the time of his reinstatement. Even an
ordinary prudent mind may cannot accept action
of the management what to say by a competent
court of law. At any rate the above conditions
cannot be allowed to prevail in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
10. Having concluded that the conditions imposed as
above is neither legal nor justified in the case of the
workman.
11. Accordingly it is held that the action of the
management as referred to in the Schedule of
reference order is neither just not proper. Workman
will be deemed to be reinstated in the service of the
opposite party and he will be entitled for all
consequential benefits attached with the post
including the pay and allowances for the period he
remained out of employment.
12. Reference is answered accordingly in favour of the
workman and against the opposite party.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1563.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Leky vkElZ QSDVªh]
dkuiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjk— ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 2009 dk 38½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&14012@13@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015
S.O. 1563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 38 of
2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 21/07/2015.
[No. L-14012/13/2009-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 38 of 2009
Between:
Sri Rajender Prasad Tiwari,
C/o Sri B.P. Pandey,
106/371 Heeraganj,
Kanpur.
AND
The General Manager,
Small Arms Factory,
Kalpi Road, Kanpur.
AWARD
1. Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-14012/13/2009-IR(DU) dated
17.07.2009, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the demand of Sri Rajender Prasad Tiwari
for his reinstatement in service with effect from
28.04.99 by the management of Small Arms Factory,
Kanpur, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the
workman is entitled to?
3286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
3. Case of the workman is short is that his father Late
Shri Durga Prasad Tiwari, was employed as LDC
under the opposite party who died on 17.05.92 in a
road accident and at the time of death his age was
53 years. On the written request of the mother of
the workman, the workman was provided with the
employment by the opposite party in security
department on compassionate ground and he was
appointed as security guard on 29.03.93. On getting
information that the younger brother of the
workman is missing and despite best efforts neither
he was traceable nor was any clue available about
his whereabouts. Looking to the pitiable conditions
of the family members, the workman was not able
to perform his duties regularly as a result of which
his mential condition started detoriating day by
day and he was not able to attend his duties
regularly. Due to the mental illness of the workman
his in-laws took the workman at their home where
the workman started misbehaving with their family
members regarding which the matter was reported
with PS Armapore Kanpur on 28.3.99, with the
request that the workman be get medically examined.
With regard to the mental condition of the workman
the police authorities also sought information from
the authorities of the opposite party and they also
confirmed that the mental condition of the workman
is not fit and the workman is not in his full sense.
4. The workman in a state of mental disorder and out
of sense submitted his resignation from the service
on 21.04.99 to the General Manager of the opposite
party. On coming to know about this fact the mother
of the workman vide her letter dated 23.04.99,
requested the General Manager, Small Arms Factory,
Kanpur, not to accept the resignation of his son
from the service of the opposite party. Despite the
fact that the mental condition of the workman was
not well, workman personally appeared before the
authorities of the opposite party on 26.04.99, and
again submitted a resignation letter on the same
day requesting there in that by all means his
resignation should be accepted and his name be
struck down from the muster roll of the opposite
party. It is further alleged that the in laws of the
workman started his mental treatment from a mental
doctor at their own cost. Widow mother of the
workman also submitted an affidavit before the
General Manager of the opposite party on 14.06.99.
The wife of the workman has also submitted an
affidavit dated 14.06.99 before the General Manager
of the opposite party. The General Manager, Small
Arms Factory, Kanpur, issued an order No. 974 dated
25.06.99, by means of which the name of the
workman had been struck down from the
attendance register with effect from 28.04.99.
5. It is further alleged by the workman that
Dr. Mahendru who is doctor for mental disease after
medically examining him issued a fitness certificate
dated 14.07.05. The workman along with fitness
certificate appeared before the authorities of the
opposite party requested in writing to permit him
to resume his duties. The opposite party vide order
No. SAF/1585 dated 01.02.06 informed the workman
that a long period of six years have been elapsed,
therefore, at this stage it is not possible for the
administration to reinstate the workman in the
service of the opposite party.
6. On the basis of above, the workman has prayed
that impugned order dated 01.02.06 be declared as
illegal and he be treated to be reinstated in the
service of the opposite party with effect from
15.07.05, with full wages for the period he remained
under medical treatment and continuity of service
be also allowed to him.
7. The opposite party has filed their reply in which it
is alleged that the present claim of the workman is
not maintainable as he is governed by the
provisions CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The workman
had submitted an application dated 21.04.99 to the
General Manager, Small Arms Factory, Kanpur, in
which he had stated that he is resigning on his own
willingness and in full sense. As per instructions
the workman was called for counseling by the then
Security Officer, Small Arms Factory vide his letter
No. SO/SAF/67 dated 23.04.99 for the purpose of
personal hearing and after the counseling Security
Officer found him normal in behavior and
recommended that his resignation be accepted.
After hearing his firm and final decision as confirmed
by the workman vide his application dated 26.04.99
by requesting to accept his resignation with effect
from 28.04.99 without any further correspondence
a there was threat to his life resignation was
accepted with effect from 28.04.99 and his name
was struck off from the strength of the opposite
party. The resignation of the workman was accepted
by the General Manager of the opposite party and
order part-II No. 974 dated 25.05.99 was published
and his name was struck off from the strength of
the factory with effect from 28.04.99. It is admitted
by the opposite party that after the resignation the
mother and wife of the workman submitted
applications dated 23.04.91 and his wife submitted
application on 01.06.99, but of them had submitted
any medical certificate in support of their
application. It is further alleged by the opposite
party that a person, who is mentally instable is not
fit for the government service that too in a sensitive
department. Both the applications have been
suitably replied by the opposite party by stating
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3287
that the workman has give his resignation on his
own willingness and in full sense and there exist no
instructions to provide employment to the near
relative of government employee on resignation. It
is also alleged by the opposite party that after long
gap of more than 6 years the workman submitted
an application on 22.11.05 stating that he resigned
from the service of the opposite party in abnormal
mental condition and requested to reinstate him in
the service on the basis medical fitness certificate
of Dr. R.K. Mahendroo, MBBS, M.D. dated
14.07.05, which seems to be an afterthought. The
procedure of withdrawal of resignation after it has
become effective is governed by the statutory
provisions in sub-rule (4) to (6) of Rule 26 of the
CCS (Pension) Rule 1972, which is applicable only
to holders of permanent post and any relaxation of
any provision of the above rules will need the
concurrence of the Ministry of Personnel Public
Grievance and Pension. The resignation of the
workman was accepted after due observance of
the procedure.
8. On the basis of above pleadings it is prayed that
the claim of the workman is devoid of merit and is
liable to be rejected.
9. The workman along with his claim petition has filed
paper No. 4/8-22, whereas the opposite party with
their reply has filed paper Nos. 8/43 to 8/51.
10. Apart from above the workman has examined
himself as W.W. 1 and as against him the opposite
party has examined Sri S. Chaterjee as M.W.1 in
support of their respective cases.
11. I have heard the arguments of the parties at length
and have also examined the record of the case
carefully.
12. It is not in dispute that the workman was given
appointment by the opposite party on
compassionate ground and out of his mental
disorder he had submitted his resignation from the
service of the opposite party. The workman in his
evidence has stated that he was appointed under
the opposite party on 29.03.93 at the post of Durban
on the ground of compassionate appointment after
overall consent of his brothers. He stated that
during the course of his service he became mad
because his younger brother was kidnapped. He
goes on to state that due to his mental disorder he
resigned from the service on 2l.04.99 and regarding
his resignation his mother informed the General
Manager, Small Arms Factory, Kanpur, in wirting
and submitted an affidavit not to accept the
resignation of the workman but the department
accepted the resignation dated 21.04.99 on 28.04.99.
He was neither paid any notice nor notice pay at
the time of accepting his resignation. Under which
doctor his treatment was going on the same has
been informed to the authorities of the oppoiste
party by his mother. He further stated that after
being declared fit he reported for his joining with
medical fitness certificate. He also admitted the fact
that after four or five years he reported for his duties
before the opposite party, but the opposite party
infomred him that he had reported for his duties at
belated stage therefore, he cannot be allowed to
resume his duties. He was also not aid the amount
of his gratuity, leave encashment and group
insurance.
13. In his cross-examination witness has admitted that
he was given appointment on compassionate
ground. It is wrong to suggest that on 21.04.99, he
tendered his resignation in his full sense rather his
condition was like a mad person. He admitted that
Annexure-A to his claim statement is in his hand
writing. I have examined Annexure-A which appears
to be written not by the workman but someone else
and the said document is addressed to PS Armapore.
It appears that under some confusion the witness
has stated that the paper no. Annexure-A to his
claim statement is in his hand writing. Witness
further admitted the fact that while submitting his
resignation he has not submitted any medical
certificate. Winess denied the suggestion that in
respect of his resignation the Security Officer has
called him. After going through Annexure-B to the
reply of the management the witness stated that no
such letter was ever give to him. Annexure-B to the
reply of the management is dated 23.04.99 alleged
to be written by the Security Officer of the opposite
party in the name of the workman. From the letter it
appears that the Security Officer has counseled
the workman not to give his resignation and think
over the matter again and reply the same within a
week so as to process further course of action in
the matter. Witness has further stated that when
the letter of the security officer was not received
by him then question of calling him by the Security
Officer does not arise. Witness has further admitted
the fact that his resignation letter was accepted by
the General Manager of the opposite party with
effect from 28.04.99. In this regard the opposite
party has filed Annexure-D with their reply which
is a letter dated 25.05.99, written by Deputy General
Manager, Small Arms Factory, Kanpur, informing
the workman that his resignation has been accepted
by the General Manager/Appointing Authoirty with
effect from 28.04.99. It is not in his personal
knowledge that his name was strike out from the
attendance register on 28.04.99. Witness has
admitted the fact that his mother and his wife have
given some letters to the opposite party but he is
3288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
not aware as to what was written therein. It is correct
to say that after 5 or 6 years he has requested for
providing service. After going through
Annexure-A to the reply of the opposite party the
witness has admitted that it is a resignation which
is in his hand writing. Annexure-C to the reply of
the management is second resignation letter
submitted by the workman which is dated 26.04.99,
stating therein that by all means his name should
be struck down from the attendance register with
effect from 28.04.99. Annexure-E and F to the reply
of the management are letters written by the mother
and wife of the workman.
14. The witness of opposite party M.W.1 in his cross-
examination has admitted that he had never
supervised the work of the workman directly. He
has further admitted the fact that Security Officer is
not having any authority or power to appoint any
person or to terminate him. Workman was appointed
in the year 1993 and he was regular and permanent
employee of the opposite party. It is wrong to
suggest that the workman was not given any order
in writing and the same has been sent to him through
registered post. After going through the record he
has filed his statement on oath before this tribunal.
Witness has admitted that it appears that annexure-
E to the reply of the management appears to have
been received by the management on which date is
entered as 23.04.99. On the request of the mother of
the workman he was not referred to any hospital
for medical checkup because only on the request
of an employee he is sent for his medical checkup.
To a specific question that Annexure-D was never
served upon the workman by any mode. In reply to
this quesiton the witness has admitted that in
normal course any correspondence is sent through
post but on the request of the workman his
resignation was accepted and the workman has
never demanded copy of letter dated 25.05.99.
Deputy General Manager is competent to serve
resignation being Head of Office. There was no
necessity for any action on the request of the mother
of the workman. The witness has proved the
documents Annexure-A to H to the reply of the
management.
15. The representative for the workman contended that
the workman has submitted his resignation while
he was not in sense and was suffering with mental
illness and his mother and wife has submitted
application before the opposite party intimating that
the mental condition of the workman is not in order
so his resignation should not be accepted.
16. On the contrary it has been contended by the
representative for the opposite party that the
workman has submitted his resignation of his own
will in a sound mental condition and the same has
been rightly accepted by the competent authority.
17. Now the point which arises for consideration is as
to whether the workman has submitted his
resignation in sound mental state or at the time
when he was mentally abnormal.
18. I have considered the pleadings and evidence of
the workman and I find that from the initial stage it
is the case of the workman that he tendered his
resignation when his mental state was quite
abnormal and he was not in his full sense. This fact
stands proved from his evidence oral as well as
documentary. In this regard the workman has filed
paper No. 4/12 which is a medical prescription of
Dr. R.K. Mahendru MBBS, MD, who is expert of
mental disease. This document is dated 13.06.99.
The opposite party did not confronted the workman
in his cross-examination on the point that this
document is forge one or fake document. Even he
was not suggested that this document is procured
for the purpose of the case. I also find that even the
witness of the management has not whispered
anything regarding the mental illness of the
workman.
19. Therefore, on the basis of evidence documentary
as well as oral, I am of the opinion, that the workman
tendered his resignation twice while he was
suffering from mental illness otherwise in normal
course why a person of sound mind would submit
his resignation of his own accord. This fact further
strengthens from the document paper No. 4/8
annexed with the claim statement of the workman
which is dated 14.07.05. It is a fitness certificate
issued by Dr. R.K. Mahendru stating therein that
after detailed mental status examination and
observation during a period of 10 days does not
reveal evidence of any psychiatric disturbance.
Hence he is declared mentally fit to resume his
duties.
20. I do not find any force in the contention of the
opposite party that the workman has tendered his
resignation willingly and knowingly.
21. Therefore, considering the above circumstances
of the case and evidence of the parties it is
concluded that the workman has tendered his
resignation at such point of time when he was not
mentally fit. Moreover in his cross-examination the
workman has admitted the fact that he became mad
for the reasons detailed in the claim petition and
tendered his resignation. Even the opposite party
has not filed any document to disbelieve the case
of the workman.
22. The representative for the opposite party in support
of his contention has relief upon on the following
authorities:
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3289
a. 2006 (111) FLR 753 Supreme Court Chandmal
Chayal and State of Rajasthan, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
resignation can only be withdrawn before its
acceptance-Once resignation is accepted there
is no jural relationship between the former
employer and employee and employee cannot
claim for withdrawal of his resignation and
reinstatement.
b. 2010(124) FLR 968 Allahabad High Court
between Anju Devi Maurya versus State of
U.P. wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held
that petitioner is a Rozgar Sewak under the
Scheme which does not require acceptance of
a resignation-resignation tendered voluntarily
not require any acceptance, hence there is no
occasion for the petitioner to withdraw her
resignation.
c. 1992 (64) FLR 972 Nand Keshwar Prasad versus
Labour Court Allahabad and others wherein
the Hon'ble High Court has held that
resignation withdrawal of at any time before it
became effective would have been available,
provided the resignation has not been accepted
by the competent authority.
23. With due respect I would like to say that none of
the case law are applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case which is
distinguishable on facts and law both. In the instant
case it has been found that the workman has
tendered his resignation when his mental condition
was not well and he had never requested the
management not to accept his resignation.
24. From the above authorities it is clear that once a
person has submitted his resignation voluntarily
then he has no right to withdraw the same after its
acceptance by the competent authority.
25. On behalf of the workman his representative has
relief on ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand,
2013 (137) FLR 21 Braja Gopal Ghosh versus Central
Coal Field Limited and Anothers, in which the
Hon'ble High Court considering the fact that after
submission of resignation by petitioner his wife
wrote letters informing the Diretor that her husband
is suffering from mental disturbances and therefore
his resignation may not be accepted and is
undergoing treatment and again sent a letter on
03.10.2003. There is also medical prescription on
record that letter that the petitioner was suffering
from serious depression psychosis.
26. The Hon'ble High Court, considering all the facts
and circumstances allowed the writ petition filed
by the petitioner. Hence,impugned order not
accepting the request for withdrawal of resignation
are set aside.
27. The facts of the present case are analogous to the
facts of above case and present ruling applies in
the instant case. The witness of the management
Sri S. Chatterjee MW1 in his cross-examination has
accepted that letter of mother of workman was
received on 23.04.99 and also admitted that after
receiving letter workman was not referred for
medical check up on the ground that such request
should be made by employee only, therefore,
without considering the request of the mother of
the workman resignation of the worker was
accepted. It was the duty of the employer to refer
workman for medical checkup and if it was found
that the worker is not suffering from any mental
illness then they should have proceeded in the
matter for accepting the resignation of the worker.
Worker has also filed medical prescription dated
13.06.99, to show that he was under treatment of
Dr. R.K. Mahendru and has also made
representation dated 22.01.5 to the General Manager
with request to review his order of acceptance of
resignation and to permit him to resume duty on
the basis of medical fitness certificate and attached
certificate dated 14.07.05 issued by Dr. R.K.
Mahendru stating him to be mentally fit to resume
his duties. These all facts are supported by the
workman who has examined himself as. W.W.1.
28. On the basis of above observations, it is held that
the action of the management of Small Arms Factory,
Kanpur, is not accepting the demand of the workman
for his reinstatement is neither legal nor justified.
The impugned order dated 25.05.99, passed by
Deputy General Manager/Admn. issued for General
Manager is liable to be set aside and is hereby set
aside.
29. Now question arises for consideration as to from
which date the relief of reinstatement is to be given
to the workman. Although from the schedule of
reference order it is apparent that the worker has
demanded his reinstatement in the service of the
employer with effect from 28.04.99, but after overall
consideration of the evidence and facts of the case
I find that the workman remained under medical
treatment for his mental disease and he applied for
his reinstatement only on 22.11.2005, therefore, ends
of justice would be met if the workman is allowed
his reinstatement with effect from 22.11.05 with back
wages seniority and all consequential benefits. The
period from 21.04.99, the day when he submitted
his resignation till 21.11.05, will be regularized as
no work no pay but the intervening period of
absence from duties will have no adverse effect
and should be counted for payment of pension
gratuity etc.
3290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
30. Therefore, in the above terms the workman is
reinstated in service with effect from 22.11.05 with
full back wages, seniority and other consequential
benefits.
31. Reference is therefore, decided in favour of the
worker and against the management.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1564.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iksLV foHkkx] vkxjk
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 2010 dk
69½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-07-2015 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40011@2@2010&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015
S.O. 1564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 69 of
2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Department of Post, Agra and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 21.07.2015.
[No. L-40011/2/2010-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 69 oF 2010
BETWEEN:—
Sri Ganga Ram,Through District President,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress,68,
Sector 16, Sikandra, Agra.
AND
Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Post,
Sanjai Place, Agra.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-40011/2/2010-IR(DU) dated
30.03.2010, has referred the following dispute for
abjudication to this tribunal—
2. Whether the action of the management of Sr. Post
Master, Agra in terminating the services of their
workman Sri Ganga Ram w.e.f 18.09.08 is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?
3. The case of the workman in short is that he was
engaged by the opposite party with effect
05.05.2007 on the basis of letter dated 04.05.2007 as
driver. The opposite party took work from the
workman up to 17.09.2008 and with effect from
18.09.08, he was illegally removed from the service
without showing any reason and without giving
any notice, or retrenchment compensation and in
his place new person was engaged by the opposite
party. He had worked more than 240 days and the
opposite party has violated the provisions of
section 25F, 25H & 25G of the Act. It is also alleged
that the opposite party in their reply dated 20.10.08
under RTI Act, 2005, has clearly admitted that the
workman was engaged by the opposite party on
daily rate basis. It was also admitted by the opposite
party in the said letter that the workman being a
daily wager, therefore, no reason is reqired to be
shown to the workman at the time of dispensation
of his service.
4. Lastly it is pleaded that as the workman has
completed more than 240 days of continuous
service and as the opposite party had violated the
mandatory provision of section 25F, 25H and 25G
of the Act, therefore, his dispensation from the
service of the opposite party is absolutely illegal
and being so the action of opposite party is liable
to be set aside and the workman is entitled to be
reinstated in the service of the opposite party with
full back wages and all consequential benefits.
5. The opposite party field their reply in which it is
alleged that the opposite party being department
of Government of India, therefore, provisions of
the Act are not applicable and the reference being
misconceived is liable to be dismissed. Government
of India has framed its own recruitment rules and
those rules are applicable on the opposite party.
The claimant has never gone through selection
process as such he was never appointed on any
post and being so he is not a bonafide employee,
therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. There
never accrued any cause of action in favour of the
workman to approach this Tribunal under the
provision of the Act. It is admitted by the opposite
party that the claimant was engaged on highly
intermittent work on daily wage basis. It was also
admited by the opposite party that whenever there
was need the workman was engaged as safai
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3291
karamchari. The opposite party has denied having
appointed new hands after the termination of the
services of the workman. It is also stated that the
opposite party had ever appointed the workman or
had ever terminated the service of the workman;
therefore, applicability of the above provisions in
the present case does not apply. Lastly it is
submitted by the opposite party that there never
existed relationship of employer and employee
between the opposite party and the workman
therefore, the claim of the workman is liable to be
dismissed.
6. The workman has filed rejoinder in the case but
nothing new has been pleaded except reiterating
the facts already pleaded by him in his claim
statement.
7. The workman vide paper No. 10/1-2 had filed 12
documents relevancy of which will be considered
at appropriate stage.
8. Workman besides filing of document has also
adduced his oral evidence.
9. Opposite party vide application dated 07.05.12 has
filed one document which is paper No. 11/2.
10. Opposite party has not filed any documents but
have simply adduced oral evidence of Sri
Brahmadeo as M.W.1 who is Senior Post Master,
Agra.
11. I have heard the arguments of both the sides at
length and have carefully perused the whole record
of the case.
12. The workman in his evidence has clearly admitted
that he was appointed at the post of driver with
effect from 5.5.07 and he was given written order
by the opposite party. He has filed that order on
the record of file. Paper No. 10/3 is appointment
letter dated 04.05.07 issued by Sr. Post Master, Agra.
At this place I have examined the document and
find that it is specifically mentioned that one
Bhagwan Das was engaged for delivery of daks
but he was not having valid driving license there
for he showed his inability to provide the service
of driver therefore workman Sri Ganga Ram was
engaged as driver on daily rate basis to drive tempo
and mail motor. He has also admitted the fact that
paper no. 10/9 is a driving license in his name
original of which was shown to the opposite party
at the time of his evidence. He goes on the state
that the opposite party had removed his services
orally. He worked more than 240 days of continuous
service and that at the time of termination of service
neither any notice nor retrenchment compensation
was given by the management. He was used to
drive Tempo and Tata vehicle by the management.
He used to carry daks in the vehicle. The vehicle
which driven by him is still in the office of the
opposite party.
13. In his cross examination the witness has stated
that opposite party had issued written orders for
his engagement. The witness has denied the
suggestion put by the management that paper no.
10/3 is not an appointment letter and that he ever
worked as a casual labour or have performed
scavenging work. The workman remained silent to
a question put by the management that in paper
no. 9/11 to 9/22 he has been shown as a daily wager
and the work which was performed by him he was
paid for the same by the department. He after going
through the document paper no. 11/1 to 11/2 stated
that he had provided the same to the department.
He denied the suggestion that he had not
completed 240 days of work.
14. Management witness in his examination in chief
has stated that the workman worked in the
department as daily wage employee and he
sometimes worked as driver besides doing the
scavenging work. Initially he was paid Rs. 90 per
day and thereafter his wage was enhanced at
Rs. 100 per day. He was paid only for such days
when he performed the work. There is prescribed
recruitment rules for appointment of Drivers. He
further stated that when the workman was engaged
no appointment letter was issued in favour of the
workman. Workman submitted paper no. 11/2 to
the department. Engagement of the workman was
on need basis. He further stated that he had not
checked that workman had ever completed 240 days
of work. After going through papers no. 9/1 to 9/22
which was filed by the workman, witness stated
that those papers are correct. I have also examined
the papers and I find that the papers are payment
vouchers through which workman was paid his
wages.
15. Management witness has further stated that except
the papers mentioned above no other papers are
present relating to this case. Paper no. 11/29 containes
the seal of the department and paper is genuine.
With regard to paper no. 10/3 witness has stated
that this document pertain to Deoki Nandan
whereby he was paid wages for 28 days. He also
admitted that paper no. 11/184 to 11/208 are the
papers of the department. By going through the
above papers witness has stated that it cannot be
said that workman forged his signature and could
file the same in the case. The above papers are
available in the department. Relating to paper no. 10/3
witness has admitted the fact that paper containes
seal of the department but expressed his ignorance
to state as to which officer had signed the document.
3292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Witness reiterated that on 18.09.2008 workman was
not removed from the service.
16. In his cross examination witness has stated that he
had come to give his evidence on the basis of
record. He could not say how many light motor
vehicles and how many heavy motor vehicle are in
the department. He admitted that there are several
vehicles in the department through which
distribution of dak is done. He stated that speed
post delivery is done only once in a day and wok of
this nature is done daily. The work is of permanent
nature. By going through paper no. 11/1 to 11/324
witness admitted that these are delivery receipts.
On examination of these papers it is quite evident
that it is for the period 19.09.07 to 16.09.08. He further
admitted that dak delivery work was done by
workman Ganga Ram. Witness goes on to admit
the document paper no. 10/3 by stating that this
document is of his department. Withness denied
the suggestion as to from what date workman was
utilized as driver and he cannot state exact date but
possibility cannot be ruled out that after this letter
the work of driver might have taken from the
workman. He admitted the document paper no.
10/4 and stated that it is the document of the
department.
17. Management witness in his cross has admitted that
document no. 11/1 to 11/324 are sheets of dak
receipts through which daks were delivered by
workman and also bears the signatures in token of
having received mails and dak. He further admitted
that these daks were delivered by workman Sri Ganga
Ram. The delivery sheets are retained in the
department for one year but at present it is retained
only for six months. No muster roll is prepared nor
workman was asked to sign the attendance register
and only for the purpose of making payment name
is noted on separate paper. Witness has further
denied the suggestion that on 18.09.08 any new
hand as driver was engaged by the department and
at that time both tempos were present in the
department. He stated that workman was paid his
wages some times weekly or some times after
15 days. It is wrong to say that workman at any
point of time was removed from the service of the
department orally or otherwise.
18. Workers authorized representative while addressing
the court has drawn the attention of the court to
document no. 10/3 submitting that it is a letter issued
by Senior Post Master Agra appointing the
workman as driver in the department for distributing
the mails and daks to the different post offices.
19. The representative for the opposite party asserted
that the workman was never appointed as driver
and that for recruitment of drivers department is
having recruitment rules and that the workman was
never subjected for selection at the post of driver,
therefore, there exist no relationship of master and
servant between the opposite party and workman.
20. In this context I have examined the whole documents
and find force in the arguments of the representative
for the workman. By a bare perusal of document
paper no. 10/3 it is crystal clear that workman was
engaged as driver to distribute mail and daks. Apart
from the above, document no. 10/4 is a curfew pass
issued by the opposite party in favor of workman
clearly mentioning that the workman is working as
driver in the department. Paper no. 10/9 and 10/10
are the driving license of the workman, paper no.
10/1 is the reply filed by the department before Dy.
Chief Lab or Commissioner (Central), Kanpur,
wherein it has clearly been admitted by the opposite
party had engaged workman as daily wager and
since he is also knowing driving so sometimes work
of driving the vehicle was also taken from the
workman. Document paper nos. 10/2 to 10/8 is
payment sheet prepared by the department which
also includes the name of the workman.
21. After giving my anxious consideration to the
documentary as well as oral evidence WW. 1 and
MW. 1, I am unable to accept the arguments of the
opposite party that neither the workman was
engaged by the department nor there existed
relationship of employer and employee between
the opposite party and the workman. There is over
whelming evidence on record from the side of the
workman to show that he was engaged by the
department by order in writing and that he was
paid his wages monthly basis for the work which
was performed by him and also that he had
completed much more than 240 days preceding 12
calendar months from the date of his termination.
22. Therefore, it is held that the workman was engaged
by the opposite party and by no stretech of
imagination it can be accepted, as argued by the
opposite party that they never engaged the
workman.
23. It has been next argued by the representative for
the workman that the workman had worked for 240
days and more preceding 12 calendar months from
the date of termination therefore, workman is
entitled for the protection of section 25F of
industrial Disputes Act, as neither any notice nor
notice pay in lieu of retrenchment compenstion was
offered to the workman by the opposite party at
the time of termination of the service of the
workman. The fact that the workman had worked
for 240 days and more, proceding 12 calendar
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3293
months is established from the oral evidence of the
workman as also from documentary evidence paper
no. 9/1 to 9/22 as also from document no. 11/1 to
11/324.
24. As per contra it has been submitted by the
representative for the opposite party that they have
never terminated the service of the workman at any
point of time so question for making compliance of
section 25F of the Act is not mandatory in the case
of the workman.
25. I have considered the arguments of the parties and
find that the arguments of the management is not
acceptable as it is admitted by the witness of the
opposite party that the workman was engaged as
driver vide document no. 10/3 and when this fact of
his engagement is admitted by the witness of the
management then no other opinion is possible
except to held that the workman was in the
employment of the opposite party as driver. From
the evidence of the workman it is quite clear that
neither he was neither given any notice nor notice
pay in lieu of retrenchment compensation at the
time of his disengagement by the department
therefore, provisions of section 25F of the
automatically would come into play rendering the
disengagement as illegal and in operative in the
eye of law. As such arguments of the opposite party
cannot be accepted and it is held that the action of
the management shown in the reference order is
held bad in law.
26. The representative for the workman has cited case
laws viz., 2014 AIR SCW 3157 Supreme Court, 2010
(125) FLR 629, (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 63, (2007) 1SCC
(L&S) 961, 2005 (105) FLR 383, 1999 lab IC 1125,
and 2002 (93) FLR 79 Rajasthan High Court in
support of his case and submitted that the workman
is entitled for his reinstatement with full back wages
and all consequential benefits.
27. I have gone through the case laws cited by the
workman and find that judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court applies to the
facts and circumstances of the present case with
full swing.
28. Representative for the opposite party has also
placed reliance on case laws of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of The Range Forest Officer and
Hadmani, 2002 (93) FLR (79) in which it has been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that onus to prove
that respondent has worked for more than 240 days
is not on mangement—claimant has to lead
evidence to show that he has worked for 240 days,
filing of an affidavit is not sufficient. As discussed
above that the workman has successfully proved
his case that he had worked for more than 240 days
in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his
termination therefore, the law cited by the opposite
party instead of helping to the case of the
management supports the case of the workman.
Being so managment could not take any advantage
of the law cited by it.
29. Similarly case cited by the management of Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court, reported 2013 (137) FLR has
no application in the present case as the workman
has proved the fact from his evidence oral as well
as documentary that he was in the direct
employment of the opposite party. As such the
decision of Hon'ble Allahabad is distinguishable
on facts and law both therefore, cannot be made
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
30. No other point has been pressed by the contesting
parties in the present case.
31. Therefore, for the reasons given above, it is held
that the action of the management of Senior Post
Master, Agra, in terminating the services of their
workman Sri Ganga Ram with effect from 18.09.2008
is neither legal nor justified. Accordingly the
workman is held entitled for reinstatement in the
service of the management with full back wages
and consequential benefits. Reference is answered
accordingly.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1565.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwj lapkj foHkkx
y[kuÅ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 85@99½
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@101@98&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015
S.O. 1565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 85/99) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Door Sanchar Vibhag, Lucknow and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 21/07/2015.
[No. L-40012/101/98-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL Desk Officer
3294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 85/99
Rakesh Kumar Dubey,
Son of Sri Shiv Nath Dubey,
C/o Sri R.M. Shukla,
119/30 Naseemabad,
Himanchal Talkies,
Kanpur. 208001.
AND
The Chief General Manager
Door Sanchar Vibhag,
Lucknow.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-40012/101/98/IR (DU) dated
23.04.99, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the Door Sanchar Vibhag in
terminating the services of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Dubey
is legal and justified? If not to what relief the
workman is entitled?
3. The exchequer case history of the present dispute
is that in this case first award was recorded by the
tribunal on 25.01.2001 in favour of the workman
which was challenged by the opposite party before
the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in CMWP No.
39466 of 2001 and the said writ petition was finally
decided vide order dated 24.02.2004 wherein the
award of the tribunal was set aside and the case
was remitted back to the tribunal for deciding the
same a fresh.
4. After remand of the case the tribunal again recorded
its award on 28.12.06, in favor of the workman which
was again agitated by the opposite party before
the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad, in CMW© No.
29260 of 07. The said writ petition was further
decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 21.01.2011
and the case was again remitted back to this tribunal
by setting aside the order of the tribunal for
deciding the case a fresh.
5. After remand of the case the tribunal again recorded
its award on 13.10.11 against the workman holding
that the date of termination has not been mentioned
in the reference order which is fatal and cannot be
cured while adjudicating the reference order and
accordingly the reference was decided against the
workman by the tribunal. The workman being
aggrieved by the aforesaid award of this tribunal
preferred writ petition No. 65278/12, before the
Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, which was decided
vide order dated 18.12.2012 with the direction that
in case petitioner moves an application for
amendment before the appropriate government and
if amendment is granted the tribunal may dispose
of reference expeditiously.
6. From the records of the case it reveals that the
worker in the light of the order of the Hon'ble High
Court, Allahabad passed 18.12.2012, moved an
application before the appropriate government
seeking amendment in the reference order which
was allowed considering the directions of the
Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, by the appropriate
government and the appropriate government vide
corrigendum dated 17.05.2012 added the date of
termination of the services of the workman as
09.03.88, therefore, now the reference order should
be read as under—
Whether the action of the Door Sanchar Vibhag
in terminating the services of Sh. Rakesh Kumar
Dubey with effect from 09.03.88 is legal and
justified? If not to what relief the workman is
entitled?
7. It may be pointed out here that after the amendment
in the reference order the workman and the opposite
party have filed their amended claim and amended
written statement in the case.
8. It is pertinent to point out here that prior to
amendment in the reference order, the worker has
filed his claim petition alleging therein that he was
appointed at the post of Jeep Driver on 11.11.96 by
the opposite party and he worked continuously till
08.03.88 without break in service under SDO,
Doorsanchar, Manipuri. His work and conduct was
always found satisfactory the post against which
he was appointed is still in existence and that he
was appointed against regular and permanent post.
The workman was deprived of his work by the
opposite party with effect from 09.03.88 without
any ryhm and reason termination of his service was
without any written order or without giving him
any notice, notice pay or retrenchment
compensation was illegal. He was appointed on
casual basis and was paid Rs. 19.50 paisa per day a
wages and he completed for more than 240 days in
a calendar year before the date of his termination,
therefore, his termination from service is violative
of the provisions of section 25F of the Act is
therefore, illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated
in service with full back wages.
9. Needless to mention that award dated 25.01.2001
was an ex-parte award as the management had not
filed its reply in the case. Whereas the opposite
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3295
party has filed its reply second time when the case
was remitted back to this tribunal alleging therein
that no relationship of employer and employee
exists between the employer and the applicant and
that he was never appointed as claimed by him.
The opposite party had denied the alleged
engagement of the applicant as Driver on 11.11.86.
It has been denied by the management that the
claimant continued continuously up to 08.03.88 and
on the basis of above grounds it has been prayed
that the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected
and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
10. It is further pointed out here that second time after
the evidence of the worker was closed the tribunal
granted repeated opportunities to the management
i.e. on 14.12.2006, 02.05.2006, 25.07.2006, 09.10.2006
and lastly on 07.12.2006, but the management
neither adduced any documentary evidence nor
oral evidence in the case as a resultant effect that
the case was decided by the tribunal against the
opposite party for want of adequate evidence in
the case.
11. The aforesaid award of the tribunal was set aside
by the Hon'ble High Court and the case was remitted
back to the tribunal for deciding the same, but the
tribunal third time decided the award against the
workman simply on the ground that since no date
of termination is mentioned in the reference order,
therefore, the reference order is vague and on this
basis workman cannot be held to be entitled for
any relief.
12. Thereafter the worker has assailed the award of the
tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad,
by filing writ petition and the Hon'ble High Court
decided the reference observing that if the worker
approaches the appropriate government for
amendment in the reference order and if his request
is accepted by the appropriate government and
reference is amended, the tribunal should decide
the reference expeditiously.
13. After the reference was amended by the appropriate
government vide corrigendum dated 17.05.2013, the
management sought permission vide application
dated 08.11.2013, stating therein that considering
the change in the reference order it would be just
fair and reasonable to allow them to file additional
written statement and the said application of the
opposite party was allowed by the tribunal vide
order dated 21.11.13, and the additional written
statement filed by the opposite party on 08.11.2013
was taken on record.
14. The management in its additional written statement
has pleaded that the workman was never employed
nor appointed as Jeep Driver with effect 11.11.86
by any authority of the opposite party, management
had never issued any appointment letter or order
to the applicant on the post of Jeep Driver or on
any other post, management had never paid any
salary and there never existed any relationship of
employer and employee between the parties. The
workman had never held any post under the
opposite party and he had never worked
continuously against any regular or permanent post.
He was never paid wages at Rs. 19.50 per day as
appointment of casual worker was completely
banned under the opposite party with effect from
1985, therefore, there could not be any appointment
under the opposite party. The opposite party further
pleaded that since the worker was never appointed
by them against any post therefore question of
termination of his service with effect from 09.03.88
as mentioned in the reference order does not arise.
15. On merit of the case it has been stated by the
opposite party that the services of the worker were
never governed by the rules of the management.
The appointment of workers is governed by
recruitment rules of the opposite party. The name
of the worker was never sponsored by the
employment exchange and that the workman is
trying to seek back door entry in the service of the
opposite party. Lastly it is alleged that it is not an
industrial dispute, therefore, the reference is bad in
law and therefore, the relief claimed by the worker
is liable to be rejected.
16. The workman against the additional written
statement filed by the management filed rejoinder
in which nothing new has been pleaded except
reiterating the facts already pleaded by the worker
in his claim petition.
17. Although on 04.10.05, the workman appeared before
the tribunal with his representative and submitted
that he has to adduce no further evidence and the
evidence already adduced by workman be
considered and the same was considered by the
tribunal in its award dated 28.12.2006 which was
set aside by the Hon'ble High Court, and the
contesting parties were given opportunities for
adducing their respective evidence in support of
their respective claim.
18. On 11.11.2014, the representative for the workman
made an endorsement on the order sheet to the
effect that the workman has already produced his
evidence. No fresh evidence shall be submitted/
produced on behalf of the workman.
19. The workman in support of his claim vide
application paper no. 38/1 has filed 10 documents
most of them are the experience certificate issued
by the officers of the opposite party and health
3296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
fitness certificate. The workman again vide
application dated 10.05.2011 which is paper no. 45/1
filed 17 documents most of them are the carbon
copies of the representations addressed to the
officers of the opposite party and order of the
Department of Telecommunication of date
02.04.2004 along with annexure. Relevanc of these
documents will be examined and dealt with at the
appropriate stage.
20. Opposite party vide application dated 04.03.11 paper
no. 34/3 has filed photocopy of judgment dated
18.07.95 of Consumer Forum Mainpuri in case no.
197/94, photocopy of application dated 04.05.94 filed
by the worker before Consumer Forum and
photocopy of judgment dated 07.12.99 of Consumer
Forum passed in case no. 168 of 94.
21. Shri Rakesh Kumar Dubey appeared in the witness
box as w.w.1 and stated on oath that appointed on
the post of Driver on 11.11.86 as daily wager and
continuously worked on that post till 08.03.88 and
he was never issued any charge sheet and his
superiors were satisfied from his working. No
notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation
was ever offered to him before termination of his
service. He has stated that he has filed documents
in support of his claim. SDO after giving him
experience certificate stopped taking from him.
Witness has denied the suggestion of the opposite
party that he had not worked continuously for 240
days. Witness has expressed his ignorance as to
whether SDO is competent or not to appoint any
person. Witness has further stated that he does
not know English and the officer concerned, after
getting typed the experience certificates, had given
him. It is wrong to suggest that either experience
certificates are fake or procured one. He admitted
the fact that he had filed a case before the consumer
forum and also admitted that he was allowed
compensation by the forum to the tune of Rs.
100000/- for sustaining injury in a road accident
and not for any disability in his body. To a question
put by the court, the witness stated that he is
complete fit to drive vehicle.
22. Workman has also examined one more witness by
name Shri Om Prakash Mishra as W.W.2 who in his
chief has admitted that he was appointed June 57
and remained posted at different post till 1996.
23. The opposite party in support of their claim filed
affidavit of one Shri Ram Saran and examined
himself as M.W.1.
24. I have heard the arguments of the parties at length
and have carefully considered the documents and
evidence of the parties available on record.
25. Representative for the workman has contended that
the workman was engaged as driver under the
opposite party and has worked from 11.11.86 to
08.03.88 continuously for more than 240 days in a
year preceding 12 calendar months from the date of
his termination and his services were terminated
with effect from 09.03.88, without any notice, notice
pay or payment of retrenchment compensation,
therefore, he is entitled for his reinstatement in
service with full back wages and consequential
benefits.
26. Representative for the management contended that
the workman was never appointed or posted as
Jeep Driver under the opposite party. He has not
filed any documents to prove his contentions nor
has filed any proof that he was being paid any
amount as wages during the alleged period. He has
only filed experience certificates which are forged
and procured documents and cannot be believed.
27. Representative for the management has also
contended that the workman failed to prove that he
has worked for 240 days continuously preceding
12 calendar months from the date of his termination
and burden lies upon him to prove this fact. He has
relied upon on the following authorities on this
point—
(a) 2002 (94) FLR 622. S.C. Range Forest Officer
versus S.T. Hadimani.
(b) 2003 (96) FLR 492 S.C. UP Awas Vikas Parishad
vs Kanak & others.
(c) 2006 (110) FLR 1212 S.C. Bhagya Jala Nigam
Ltd., vs Mohd. Rafi.
(d) 2005 (105) FLR 383 S.C. Bank of Baroda vs
Gheemer Bhai Harjibhai Lavare.
(e) 1981 (29) FLR 194 Allahabad High Court, V.K.
Raj Industries vs Labour.
28. On perusal of records it appears that the worker
has filed photocopies of experience certificates
issued by the SDO Mainpuri, which are paper no.
4/7-4/14 and also filed the original of these
documents which are 8 in numbers and are marked
as paper no. 38/2 to 38/5. By a bare perusal of these
experience certificates period of working of the
workman as mentioned in these certificates appears
to be 11.11.86 to 11.12.86, 13.12.86 to 12.01.87,
13.01.87 to 12.02.87, 13.02.87 to 12.03.87, 13.03.87 to
12.04.87, 13.04.87 to 18.05.87, 19.05.87 to 12.06.87,
and 13.06.87 to 08.03.88. It shows period of
continuous working as mentioned is from 11.06.86
to 08.03.88. The experience certificates are not
admitted by the opposite party and its witness
Shri Ram Saran M.W.1 in his cross-examination says
that these certificates are fake and forged. Worker
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3297
as W.W.1 has denied the suggestion that these
certificates are forged. In his evidence the witness
has alleged that he was appointed on 11.1186 as
driver and on 08.03.88 S.D.O. Shri A.K. Singh asked
him not to come on his duties. He was not given
any notice or retrenchment compensation at the
time of his termination. He has proved experience
certificates. In his cross examination he stated that
he was appointed by S.D.O. Mainpuri and was
given appointment letter and has further stated that
he has filed experience certificate and is treating
these certificates as appointment letter. In his claim
he has mentioned that he was being paid wages as
Rs. 19.50 paisa per day. He has also admitted the
fact that he was working as daily wager. He has
denied the suggestion of the management that he
has not worked continuously for 240 days.
29. In support of his contention the worker has
examined one Shri Om Prakash Mishra as M.W.2
who remained posted under the opposite party at
Mainpuri from 1986 to 1988. In his evidence he
alleges to be an employee of the opposite party
from 1957 to 1996. He also says that during his
posting at Mainpuri, SDO Shri Sharma was there
and thereafter Shri A.K. Singh joined as SDO
Telegraph in between Shri S.P. Agnihotri and
Shri Sharma, who also remained posted there. He
has proved the signature of Shri Sharma on paper
no. 4/7 to 4/12 and also proved the signature of
Shri A.K. Singh on paper no. 4/14. He also stated
that the workman was driving the Jeep of the
department at that time. In his cross examination he
said that he has no knowledge whether any
appointment letter was given to the worker or not.
He has seen the worker driving the Jeep of the
Department. He has also no knowledge that jeep
Driver was daily rated or casual worker. He has also
admitted that these experience certificates have not
been issued on the letter head of the department
and no dispatch number is mentioned in these
certificates. In this regard he further stated that
usually experience certificates are issued without
any dispatch and file number. He also says that he
has seen driving the jeep by the worker for the
period given in the experience certificates.
30. The evidence of W.W.2 Shri Om Prakash Mishra is
very much relevant because he was posted in the
department during the period the worker was
working there. As he was posted there he is the
best person to know working of department and
about the persons who were employed there and
the SDO's who issued the experience certificates to
the worker. Therefore, the evidence of W.W.2
cannot be disbelieved especially when the
management failed to rebut his testimony by leading
any cogent evidence.
31. Management has examined Shri Ram Saran aged
about 44 year as M.W.1 who is SDO Mainpuri to
rebut the evidence of worker and his witness who
could not have any knowledge regarding working
and workers of the department for the period
mentioned in experience certificates as he was not
in service of the department in that period. In his
cross examination he says that he has no knowledge
about holding of any jeep by the department in the
year 1986 as he was not in service. He was
appointed in 1984, and transferred to Mainpuri. He
stated that department might have in possession
of some jeep in 1986, but who was driving the same
he has no knowledge. He has searched for the
attendance register and payment vouchers for the
period 1986 to 88 but they were not available and
he also did not know as to what happened to these
documents. He has heard the name of Sri A. K.
Singh posted there. He could gather that some
person by name Umesh was driving the jeep who
died in 1986. As the records are not available he
cannot say when the records were destroyed. He
has no knowledge as to who was the appointing
authority during the period 1986 to 88. He stated
that experience certificates are forged. He also
alleged that log book of the jeep for that period is
also not available in the department. In his cross
examination he has not completely denied the right
of worker as he says he has no knowledge that
during the period 1985 to 1988 the jeep was being
driven by Sri Rakesh Kumar Dubey the concerned
worker or not.
32. Therefore, the evidence of M.W. 1 is of no help to
the case of the management as he has no knowlege
of facts of the case or the persons engaged at the
relevant peiod in the department, he has given his
evidence without perusing any document of the
department and his evidence is based on
conjustures and surmises and lastly he did not
denied the fact that worker was driver of jeep.
33. Authorized representative for the worker relied on
the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation versus Jadeja
reported in 2015 (144) FLR 177, where in the labour
court has placed reliance upon xorex copies of
certificates issued by an officer of the management
stating that worker was in employment of
management as conductor between 30.10.87 to
30.03.89 and the signatures of officers issuing
certificates was proved by another officer when
seen in the light of assertion of the workers, the
certificate in question clearly support the case of
worker that he was in employment for the period
mentioned and had rendered continuous service
for 240 days.
3298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVAN A 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
34. The case law cited by the worker is fully applicable
in the present case as the experience certificate filed
by the worker has been proved by WW.2 and the
department has not produced any cogent evidence
to disbelieve the evidence of W.W.2. The
department has not even dared to produce SDOs
of department who have issued the said certificates.
The department has also failed to produce
attendance register or register of payment to their
employees for the relevant period nor department
has adduced any chit of evidence to rebut the
claim of worker. The witness examined by the
department has no evidentiary value as he has no
knowledge of the facts of the case and has
deposed without any perusal ofthe documents.
35. Worker has admitted in his evidence that he was
being paid his wages @ Rs. 19.50 paisa as he was
working as daily rated worker. His representative
has cited as case law of Hon'ble Apex Court 2011
(130) FLR page 337 Devender Singh versus
Municipal Council Sonapur, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that section 2(s) contains as
exhaustive definition of the term workman. It is also
held that the source of employment, the method of
recruitment, the terms and conditions of
employment/contract of service, the quantum of
wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all
relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a
workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the
Act.
36. In another unreported case law of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No. 11525 of 2014, State of
U.P. verus Parmanand Shukla (dead) through LRs
in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted Jump
sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to LR's of Parmanand
Shukla who was working as daily wager as his
working was found from 1986 to 2000 as daily rated
worker.
37. Therefore, from the above observations and
authorities placed by the representative for the
workman, it is concluded that the workman has
proved his case that he worked continuously with
effect from 11.11.86 to 08.03.86 as Jeep Driver and
that at the time of termination of his services neither
he was given any notice, notice pay not
retrenchment compensation, therefore, it is held that
the termination of the services of the workman with
effect from 09.03.88 by the opposite party is neither
just, legal nor fair. The workman is held entitled for
reinstatement in the serivce of the department with
effect from 09.03.88 with full back wages, continuity
of service and with all consequential benefits.
38. Reference is therefore, answered in favour of the
workman and against the opposite party.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1566.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@2011½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@33@2011&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&1½]
,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2015
S.O. 1566.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2011)
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
24/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/33/2011-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 OF 2011
Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area
of M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : SRI R.K. SARAN,
Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES:
for the Employers
: Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
: Shri S.C. Gour, Advocate
State - Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
Dated 10/6/2015
AWARD
By Order No. L- 20012/33/2011 IR-(C-1) dated,
02/09/2011 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has,
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3299
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Indusrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
''Whether the action of the management of P.B.
Project of M/s. BCCL in not providing employment
to Sri Ganesh Bhuia dependent son of Late
Rameshwar Bhuia is justified ? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?''
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 12.09.2011. After receipt of reference, both parties
are noticed, the workman filed their written
statement on 14.10.2011. The management also filed
written statement-cum-rejoinder on 02.05.2013. One
witness each examined by both side on their behalf.
Document of workman marked as Ext. W-1 to
W-4.
3. The short point to be decided in this reference is
the deceased workman's dependent son who
applied for job is entitled for job or not.
4. The management though admitted that though the
claim of the workman is genuine, since he has
applied for job 18 months after the death of this
father, his claim has been refused.
5. But after the death of an earning member,
the uneducated dependant have no way
except darkness and emptiness, to get all papers
and for applying with proper Proforma is not
possible.
6. More over NCWA gives right to the dependent to
get a job and that be given after observing all
formalities waiving the technical barriers.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1567.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 87@1993½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@91@1992&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2015
S.O. 1567.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 87/1993 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
24/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/91/1992 - IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S 10 (1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D. ACT. 1947
REF. NO. 87 OF 1993
Employer in relation to the management of C.V Area,
M/s BCCL,
AND
Their workmen.
Present:
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES:
For the Employers
:
None
For the workman
:
None
State
:
Jharkhand.
Industry
:
Coal
Dated: 01/05/2015
AWARD
By order No.L-20012/91/92-IR (C-1), dated 07/04/
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
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/S
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, C.V Area No. X11 in
relation to their Basantimata Colliery in denying
Conversion from PR & TR and regularization of Shri
Pujari Bilaspuria and 50 others (as per list enclosed)
is justified? if not, to what relief the workman
concerned are entitled ?"
3300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Annexure
List of workman of Basanti Mata colliary
Sl.
Name
Designation
B/Form
Presently
Place of
Working
No.
No.
Working as
Posting
in TR
Since
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
1 Pujari Bilaspurja
Stacker/Loader
161
Gen. Maz.
Basanti Mata
1986
2 Darasram Bilaspuria
-do-
437
-do-
-do-
1986
3 Bhaiaram Bilaspuria
-do-
263
-do-
-do-
1986
4 Sukhiram Bilaspuria
-do-
463
-do-
-do-
1986
5 Nandu Bilaspuria
-do-
478
-do-
-do-
1986
6 Bidya Dhar Nayak
-do-
270
-do-
-do-
1986
7 Chungi Lal Ray
-do-
250
-do-
-do-
1986
8 Gurubarna Bilaspuria
-do-
440
-do-
-do-
1986
9, Nani Bai Bilaspuria
-do-
231
-do-
-do-
1986
10. Sonamoni Mejhan
-do-
465
-do-
-do-
1986
11. Lilamani Mejhan
-do-
537
-do-
-do-
1986
12. Abala Roy
-do-
408
-do-
-do-
1986
13. Ani Muthi
-do-
489
-do-
-do-
1986
14. Gandu Goura
-do-
326
-do-
-do-
1986
15. Mundri Mahatain
-do-
404
-do-
-do-
1986
16. Pana Mejhan
-do-
714
-do-
-do-
1986
17. Jamuna Mejhan
-do-
734
-do-
-do-
1986
18. Srimati Mejhan
-do-
915
-do-
-do-
1986
19. Makhani Mejhan
-do-
1050
-do-
-do-
1986
20. Bahamani Mejhan
-do-
160
-do-
-do-
1986
21. Ludhri Mundain
-do-
194
-do-
-do-
1986
22. Ramjanam Munda
-do-
124
-do-
-do-
1986
23. Ramcharan Cgowhan
-do-
326
-do-
-do-
1986
24. Parwati Mudi
-do-
184
-do-
-do-
1986
25. Manjo Mundain
-do-
196
-do-
-do-
1986
26. Ramani Mejhan
-do-
152
-do-
-do-
1986
27. Parbati Mejhan
-do-
909
-do-
-do-
1986
28. Santi Mejhan
-do-
490
-do-
-do-
1986
29. Maharaj Majhi
-do-
—
-do-
-do-
1986
30. Kapildeo Mahto
Truck/Loader
443
Shell-Picker
-do-
1986
31. Raghu Mahto
-do-
460
-do-
-do-
1986
32. Ramdeo Sah
-do-
112
-do-
-do-
1986
33. Ram Bishun Mahto
-do-
461
-do-
-do-
1986
34. Ram Pravesh Mahto
-do-
469
-do-
-do-
1986
35. Bishundeo Mahto
-do-
454
-do-
-do-
1986
36. Yamuna Mahto
-do-
—
-do-
-do-
1986
37. Baidyanath Majhi
-do-
729
-do-
-do-
1986
38. Haradhan Majhi
-O.B.R.
J851
Gen.Maz.
-do-
1986
39. Kalachand Majhi
Truck/Loader
862
-do-
-do-
1986
40. Ajmul Mia
-do-
EP 117
Gardener
-do-
1986
41. Lakhi Ram Majhi
Stacker/Loader
J815
-do-
-do-
1986
42. Sangulal Majhi
Wagon Loader
194 EP
-do-
-do-
-do-
43. Motilal Majhi
O.B.R.
J852
-do-
-do-
-do-
44. Ronu Roy
Coal Stacker
1086
-do-
-do-
-do-
45. Bijoy Singh
Truck/Loader
J776
-do-
-do-
1986
46. Ramayan Mahto
Truck/Loader
—
Dumper Khalasi
-do-
1986
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3301
2. After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed.
Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently
did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is
presumed that the disputes between parties have been
resolved in the meantime. Hence no Dispute Award is
passed.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1568.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds izca/
kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50@1993½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@399@1991&vkbZvkj¼lh&1½]
,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2015
S.O. 1568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/1993) 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
24.07.2015.
[No. L-20012/399/1991-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
Ref. No. 50 of 1993
Employer in relation to the management of Moonidih
Project of M/s. BCCL,
AND
Their workmen.
Present:
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers :
Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman :
None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal.
Dated : 06.05.2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/399/1991-IR(C-1), 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
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of management of moonidih
project M/s. B.C.C.Ltd, P.O. Moonidih, Dist.
Dhanbad, in stopping, Shri Raj Kumar Beldar (No.
6924), Durga Mahali (NO. 6788), Arun Kumar Roy
(No. 6823) and Jugal Prasad (No. 6814) from duty
w.e.f. 13.08.1990 is justified? If not to what relief the
workmen are entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed.
Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently did
not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is presumed
that the disputes between parties have been resolved in the
meantime, Hence no Dispute Award is passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1569.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52@1993½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@369@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2015
S.O. 1569.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
Sl.No. Name
Designation
Date of
Date of
CMPF No.
Place of
ID. Card
Appt.
Birth
posting
No.
1.
Gulab Ch. Manjhi
Truck Loader
02.01.73
02.01.47
C/423950
Basantimata
242182
2.
Janak Mahto
-do-
-do-
02.01.49
C/423964
-do-
245152
3.
Ramayan Mahto
-do-
02.01.44
C/423941
-do-
—
4.
Gorabi Majhan
-do-
—
—
—
—
—
3302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 52/1993 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. ECL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
24.07.2015.
[No. L-20012/369/1991-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
Ref. No. 52 of 1993
Employer in relation to the management of Khudia
Colliery of M/s. ECL,
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 : 03.06.2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/369/1991-IR(C-1), 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
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union for regularization of S/Shri Srikant Karmakar
and 18 others by the management of Khudia
Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Kapasara
Area is justified? If yes, to what relief the concerned
workmen is entitled?"
Note:—List of workmen is not received alongwith order
of reference.
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] 24 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1570.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2014½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@83@2013&vkbZvkj¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2015
S.O. 1570.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 13/2014 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
24.07.2015.
[No. L-20012/83/2013-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act,
1947
Reference No. 13 of 2014
Employer in relation to the management of Loyabad
Colliery, Sijua 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 M. Prasad, Advocate.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal.
Dated : 14.05.2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/83/2013-IR(CM-1), dated
13/02/2014, 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 Loyabad
Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L in dismissing Sri Prushotam
Dora Ex-M/Loader from the service of company
vide order dated 18.10.2007 is fair and justified? To
what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3303
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
24.02.2014. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed, the workman files their written statement on
28.05.2014. Management also files written statement on
24.10.2014. The point involved in the reference is that the
workman has been dismissed from his services.
3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the case
is dismissal of workman is for long absence on duty. But
he has already out of service for 08 years. It is felt to give
another chance to the workman to serve.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee. But
the workman be kept under probation for the period of
two years and his performance report be given to the under
signed. Therefore the question of back wages does not
arise at all.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1571.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
55@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@301@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2015
S.O. 1571.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2002) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 24/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/301/2001-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. 55/2002
Employer in relation to the management of the
Kusunda Area No. VI, M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present:
SHRI R.K. SARAN Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers:
Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate
For the workman:
None
State: Jharkhand.
Industry: Coal
Dated: 25/6/2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/301/2001 IR (C-1) dated
10/05/2002, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area
of M/s. BCCL in not providing regular employment to Shri
Nageshwar Paswan & 88 Others (as per list) engaged on
the job of shall Pickling and Coal breaking etc. at Kusunda
Area is fair and justified? If not, to what relief are the
concerned workmen entitled and from what date?"
Sl.No. Workman Name
Father's Name
Full
Address
1
2
3
4
1.
Nageshwar
Late Kisun Paswan
Vill-
Paswan
Nawadih
Kusunda,
P.O.
Kusunda,
P.S.
Kenduadih,
Distt.
Dhanbad
2.
Sushla Devi
Late Nageshwar
-do-
Paswan
3.
Basant Paswan
Late Kisun Paswan
-do-
4.
Suresh Paswan
Shri Karam Paswan
-do-
5.
Bhuneshwar Paswan
Shri Karam Paswan
-do-
6.
Vakil Paswan
Late Prasadi Paswan
-do-
7.
Kapil Paswan
Late Phaudari
-do-
Paswan
3304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
8.
Krishan Bhuiya
Shri Rameshwar
-do-
Bhuiya
9.
Aanandi Paswan
Shri Ganesh Paswan
-do-
10.
Pramila Devi
Shri Rajbali Paswan
-do-
11.
Kaushliya Devi
Shri Bhuneshwar
-do-
Paswan
12.
Kuru Bhuiya
Shri Kali Charan
-do-
Bhuiya
13.
Bali Ram Paswan
Shri Durga Paswan
-do-
14.
Kanta Devi
Shri Bali Ram
-do-
Paswan
15.
Sunaina Devi
Basant Bhuiya
-do-
16.
Urmila Devi
Shri Suresh Paswan
-do-
17.
Basant Bhuiya
Shri Ramdhani
-do-
Bhuiya
18.
Jintendra Kumar
Shri Mathura Das
-do-
Das
19.
Munma Devi
Shri Kapil Paswan
-do-
20.
Shri Rajbali
Late Lalo Paswan
-do-
Paswan
21.
Champa Devi
Shri Lalan Paswan
-do-
22.
Kaila Mia
Shri Genauri Mia
-do-
23.
Rekha Devi
Shri Dahu Paswan
-do-
24.
Shila Devi
Shri Latori Paswan
-do-
25.
Asharphi Bhuiya
Shri Banwari Bhuiya
-do-
26.
Ram balak
Shri Lakhad Paswan
-do-
Paswan
27.
Shri Rajendra
Late Baudhu
-do-
Paswan
Paswan
28.
Bijay Bhuiya
Late Lagbu Bhuiya
-do-
29.
Lalita Devi
Shri Saryug Paswan
-do-
30.
Siya Ram Paswan
Late Gaivi Paswan
-do-
31.
Baleshwari Devi
Shri Barant Bhuiya
-do-
32.
Uma Devi
Shri Mahadev Saw
-do-
33.
Sonma Devi
Shri Mohan Paswan
-do-
34.
Urmila Devi
Shri Ram Lagan
-do-
No. 2
Paswan
35.
Dashrath
Late Ghanshyam
-do-
Paswan
Paswan
36.
Dhahu Paswan
Shri Talo Paswan
-do-
37.
Vir Bahadur
Shri Rajendra
Joda-
Prasad
phatak
Chandmari
Road
Post
Dhansar,
P.S.
Dhansar
Distt.
Dhanbad
38.
Jai Ram Paswan
Shri Durga Paswan
-do-
39.
Sunita Devi
Shri Sidheshwar
-do-
Paswan
1
2
3
4
40.
Chandrama
Shri Laljeet Rajbhar
-do-
Rajbhar
41.
Ashok Bhuiya
Shri Jalandhar
-do-
Bhuiya
42.
Mahadev Saw
Late Meva Saw
-do-
43.
Sihanti Devi
Shri Bijay Bhuiya
-do-
44.
Poiwa Devi
Ranjendra Paswan
-do-
45.
Sidheswar
Late Lalo Paswan
-do-
Paswan
46.
Sanjay Paswan
Shri Ramautar
Vill-
Paswan
Nayadeeh
Kusunda,
Post
Kusunda,
P.S.
Kenduadih,
Distt.
Dhanbad
47.
Pramod Paswan
Shri Sidheshwar
-do-
Paswan
48.
Karu Bhuiya
Shri Ramdhani
-do-
Bhuiya
49.
Virendra Paswan
Shri Dahu Paswan
-do-
50.
Ghanshyam
Shri Bangali Bhuiya
-do-
Bhuiya
51.
Saryug Paswan
Late Raghu Paswan
-do-
52.
Shanti Devi
Shri Siya Ram
-do-
Paswan
53.
Surendra Ram
Late Jayprakash
-do-
Ram
54.
Bachhi Devi
Shri Kailash Paswan
-do-
55.
Shri Lakshminiya
Shri Sakichand
-do-
Devi
Rajwar
56.
Durgi Devi
Late Puran Chauhan
-do-
57.
Ramchandra
Shri Bhajan Bhuiya
-do-
Bhuiya
58.
Khagva Devi
Shri Bhajan Bhuiya
-do-
59.
Mina Devi
Shri Nunulal Paswan
-do-
60.
Mohan Paswan
Shri Karam Paswan
-do-
61.
Latori Paswan
Late Ramdhani
-do-
Paswan
62.
Dilip Paswan
Shri Karam Paswan
-do-
63.
Mahavir
Shri Haradhan
-do-
Karmakar
Karmakar
64.
Sunil Saw
Shri Mahadev Saw
-do-
65.
Lalan Paswan
Shri Karam Paswan
-do-
66.
Rajmanti Devi
Shri Ram Balak
-do-
Paswan
67.
Ramesh Bhuiya
Late Chauthi Bhuiya
-do-
68.
Yogendra Paswan
Shri Chandu Paswan
-do-
69.
Gita Devi
Shri Ashraphi
-do-
Bhuiya
70.
Reshma Devi
Shri Karu Bhuiya
-do-
71.
Anil Paswan
Shri Rajendra
-do-
Paswan
72.
Suhagwa Devi
Shri Jaldhar Bhuiya
-do-
73.
Manju Devi
Shri Anil Paswan
-do-
74.
Chinta Devi
Shri Shatrudhan
-do-
Paswan
75.
Kapil Dev
Shri Baldev Paswan
-do-
Paswan
76.
Ramji Ram
Shri Brihspati Ram
-do-
77.
Dinesh Bhuiya
Shri Buddu Bhuiya
-do-
78.
Nunu Lal
Late Dhneshwar
-do-
Paswan
Paswan
79.
Savitri Devi
Karu Buiya
-do-
80.
Bikhari Bhuiya
Shri Somran Bhuiya
-do-
1
2
3
4
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3305
81.
Kabo Devi
Tubu Bhuiya
-do-
82.
Savitri Devi
Shri Kishori Paswan
-do-
83.
Ram Lagan
Late Bodan Paswan
-do-
Paswan
84.
Ramjatan Chauhan
Shri Sarju Chauhan
-do-
85.
Devpatiya Devi
Ramjatan Chauhan
-do-
86.
Shri Ram Prasad
Shri Suribali Prasad
-do-
87.
Dilip Paswan
Rajbali Paswan
-do-
88.
Aanandi Paswan
Lalo Paswan
-do-
89.
Kavindra Ram
Shri Ram
-do-
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But none appears on behalf of the workman 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] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1572.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr
lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] iVuk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 190@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40011@29@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1572.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. Ref. No. 190/2013) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
(No. 2), Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Patna and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 21/07/2015.
[No. L-40011/29/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), 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. 190 of 2013
Parties
: The President
1
2
3
4
BSNL Casual Shramik Sangh, Dulhin Bazar,
Belhouri, Patna, Bihar,
Vs. Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Patna Telecom
Circle, Patna, Bihar.
Ministry's Order No. L-40011/29/2013-IR(DU)
dt. 06.08.2013
Appearances:
On behalf of the workman/Union :
None
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. Sushil Pd. Ld.
Advocate.
State: Bihar
Industry Telecommunication
Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th June, 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-40011/29/
2013-IR(DU) dt. 06.08.2013.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd., Patna in terminating the services of Shri Jitendra
Choudhary, workman w.e.f. 01.02.2012 is legal and justified?
To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
Neither any Union Representative for workman Jitendra
Choudhary nor workman himself nor any one likewise
appeared for OP/Management of BSNL, Patna Telephone
Circle, Patna, Bihar nor any written statement with any
documents filed till now on behalf of the Management.
On perusal of the case record, I find that despite three
Regd. notices to the President of the Union concerned on
his address as noted in the Reference itself seven after
one more chance following the last one for it, no written
statement of the workman with any documents filed so far.
The Union Representative and the workman by their won
conducts appear to be quite reluctant to pursue the case
for its final disposal. Under these circumstances, it appears
to be no longer any Industrial Dispute related to
termination of the workman concerned. Hence the case is
closed as no I.D. and accordingly, it is passed as "No
Dispute Award."
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1573.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
3306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 53@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@221@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1573.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2005) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 27/07/2015.
[No. L-22012/221/2004-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. 53 of 2005
PARTIES: The management of Nimcha Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Ganesh Prasad Gupta
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
: Shri P.K. Goswami, Ld.
Adv.
For the union (Workman)
: Sri
Rakesh
Kumar,
President, KMC
Industry: Coal
State: West Bengal
Dated: 13.07.2015
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/
221/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 29.06.2005 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Nimcha Colliery
of M/s. ECL in not assessing the age of Shri Ganesh Prasad
Gupta as per S.S. No. 76 of JBCCI is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/221/2004-
IR(CM-II) dated 29.06.2005 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
2005 was registered on 17.08.2005 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 Shri Rakesh Kumar, General Secretary
of the union (KMC) appears on behalf of the workman.
Shri Rakesh Kumar submits that the case may be closed
and a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed as the workman
is not interested to proceed with the case further. He also
made an endorsement on the order sheet to that effect.
Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the
case, 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] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1574.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhihMCY;wMh ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 4@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1574.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.4/2012) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Delhi as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of CPWD and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 27/07/2015.
[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3307
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, ROOM
NO. 33, BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR,
KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX.
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110 032
Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena,
ID No. 4/2012
Sh. Manish Singh, S/o. Late Anand Swaroop,
CPWD General Manager Union,
Room No. 95, Barrack No. 1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Sahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110011.
Versus
Director General (works),
CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110005.
AWARD
Application on behalf of workman under section 33 A
of I.D. Act 1947 has been filed. Which was registered as
ID No. 4/2012.
Application contains following facts:—
1.
That the dispute for regularization and grant of
regular pay scale in which the name of Sh. Manish
is also connected and the same is pending before
this Hon'ble Tribunal in I.D. No. 38/2006 for
industrial adjudication.
2.
That the management terminated the services of
Sh. Manish Kumar w.e.f. 13.12.2011 without taking
prior permission before this Hon'ble Tribunal so
the workman is filling this complaint under section
33A I.D. Act, 1947.
3.
That Sh. Manish S/o Late Sh. Anand Swaroop has
been working as Sewerman w.e.f. 15.01.2000 under
PWD II Sub Division IV through fake contractor.
Now the said division is changed as M-131, Sub
Division 1313, LNJP Hospital by Sh. Harsh
Wardhan Malhotra, Jr. Engineer by instigation of
Executive Engineer Sh. A.K. Singh and in his place
another worker Karan was employed in his place
which is serious violation of Section 33 of I.D. Act
as well as Section 25 F as well as 25 G of
I.D. Act, 1947.
4.
That the workman initially engage as Sewerman
w.e.f. 15.01.2000 and completed more than 240 days
in each of the calendar year and worked
continuously and his services were terminated
w.e.f. 13.12.2011 without any notice or notice pay
as provided under section pay as provided under
section 25 F (a) and (b) of I.D. Act. On this ground
also the termination of the workman is illegal,
unjustified, unfair and against the provisions of
natural justice also.
5.
That it is also brought to the notice of this Hon'ble
Tribunal that the dispute for regularization and
equal pay for equal work is pending this Tribunal
and without taking prior permission from the said
Court the services of Sh. Manish cannot be
terminated as Section 33 of the said Act is in
operation. In view of this the termination of the
workman is nonest.
6.
That it is also brought to the notice of this Hon'ble
Tribunal that the reference has been issued by the
Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India vide its order
No. L-42012/87/2005-IR (CM-II) dated 12.06.2006
and his name is appearing at Sl. No. 18 in that list.
The said reference is dealt by the Ld. Presiding
Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court as ID. No. 38/2006.
7.
That the work of Sewerman has been abolished by
the Ministry of Labour through their notification
No. SO 813 (E) dated 31st July, 2012 so the work of
Sewerman cannot be executed through contract
labour and the management cannot terminate their
services without taking prior permission from this
Hon'ble Tribunal and the Management did not
comply the provisions of Section 25F and Section
25G of I.D. Act as the junior person like Mr. Karan
has been employed after terminating the services
of Sh. Manish. It is also brought to the notice of
this Hon'ble Tribunal that without taking prior
permission from the Ld. Presiding Officer, CGIT-
Cum-Labour Court No. II also attract penal
consequences u/s 31 of ID. Act. Provision of
Section 31 is reproduced as under:—
"Penalty for other offences—1 Any employer
who contravenes the provisions of Section 33 shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of
this Act or any rule made thereunder shall, if no
other penalty is elsewhere provided by or under
this Act for such contravention, be punishable with
fine which may extend to one hundred rupees."
8.
That the termination of the workman also attracts
unfair labour practice as mentioned in the 5th
Schedule of Section 2 (ra) of I.D. Act.
9.
That after termination of the services Sh. Manish
is unemployed so he is entitled to be reinstated
with full back wages alongwith all consequential
benefits. The demand notice dated 14th May, 2012
is served to the management but the management
did not paid any heed and did not replied to
3308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
demand notice. Copy of the demand notice is
Ennexed as Annexure-B.
PRAYER:
In view of the above it is prayed that the services of
Sh. Manish be reinstated w.e.f. 13.12.2011 with full back
wages alongwith all consequential benefits.
Against allegations made in application respondent filed
written statement on 25.03.2013. Contents of written
statement are as follows:—
1.
That the claim of the workman arises through
(claiming under) independent contractors who were
appointed as a result of Tender and they were
employed under such contracts which were granted
on the yearly basis or part there of by the Govt. on
the basis of competitive bidding under the tender
process, which clearly implies that the employment
of the same contractor including the workman
claiming through or under such tender contractors,
is not guaranteed or permanent beyond the duration
specified under the tender terms and conditions, to
confer the status of permanent workman as
employees of the Govt. upon the workman of an
independent Tender contractor is completely
unfounded, baseless and against the settled rules
of labour laws. It is further submitted that such
workman was working as tender contract
employees under the independent contractor who
was appointed by invitation to bid through a
competitve tender process. It is almost surprising
as to how such pretended applicant/workman could
be held to be employees of the Govt./Management.
2.
That the present Statement of Claim filed by the
workman is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs
as the workman has not come before this Hon'ble
Court with clean hands.
3.
That the workman/applicant has misused the
process of law and the Management is being
harassed by the workman without any cause of
action, so the present statement of claim of the
workman is not maintainable and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
4.
That the present Statement of claim is bad for mis-
joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties hence
the present claim is liable to be dismissed
outrightly.
5.
That the workman filed the present claim against
the Management with mala-fide intention only to
achieve ulterior motive, hence the present claim of
the workman is not maintainable and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
6.
That no notice Section 80 of C.P.C. has been served
upon the answering management which is a
statutory requirement before filing the suit against
Government department.
7.
That the workman was/is not employee under the
employment of the Management at any time or at
any point hence relationship between workman
and the management is denied in toto, hence the
present claim of the workman is liable to be
dismissed only.
8.
That the workman is neither workman within the
definition of workman nor employee under the
Minimum Wages Act, hence the statement of claim
of the workman be dismissed on this ground only.
REPLY ON MERITS:
1.
That the contents of para needs no reply being
matter of record. The management of CPWD/PWD
is not the employer of the applicant and not paying
the wages to him.
2.
That regarding the contents of para it is submitted
that the contractual labourers are the responsibility
of the agencies to which they are engaged to execute
the work for a limited period of Agreement and in
any way the management of CPWD/PWD is not
responsible for their appointment and termination
of services, henceforth it is denied in toto that the
Management terminated the services of workman
without taking prior permission before this Hon'ble
Tribunal. Rest of the averments of corresponding
para are wrong and denied.
3-4. That regarding the contents of para it is submitted
that workman himself has admitted that the had
been appointed under "fake" contractor and he is
deliberately not disclosing the name of contractor
which crystal clear shows that he has not
approached to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands.
It is further submitted that responsibility of
providing services of day to day maintenance
works through contract pertains to agencies of
service provider and Management of CPWD/PWD
look after the works of services only and not the
workman in person by name whom the agency
engaged. The agencies can be different according
to contract time to time, henceforth there is no
violation of Section 33 of ID Act as well as Section
25(f) and 25(g) of I.D. Act, 1947 and question does
not arise of giving him any notice what to talk of
termination of workman as illegal, unjustified, unfair
and against the provisions of natural justice. It is
further submitted that the applicant/workman has
not provided any documents in support of claim
for providing services of sever man that he was
getting his daily wages form the Management of
CPWD/PWD during the period i.e., w.e.f. 15.01.2000
and no documents has been provided in support
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3309
that the management had engaged and paid him
w.e.f. 15.01.2000 to 12.12.2011 along with letter of
termination. The workman/applicant be put to
strictly prove the averments as stated by him in
claim. Rest of the averments of corresponding paras
are wrong and denied.
5-7. That regarding contents of para it is submitted that
workman/applicant was/is not employee under the
employment of the Management at any time or at
any point hence relationship between workman and
Management is denied in toto, however dispute/
case for regularization for equal pay for equal work
is pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal but it is
again submitted that when there is no relationship
between management and applicant/workman then
question doesn't arise of his termination by the
answering management hence the present claim of
the workman is liable to be dismissed only. It is
further submitted that when relationship between
management and applicant/workman is denied then
question doesn't arise of penal consequences
under Section 31 of I.D. Act, 1947, this is sheer
pressure tactics upon answering Management with
the motive of harassment to govt. Rest of the
averments of corresponding para are wrong and
denied.
8.
That the contents of para are wrong and denied
as applicatnt firstly workman has to prove that he
was working under Management at any point of
time and regarding it a reference is pending before
this Hon'ble Tribunal, and further when there is
no relationship between management and
applicant/workman then question doesn't arise of
his termination and also adopting unfair labour
practices by the answering Management.
9.
That the contents of para are wrong and denied as
there is no relationship between management and
applicant/workman then question doesn't arise of
his reinstatement with full back wages along with
all consequential benefits and he is not entitled
for the relief he is claiming and also when there
exists no relationship between management and
applicant/workman then question doesn't arise
of answering demand notice.
Last para is prayer which is wrong and denied, it is
submitted keeping in view of the above said facts and
circumstances it is clear the applicant/workman is not the
employee of Management CPWD/PWD since 15.01.2000
as Management of CPWD/PWD has no relation in the
matter of his appointment as well as termination of his
services, as such the claim of applicant for reinstatement
i.e. 13.12.2011 with full back wages alongwith all
consequential benefits are totally unjustified and
unrelated to Management of CPWD/PWD. It is prayed to
this Hon'ble Court that the Statement of claim of the
workman be dismissed against the answering
management after looking into facts and circumstances
of the case.
Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Forum
may deem fit and proper in the present facts and
circumstances as afore mentioned be passed in favour of
the management No. 1 and against the workman, in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
On the basis of pleadings of parties my Ld. Predecessor
framed following issues on 03.05.2013:—
1. Whether action of the management in terminating
services of the claimant on 13.12.2001 is violative of
provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947?
2. Whether claimant is entitled to relief for
reinstatement?
Workman in support of his case filed his affidavit on
26.6.2013.
Working tendered his affidavit on 26.06.2013 and he
was partly cross-examined on same day.
His statement of tendering of affidavit and his partly
cross-examination is as follows:—
I tender my affidavit as evidence which is Ex. WW1/A.
Alongwith this affidavit, I rely on reference order dated
12.06.2006, which document is Ex. WW1/1. It may be read
in support of my affidavit.
XXXX by Ms. Bindiya Savara, Ld. A/R for the
management.
I was appointed by the Junior Engineer, whose name I
cannot detail now. Ex. WW1/A was read over by fake
contractor, a fraud contractor. I was not within my
knowledge that I was working with a fake contractor.
Ques:—
How you came to know that he was a fraud
contractor.
Ans.
Question was repeated time and again, but
the witness opted not to answer. I made oral
complaint to the Junior Engineer when I came
to know that the contractor was fraud. No
written complaint was made by me to any
authority. I made that complaint orally to Sh.
M.C. Jain, JE, but I do not recollect date,
month and year of making the complaint. I
had not made any complaint against Sh. Jain
or the contractor to higher authorities. Further
cross-examination is deferred for the next
date.
Workman was partly cross-examined by Ld. A/R for the
management on 23.07.2014. His partly cross-examination
is as follows:—
3310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Ques.
Whether you have filed any document of
your appointment to relating to fake
contractor in your evidence.
Ans.
No.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have been appointed by
CPWD.
It is correct that case relating to my regularization is
pending in this Tribunal.
It is incorrect to suggest that I was never been
termination by CPWD as I was not its employee.
It also incorrect to suggest that I was terminated by
alleged fake contractor.
It is incorrect to suggest that there is violation of
provision of I.D. Act and I.D. Rules.
It is incorrect to suggest that there was no need to give
notice to me.
Workman was again partly cross-examined by Ld. A/R
for the management on 27.08.2014.
His cross-examination is as follows:—
It is incorrect to suggest that I was not employee of
PWD or CPWD.
It is correct that I am parte in case ID. 38/2006
Sh. Mukesh Kr. Vs. CPWD.
It is wrong to suggest that there was no need to give
notice to me before terminating my services.
It is also incorrect to suggest that aforesaid formulaty
was not needed as I am not employee of PWD or CPWD.
I was not appointed through contractor. I was
appointed by J.E.
Content of para 3 and 4 are correct of affidavit of my
evidence.
It is correct that I could not filed any paper which may
show that I am employee of PWD and CPWD.
It is incorrect to suggest that I filed false and fabricated
case to harass the mgt. CPWD/PWD.
It is also incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely
to prove my false and fabricated case.
Management in support of his case filed affidavit of
MW1 Sh. O.P. Sharma on 15.04.2014.
I tender my affidavit which is Ex. MW1/A and I bear my
signature at point A & B.
xxxx:—By Sh. B.K. Prasad, Ld. A/R for the workman.
I joined on 19.10.2012 in division which I am working.
Workman was not working in the office of CPWD/PWD.
Q.
I-card of Sh. Manish Kumar shown to you was
issued by Sh. Harsh Vardhan Malhotra the then
J.E. of CPWD?
Ans. I don't know the signature of J.E. Harsh Vardhan
Malhotra.
Q.
Whether you was posted in 2008 in this Division?
Ans. No.
Q.
Whether any permission was obtained from this
Tribunal before terminating the service of
Sh. Manish Kumar?
Ans. Such permission was not required as workman is
not workman of CPWD.
Q.
Whether you know, that contractual employment
of Sewerman, carpenter wireman etc. have been
abolished by Ministry of Labour?
Ans. It is correct.
It is incorrect to suggest that affidavit filed by me is
false and fabricated.
Ld. A/R for the workman orally argued as well as filed
written arguments on 5.6.2015. Wherein he mentioned as
follows:—
1.
That the name of Sh. Manish Kumar is mentioned
in ID. No. 38/2006 for industrial adjudication in
which the name of the workman is appearing at
Serial No. 18 in the list but the management
terminated the services of the workman w.e.f.
13.12.2011 without taking prior permission from this
Hon'ble Tribunal in ID. No. 38/2006.
2.
That it is mandatory on the part of the management
to take prior permission before terminating the
services of the workman which violates Section 33
of the ID Act, 1947 and violation of the said Section
is punishable as per the provisions of Section 31 of
the ID. Act, 1947 and the said provision is
mentioned in para 7 of ID. Act, 1947 and this action
of the management is also unfair labour practice
as mentioned in Vth Schedule of Section 2(ra) of
the ID. Act, 1947.
3.
The reference order is annexed as Exhibit WW1/1
alongwith the demand notice which is also Exhibit
WW1/2. Thus it is proved that the management
did not take prior permission before terminating
the services of the workman which action of the
management is not permissible as per the judgment
of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank
Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors. reported in (2002)
Supreme Court Cases 244. As per the said judgment
without taking prior permission the termination/
discharge/dismissal is non-est and this Hon'ble
CGIT-cum-Labour Court No. II may direct the
management to reinstate the workman from the date
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3311
of illegal termination of services i.e. w.e.f. 13.12.2011
as the management violated the provisions of
Section 33 of the ID Act, 1947.
4.
That in this connection the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas
Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors. reported in
(2002) Supreme Court cases 244 has held in Para 6
which is reproduced as under:
"6. Answer to the question on which conflicting
decision are rendered, as noticed above, depends
on a fair reading and proper interpretation of
Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Prior to the amendment
of 1956, the provision contained in Section 33
corresponded to the present 33(1) only. The object
behind enacting Section 33, as it stood before it
was amended in 1956, was to allow continuance of
industrial proceedings pending before any
authority/Court/tribunal prescribed by the Act in a
peaceful atmosphere undisturbed by any other
industrial dispute. In course of time, it was felt that
unamended Section 33 was too stringent for it
placed a total ban on the right of the employer to
make any alteration in conditions of service or to
make any order of discharge or dismissal even in
cases where such alteration in conditions of service
or passing of an order of dismissal of discharge,
was not in any manner connected with the dispute
pending before an industrial authority. It appears,
therefore, that Section 33 was amended in 1956
permitting the employer to make changes in
condictions of service or to discharge or dismiss
an employee in relation to matters not connected
with the pending industrial dispute. At the same
time, it seems to have been felt that there was need
to provide some safeguards for a workman who
may be discharged or dismissed during the
pendency of a dispute on account of some matter
unconnected with the dispute. This position is clear
by reading the redrafted expanded Section 33 in
1956 containing five sub-section. For the present
purpose, we are concerned with the proviso to
Section 33(2)(b). The material and relevant portion
of Section 33 reads:
"33. Conditions of service, etc. to remain
unchanged under certain circumstances during
pendency of proceedings. (1)
(2) During the pendency of any such proceedings in
respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in
accordance with the standing orders applicable to a
workman concerned in such dispute or, where there are no
such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the
contract, whether express or implied, between him and the
workman.
(a)
*
*
*
*
(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute,
discharge or punish, where by dismissal or otherwise, that
workman:
Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or
dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month
and an application has been made by the employer to the
authority before which the proceeding is pending for
approval of the action taken by the employer."
5. That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of
Archaeological Survey of India Vs. Putti Lal & Ors. in
W.P. (CO No. 16887/2004, wherein the Court required the
petitioner to satisfy the Court with regard to the apparent
violation of section 33 of the Act. In this regard learned
counsel for the respondents submits that in para 3 of the
statement of claim the respondents had pointed out that
they had raised the dispute with regard to their permanent
status before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C) on
22.08.1995 for which a date was fixed by the ALC (C) on
17.10.1995. The petitioner/management terminated the
services of all the workmen between 24.01.1996 to
09.02.1996 without taking prior permission from the
Conciliation Officer and thereby breached Section 33 of
the Act.
12. Learned Counsel for the respondents has placed
reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court Zila Sahakari
Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors.
(2002) 2 SCC 244 and of this Court in Director General
Works. CPWD Vs. Eknath, W.P.(C) Nos. 18542/2005 and
22029/2005 decided on 17.08.2009 to submit that the breach
of section 33, and the failure to take permission/approval
is fatal to the action of termination of service and such
action is therefore non-est.
6. That this CGIT cum Labour Court No. II is to decide
the matter while reinstating Sh. Manish Kumar to set aside
the breach of Section 33 of the ID. Act 1947. The
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
has held that without taking prior permission even from
the Conciliation Officer during the pendency of the dispute
the breach of Section 33 of ID Act lead to reinstatement
with full back wages in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas
Bank Limited. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors. reported in
(2002) 2 SCC 244 as the dismissal, removal etc. became
non-est.
In view of the above this CGIT-cum-Labour Court No.
II may kindly award reinstatement to Sh. Manish Kumar
w.e.f. 13.12.2011 with full back wages as the management
cannot terminate the services of a workman without prior
permission from this CGIT-cum-Labour Court No. II with
full back wages along with all consequential benefits.
Ld. A/R for the management counter contended that
basis of the present I.D. is the pendency ID. No. 38/2006
on the date of alleged dismissal of workman Sh. Manish.
3312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Reference relating ID. No. 38/2006 has been sent to this
Tribunal for following adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of CPWD, New
Delhi in not regularization the workmen,
Sh. Mukesh Kumar & 116 others and not paying
the wages as per the notification dated 31.07.2002
is legal and justified? if not, to what relief the
workmen is entitled to?"
ID. No. 38/2006 has already decided and claim statement
of all 117 workmen including Manish has been dismissed
through award dated 2.2.2015 passed by this Tribunal.
Hence, present ID. which is relating to contractual
employee Manish is also liable to be decided against him
as provision of Section 33 and 33A of ID. Act are
inapplicable on contractual employees because tenure of
service of contractual employee depends on the duration
of contract.
In ther light of contention and counter contentions I
perused the record of ID. No. 38/2006 as well as ID. No.
4/2012.
Pleading of which makes it crystal clear that workman
Sh. Manish was employed by contractor alleging him to
be fake contractor. Any how Sh. Manish was contractual
employee. So, it cannot be denied that in such case term
of service of contractual employee depends upon duration
of contract. Moreover, in the instant case as well as in ID.
No. 38/2006 contractor has not been made party. It is
relevant to mention here that while deciding ID. No. 38/
2006. I recorded following findings:—
“Perusal of evidence of record shows that workman
Sh. Joginder Singh has only been examined on behalf of
workmen.
It is relevant to mention here that no documentary
evidence has been produced on behalf of workmen. It is
also relevant to mention here that workmen have not
applied through application u/s 11(3) of I.D. Act to direct
the management to produce the original documents which
may support the case of workmen. Non moving of
application u/s 11(3) ID. Act on behalf of workmen raises
adverse inference against workmen u/s 114(g) of the Indian
Evidence Act.
It is also relevant to mention here that pleadings of any
party without required evidence are useless. On the basis
of which no case of workmen is made out.
Morever, settled Law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Secretary State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi
and Others 2006(4) SCC 1 is applicable in the instant case.
On the basis of which none of the workmen are entitled to
any relief."
On the basis of aforesaid findings, I decided the
reference against workmen and in favour of management
and I also dismissed the claim statement of 117 workmen
through, award dated 2.2.2015.
It is also relevant to mention here that principles laid
down by their lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand, (1978)
2SCC 144. Wherein their lordship of Supreme Court held
as follows:—
"Discharge or dismissal order does not become void on
mere contraventions of Section 33. The Tribunal
has to examine under Section 33A. The merits of
the dismissal order considering all aspects of the
case. In appropriate cases it is entitled to trial the
breach of section 33 as mere technical breach and
sustain the dismissal order."
Moreover, ruling sited on behalf of workman and
mentioned in written arguments on behalf of workman are
inapplicable in the instant case due to distinguishable
facts because it is settled law of Hon'ble Supreme Court
that principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
and Hon'ble High Court cannot be apply case. Wherein
facts are distinguishable from facts of reported case.
In this background detailed written arguments could
not cast any impressiosn on me. Although, Ld. A/R for the
workman left no stone unturned to impress me.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of considered
view that reference is liable to be decided against workman
Sh. Manish and in favour of management. Which
accordingly decided. Claim statement of workman Sh.
Manish is hereby dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed
dated:—30.6.2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk-1575-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ,eVh ds izca/k
ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] u- 1 p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 36@2002 dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@66@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1575.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2002) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. 1 Chandigarh
as shown in the Annexure, in the industiral dispute
between the management of Institute of Microbial
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3313
Technology and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 27/07/2015.
[No. L-42012/66/2001-IR(CM-II]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDERA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 36 of 2002. Reference No. - L-42012/66/
2001-IR (CM-II) dated 30.01.2002.
Shri Dharminder, S/o Sh. Ram Dhan, H.No. 1049, Dadu
Majra Colony, Chandigarh.
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Director, Insutiture of Microbial Technology,
Section 39-A, Chandigarh,
...Respondent
APPEARANCE :
For the Workman
: Shri Parkash Chand Advocate
For the Management
: Shri I.S. Sidhu Advocate
AWARD
Passed on 14.07.2015
Governments of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification. L-42012/66/2001-IR (CM-II) dated 30.01.2002
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication.
“Whether the action of the management of
Microbial Technology Chandigarh in terminating
the services of Shri Dharminder S/o Sh. Ram Dhan
w.e.f. 18-05-99 is legal and justified? If not to what
relief the workman is entitled?”
2. In claim statement the workman submitted that he
was appointed as sweeper-cum-attendant through
contractor on 2-6-1997 for a period of one year and after
the expiry of said contract period, the respondent
management No. 2 duly allowed the workman to work
continuously without any break. The workman worked
with the respondent management w.e.f. 2-6-97 to 18-5-99
continuously when forcibly management terminated his
services without complying with the mandatory provisions
of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. At the time of his
termination the workman was drawing Rs. 1884/- per month.
The workman approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal. Chandigarh Bench for regularization of serivces
and on coming to know about this the management
terminated his services on 18.5.99. The Central
Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh disposed off the
Original Application filed by workman the directions
''workmen will be at liberty to approach the appropriate
forum for the redressal of their/his grievances.'' The
workman prayed for reinstatement of his services with
continuity and full back wages as he is legally entitle for.
3.
The management filed reply. Preliminary
Objection has been taken that the claimant deployed to
the management by the contractor. Therefore, relationship
of master and servant is no existed between the claimant
and the management. The claimant knowingly and
deliberately not impleaded the contractor who deployed
him. It is further pleaded by the workman that the claimant
never employed by the management for the period
mentioned. The claimant and his other co-worker who were
deployed by the contractor abandoned their duties on
14-5-99 voluntarily to protest against the transfer of one
Trishpal by the contractor to another Institute. Thereafter,
neither the claimant nor any office-co- deployed persons
ever deployed with the the management thereafter. The
claimant was receiving his dues from the contractor and
management was paying lump sum amount to the contractor
in accordance with term of contract. The management
submitted that experience certificates issued in favour of
claimant on asking of the claimant to be used by him for
seeking employment elsewhere. The management has not
violated any provisions of law and there is no merit in the
claim of the claimant and the present reference deserves
rejection.
4. In evidence workman filed affidavit in evidence. The
management also filed affidavit of Chhering Tobden
Controller of Administration of the management
Institution. The management also placed on record
documents Ex.M-2 to M-8. Both the witnesses of the
parties were cross-examined by rival counsels.
5. I have heard the parties and gone through the
evidence and record.
6. During the course of arguments learned counsel of
the management placed on record the copy of award
passed in ID No. 698 of 2005 by CGIT-II, Chandigarh in
similar case.
7. Learned counsel for the workman sumbitted during
arguments that the workman was directly employed by the
management and he has completed more than 240 days
service during one calendar year and his services have been
terminated by the management in violation of provisions of
3314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Industrial Dispute Act. It is also sumbitted that management
has not examined the contractor which shows that there is
relationship of employer and employee between the
management and the claimant. On the other hand learned
consuel for the management submitted that in para 1 of the
claim statement workman himself admitted that he was
employed through contractor with the management which
shows that there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the parties. As there exist no relationship
of employer and employee, therefore, management has not
violated any provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Learned counsel for the management also submitted that
the respondent management is not Industry under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned
counsel for the management also filed copy award passed
in ID No. 698/2005 by learned Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour-Court-II, Chandigarh.
8. From the record it is revealed that workman himself
pleaded in para No. 1 of claim statement that he was
appointed as sweeper-cum-attendant through a contractor
on 2-6-97 for a period on one year. There is no document
which shows that after of the completion of one year the
workman was ever appointed with the management. There
is no document on the record to show that workman was
paid salary by the management. There is a specific assertion
of the management that workman was deployed with the
management through contractor. The admission on the
part of the workman in his claim statement clearly shows
that he was deployed with the management through
contractor.
9. There is no denial of the fact that co-workers filed
OA No. 471-PB-99 which was decided on 11-1-2000 and it
was observed in the judgement that the workmen are
essentially employees of contractor who provided labour
to the management and his order being not challenged
attained finality. It is pertinent to mention that the workman
has not impleaded the contractor as party in the present
reference.
10. In view of the discussion made in the above paras, it
is held that the applicant workman was never engaged by
the management at any point of time and he was the employee
of the contractor who deployed him with the management.
There is no relationship of master and servant between the
parties and his services were not terminated by the
management. resultantly there is no violation of any
provision of Industrial Dispute Act on the part of the
management.
11. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central
Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh. 14-07-2015
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk-1576-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22011@6@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1576.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 39/2012) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Kanpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the industiral dispute between the
management of Food Corporation of India, TC/3C, FCI,
16/20, HQrs. Barakhamba Lane, Food Corporation of India
14/79, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 27/07/2015.
[No. L-22011/6/2012-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,
KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 39 of 2012
Between-
The General Secretary,
Food Corporation of India Handling Workers Union,
8651 Arakashan Road,
New Delhi.
and
The General Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
TC/3C Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3315
AWARD
1. Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-22011/06/2012-IR- (CM-II) dated
17-05-2012, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication.
2. Whether the 224 persons whose names appear in
the annexure A have ever worked in the Food Corporation
of India, FSD Etawah ? If so, whether they are entitled to be
retained as employees of Food Corporation of India after
abolition of Contract Labour System? If not what relief
they are entitled to?
3. In the Instant case one Jai Chandra Bhadoria and
223 other workers are involved. After exchange of pleadings
between the parties vide order dated 29.04.2013, opportunity
to file rejoinder and documents by the Union was closed
as none appeared from the side of the Union. Again on
01.08.2013 none appeared in the case from the side of the
Union, therefore, opposite party did not prefer to file
documents in the case.
4. On 23.09.2013, when the case was taken up, none
turned up from the side of the Union and considering the
fact that no evidence has been adduced therefore, the
opportunity to adduce evidence was closed and the case
was fixed for arguments of the parties.
5. On 23.01.2014 again none was present from the side
of union; therefore, case was reserved for award.
6. From the above it is abundantly clear that it is a case
of no evidence. As such tribunal is left with no option but
to answer the reference in negative against the Union
holding that for want of evidence and proof the union is
not entitled for any relief.
7. Reference is answered accordingly against the Union
raising the present dispute.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk-1577-&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 lanHkZ la- 78@ 2001 dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@200@2000&vkbZvkj¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. 78/2001) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Western Coalfields Limited,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 27.07.2015.
[No. L-22012/200/2000-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/78/2001
Shri Ashok Mishra,
S/o Ram Prasad Mishra,
Ex Cashier, Bazar Road,
Chandametta,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
WCL, Pench Area,
PO Parasia,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of June, 2015
1. As per letter dated 12.4.2001 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-22012/200/2000-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the Dy. General Manager, WCL,
Pench Area, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in dismissing
the services of Shri Ashok Mishra, Cashier of Regional
Workshop of WCL, Chandametta w.e.f. 24.6.95 is
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
3316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/9. Case of workman is that he was employed
on post of cashier in Regional workshop at Chandametta
at WCL. That false chargesheet was served on him. Exparte
enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service
as per order dated 24.6.95. It is further submitted that he
was appointed as accounts clerk Grade II on 10.10.76. He
was posted at GM Office at Parasia. In October 1981, he
was transferred to Chandametta. He was promoted as
Account Clerk Grade I on 7.11.81. He had completed 20
years unblemished service before his dismissal. He was
performing duty of cashier in Regional Office,
Chandametta. On 21.3.94 he was suspended on complaint
about missing the cheques of gratuity amount and theft
of gratuity cheque No. 620021 of one Shri Sitaram
Vishwakarma and misappropriation. That any document
alongwith chargesheet were not served on him. The
suspension order was issued by Dy. General Manager
(Mining) Pench Area. Shri L.S. Thawrani was appointed
as Enquiry Officer, Shri M.L. Chourasia was appointed as
management's representative. Enquiry was fixed on 8.7.94.
It was adjourned to 10.4.94 enquiry was adjourned time to
time i.e. 25.12.94, 25.2.95 & 17.5.95. That Notice of enquiry
was published in Jabalpur Express which was not
published in Parasia or Chhindwara, the enquiry
conducted against him is illegal. Enquiry Officer submitted
his finding on 22.5.95 on basis of finding of Enquiry Officer.
Dy. General Manager issued order of his dismissal on
24.6.91.
3. Workman submits that Enquiry Officer was biased.
The principles of natural justice were violated. Enquiry
Report was not served on workman. The allegation in
chargesheet were vague. Findings of enquiry Officer are
perverse. The order of dismissal passed on findings of
illegal enquiry is illegal. Workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/13
opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised
that the workman was dismissed in 1995, the dispute was
raised after long lapse of time in 2000 is not tenable. The
appointment and promotion of workman to accounts clerk
Grade I on 7-11-81 is not disputed. IInd party reiterates
that workman did not maintain register for making entries
for cheques and recipt and disbrusement. Workman
fradulently manage to steal cheque No. 620021 and 620029
prepared in name of Shri Sita Ram Vishwakarma and
Shri Balkar Singh. That the workmen managed to open
account in SBI Burkui Fraudulently in name of those
employees and withdrawn amount of Rs. 45,000/- That
cheque of Rs. 75,000/- was issued in name of Shri Ram
Vishwakarma and Balkar Singh were found missing. The
incident was report to police. The cheque in name of Balkar
Singh and some cash was recovered from house of
workman. Chargesheet was issued to him. That Shri M.L.
Choursia was appointed as Enquiary Officer, Shri L.S.
Yavrani as management's representative as per order dated
19-6-94. Enquiry was Conducted on 8-7-94, 10-7-94,
26-8-94, 25-12-94, 17-5-95&22-5-95.Despite of public notice
in newspaper,he did not participate in Enquiry Proceedings.
Enquiry was proceeded exparte and statements of
management's witnesses were recorded on 22-5-95. It is
reiterated that Enquiry Officer chargesheet considering
evidence. Charges against workman were proved.The
Competent Authority considering serious nature of
charges, issued order of dismissal of workman on 24-6-95.
IInd party submits that punishment of dismissal of workman
is proportionate to the seriousness of the charges.
Dismissal of workman is proper and legal.
5. As per order dated 8-7-2014, the enquiry conducted
against workman is found proper and legal.
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
reason as below:—
(i) Whether the misconduct
In Affirmative
alleged against workman is
proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Affirmative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
7. As stated above, enquiry conducted against
workman is found legal and proper, question arises whether
the charges alleged against workman are proved from
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings and whether punishment
of dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal.
Ist point requires to be decided considering evidence in
Enquiry Proceedings. Document produced Exhibit W-1 is
order of suspension, W-2 is order appointing Enquiry Officer
and management's representiative. Exhibit W-3 is copy of
Enquiry Proceedings. Original record of enquiry is also
produced in the matter. Exhibit W-4 is copy of Enquiry
Report. W-5 is notice issued to workman about
unauthorized occupation of the quarter. W-6 is order of
dismissal dated 24.6.95. Management has produced
documents M-1 application submitted by workman to keep
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3317
enquiry in abeyance M-2 to M-4 are workman requesting
adjournment of enquiry. Documents Exhibit M-5 & M-6
have no direct bearing on the point of proof of the charges
alleged against workman. Exhibit M-7/1 to 7/17 are record
of enquiry conducted against workman. The statements of
management's witnesses recorded in Enquiry Proceedings
Exhibit 7/3. Management's witness Shri L.S. Yavarani in his
statement says that he was working as General Manager
on 16.3.94. Suptd. Engineer brought to his notice that the
cheque of gratuity were missing. Those cheques were
bearing No. 620021 & 620029. The Bank was immediately
informed to stop payment. The cheque issued in name of
Sitaram S/o Kishore was credit in State Bank of India. It
was disclosed that amount of Rs. 75,000 was deposited in
account and amount of Rs. 35,000 was withdrawn from it.
When enquiry was made from Shri Sitaram, he disclosed
that he has neither opened any account nor withdrawn
any amount. The account was opened in name of Shri
Sitaram and amount of Rs. 35,000 was withdrawn. As per
rules, the cheque were in custody of workman. The cheque
for amount of Rs. 45,513.25 in name of Shri Balkar Singh was
received. On search, said cheque was received from house
of workman. On enquiry, workman did not explain anything
about it. Management's witnesses Devra Gogre and
accountant A.L. Vishwakarma in their statement has disclosed
that the cheques were in custody of workman Shri Ashok
Mishra. The management's witness Haradhan Mukherjee
Executive engineer in Chandametta workshop in his
statement says that cheques in name of Sitaram and Balkar
Singh were received but no due certificate were not submitted.
Therefore cheques were not disbursed. The cheques were
found missing, the incident was reported to police. Shri
Ashok Mishra and Kundan Lal Vishwakarma were arrested.
Kundan Lal Vishwakarma the guaranter for opening account
of Gajadhar was apprehended. Account was opened in name
of Shri Sitaram Vishwakarma, by Yogendra, brother of
workman and amount was withdrawn. Cheque in name of
Balkar Singh was received from house of workman. Evidence
of all witnesses of management remained unchallenged.
Workman has not participated in enquiry despite of repeated
notices and public notice. Exhibit M-7/16 letter by Accounts
Officer w.r.t. the cheques sent to the Manager. The Enquiry
Report is produced at Exhibit M/7/17. Enquiry Officer had
considered statements of all the management's witnesses
including cross-examination by management's
representative. Enquiry recorded his findings that charges
against workman are proved.
8. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri S. Pandey at the
time of argument did not pointout any evidence in Enquiry
proceeding. to substantiate his argument that findings of
Enquiry Officer are not supported by evidence, how
findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Considering the
evidence of all 4 witnesses of management that cheques in
name of Sitaram Vishwakarma, Balkar Singh were received.
The cheque and amount was recovered from house of
workman. At the instance of workman, account in name of
his brother was opened and amount of Rs. 35,000 was
withdrawn from the account. It is clear that findings of
Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence of mangement's
witnesses. Charges alleged against workman are proved
from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Therefore I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
9. Point No. 2 As per my findings on Point No. 1 that
charges about theft, misappropriation of cheque of gratuity
is proved, punishment of dismissal of workman is imposed.
Considering the serious nature of misconduct proved
against workman committing theft of check, opening
account in name of his brother, withdrawing amount of
Rs. 35,000 from the account, the punishment of dismissal
imposed against workman cannot be said excessive or
disproportionate. In my considered view, considering
proved charges against workman, punishment of dismissal
imposed against workman does not call for interference. I
therefore record Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The action of the Dy. General Mnager, WCL, Pench
Area, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in dismissing
the services of Shri Ashok Mishra, w.e.f. 24.6.95 is
legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk-1578-&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- 246@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@438@1997&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1578.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.246/98) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Western Coalfields Limited,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 27.07.2015.
[No. L-22012/438/1997-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
3318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/246/98
General Secretary,
P.K.K.K.K. Sangh, PO Damua,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
Datla Sub Area of WCL,
PO Ghorawari,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of June 2015
1. As per letter dated 5-11-1998 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/
438/97-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Datla
Sub Area of WCL, Kanhan Area PO Ghorawari,
Distt. Chhindwara in not promoting Shri M.L.
Chourasia, Clerk Grade_II, Datla Sub Area of WCL
to the post of Clerk Grade-I and also subsequent
promotion to Special Grade Clerk in line is justified?
If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 5 to 15 though General Secretary of Union. Case of
Ist party is that workman Shri M.L. Chourasia was
appointed on 1-3-76 at Chikalmau colliery of WCL, Kanhan
Area as General Mazdoor. He was promoted on post of
Clerk Grade II on 1-3-78. Workman was recommended to
General Manager, Kanhan Area for promotion of clerk
Grade I as per Note dated 8-7-84. It is further submitted
that workman was transferred from Chikalmau colliery to
the office of Datla Sub Area of WCL. The Ist party further
submits that the Dy. Chief Mining Engineer Datla group
of mines admitted in note dated 20-2-87 that (i) related to
Accountant Technical Grade A. That in Kanhan Area, every
except Datla have been provided Accountant, the post is
lying vacant on account of his transfer, (ii) there is
requirement of one special Grade Clerk in Dy. CME Office.
Previously there was one special Grade Clerk Mr. K.B.S.
Chouhan who has been transferred to Area store in the
month of October 84, Shri S.P. Singh Special Grade posted
at Group Account Office, (iv) Datla group has not been
provided any steno, (iv) at Datla group there is requirement
of 3 No. clerk Grade I. Ist party also referred to notes
pertaining to stenographer, Sr. P.L. Clerk Grade I, Accounts/
Audit Clerk, Grade I General clerk who will maintain daily
production report keeping of the stationeries including
receipt and issue.
3. That management constituted DPC to examine claim
of Shri M.L. Choursia for his promotion from clerical grade
II to clerical Grade I. after having lapse of 11 years 5
months, the workman has been promoted on the job of
clerical Grade I. It is reiterated that management had granted
promotion to Shri Onkar Bisender S/o Babulal, Shri
Mohanlal Barmaiya, Shri O.P. Srivastava juniors to the
workman. That workman joined service in WCL in 1-3-76
after nationalization of coal mines. It is submitted that
right, title and interest were transferred and vested in the
Central Government. The nomenclature, job description
and categorization of coal employees is part of the NCWA
I to V. Bipartite agreements are binding.
4. The competent authority had agreed about delegation
of powers. The decision of the Competent Authority on
such recommendation would be final. In para-10 of the
statement of claim, the details of service record of Shri
M.L. Chourasia workman, Shri Onkar Bisender S/o Babulal,
Shri Mohanlal Barmaiya, Shri O.P. Srivastava are given.
The workman is senior as he was appointed on 1-3-78 and
other persons are appointed subsequent to the workman.
Ist party submits that Shri M.L. Chourasia was illegally
denied promotion of the post of Clerk Grade I. That
workman was eligible for said promotion from 8-7-84 be
allowed.
5. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 23 to 31
opposing claim of the workman. It is submitted that
workman claimed promotion from post of Clerk Grade II to
post of Clerk Grade I. Workman is promoted as Clerk Grade
I on 1-9-90. Therefore the reference has become
infructuous. The dispute is raised after lapse of more than
12 years is belated and not tenable. That the dispute was
raised by Kanhan Koyla Khadan Karmachari Sangh
workman is not its member. The dispute raised by Union is
not tenable. Workman was appointed on 1-3-76. He was
promoted to Clerk Grade II on 1-3-78 and Clerk Grade I
from 1-9-90. GS office considered cases for promotion of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3319
eligible cases on 1-4-88. Thereafter DPC could not be held
due to administrative reasons. The promotions were
considered w.r.t. sanctioned vacancies. Workman was not
recommended by DPC. Workman was working in Chikalmau
collieiry. Said mine was closed 15 years back. Workman
was transferred to various collieries and lastly to Datla
Sub Area Collieries. All adverse contentions of Ist party
are denied. IInd party has quoted ratio held in various
cases in support of his contention that claim of workman
for promotion is not proper. Other employees were
recommended for promotion by DPC, claim of workman is
not justified.
6. Ist party submitted rejoinder at Page 33 to 41
reiterating is contentions in statement of claim.
7. As per ordersheet dated 10-12-2004, it is noticed that
application for impleading Shri Onkar Bisender S/o Babulal,
Shri Mohanlal Barmaiya, Shri O.P. Srivastava was allowed.
Even after notice, they failed to appear in proceeding.
They were proceeded exparte as per ordersheet dated
18-5-05.
8. 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 Datla Sub
Area of WCL, Kanhan
Area PO Ghorwari, Distt.
Chhindwara
in
not
promoting Shri M.L.
Chourasia, Clerk Grade-II,
Datla Sub Area of WCL to
the post of Clerk Grade-I
and also subsequent
promotion to Special
Grade Clerk in line is
justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
9. Workman is claiming promotion from Clerk Grade II
to Clerk Grade I from 8-7-84 alleging that junior employees
are promoted. He was denied promotion illegally. IInd party
submits that the claim under dispute is highly belated and
same cannot be allowed. Citation relied on the point shall
be considered at later part of the award.
10. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions in statement of claim. That he was
appointed as General Mazdoor on 1-3-76, he was promoted
to Clerk Grade II on 1-3-78. That Shri Onkar Bisender S/o
Babulal, Shri Mohanlal Barmaiya, Shri O.P. Srivastava junior
to him were allowed promotion on 1-1-83, 22-4-84, & 1-4-
88. Workman was denied promotion to the post of Clerk
Grade I. They were promoted to Clerk Special Grade on
6-10-9, 29-1-92 & 8-12-95 overlooking his seniority. In his
cross-examination, workman says he was member of
INTUC Union. He did not remember when he joined said
Kanhan Koyla Khadan Karmachari Sangh. The dispute
was raised by INTUC Union. Said Union was convinced
about the stand taken by the management. The dispute
was not further prosecuted. He denies that taking help of
other Union, the dispute was raised by him. He reiterates
that Shri Onkar Bisender S/o Babulal, Shri Mohanlal
Barmaiya, Shri O.P. Srivastava were junior to him the
claimed promotion. The seniority is considered at Area
Level and not at Company level. Workman admits that for
promotion, vacant sanctioned post is necessary.
Recommendation by DPC is also necessary. He was not
recommended by DPC for promotion.
11. Management's witness Shri Indrajit Singh filed
affidavit of evidence supporting contentions in Written
Statement of the mangement. In his cross-examination,
management's witness says workman was appointed on
1-3-76. He was acquainted with the workman. He did not
know Shri Onkar Bisender, Shri Mohanlal Barmaiya, Shri
O.P. Srivastava. The claim of workman for promotion to
Clerk Grade I is from July 1984, the dispute is referred as
per order dated 5-11-88. Workman has admitted in his
cross-examination that INTUC Union has raised his dispute
but on talk with management, the INTUC Union refused
to raise the dispute. That workman raised dispute with the
help of other Union in 1998. Learned counsel for Ist party
Shri K.B. Singh submits that the dispute raised after long
lapse of time is tenable. On the above point, reliance is
placed on ratio held in.
"Case of Dy. CME/Sub Area Manager, Ram Nagar RO
SECL, Shahdol versus Union of India and others reported
in 2008(1) MPLJ-60. Their Lordship of full bench held
belated claim giving rise to an industrial dispute can be
referred by the appropriate Government if it finds that
industrial dispute exists at the time of making the reference.
In case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. versus
State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2000(1) SCC-
371, their Lordship held Industrial Tribunal cannot examine
the validity of a reference. Where pursuant to identical
charters of demands made by several Unions, the
management and a representative Union reached a
conciliation settlement to be operative immediately after
expiry of the previous settlement.
3320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
12. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K. Shashi on
above point relies on ratio held in
Case of A.J. Fernandis versus Divisional Manager, South
Central Railway and others reported in 2001(1) SCC-240.
Their Lordship dealing with delay and latches - application
challenging the promotion of another employee after a
period of 4 long years held liable to be dismissed.
In case of 1979 — Lab. I. C. 827. The ratio held that
Tribunal cannot go beyond terms of reference have no
direct bearing to the controversy between parties.
Another citation in case of Telecommunication
Engineering Service Association and another versus Union
of India and another reported in 1993-II-LLJ 585. Deals
with provision seniority on large scale and consequential
promotions claim for back wages on promotion can be
allowed only from date of actual working on higher post.
The ratio held in the above case does not cover the
controversy between parties. So far as claim of workman
for promotion of Clerk Grade I is from 1984, the dispute is
raised in 1998 is highly belated. Such claim cannot be
accepted. Besides it, the workman was not recommended
by DPC for promotion therefore the claim of workman for
promotional post cannot be upheld. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Datla Sub Area of
WCL, Kanhan Area PO Ghorawari, Distt.
Chhindwara in not promoting Shri M.L. Chourasia,
Clerk Grade-II, Datla Sub Area of WCL to the post
of Clerk Grade-I and also subsequent promotion of
Special Grade Clerk is legal and proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk-1579-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izca/k ra= 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 192@98½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@356@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1579.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 192/98) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
27/07/2015.
[No. L-22012/356/1997-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/192/98
Shri M.L. Jain,
...Workman/Union
Executive Committee Member,
SKMS (AITUC),
Near Panchayati Mandir,
Shahdol (MP)
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
...Management
Rajnagar PO SECL,
PO Rajnagar colliery,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
AWARD
Passed on this 29th day of June 2013
1. As per letter dated 19-8-98 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/
356/97/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Colliery Manager,
Rajnagar R.O. Colliery of SECL in dismissing Shri
Swamideen S/o Shri Shyamlal, Trammer/Explosive
Carrier, Rajnagar 5/6 Incline from company services
w.e.f. 4-12-96 is legal justified? If not, to what relief
is the workman entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3321
parties. Workman filed statement of claim through Union
at page 3/1 to 3/9. Case of IInd party workman is that the
workman was engaged on 31-3-72. He was working under
different capacity to the satisfaction of management.
Chargesheet was issued to workman Swamideen on 7-4-
96. During relevant period, workman was working as
explosive career. His services were terminated by Colliery
Manager from 4-12-96. The dispute was raised before ALC.
The charges against workman were of habitual late
attendance under clause 26.4. The absence from duty
without sanctioned leave or overstaying beyond
sanctioned leave under clause 26.30 of the standing orders.
IInd pary reiterated that chargesheet was not served on
delinquent employee. The charges were not specific. The
charges of poor attendance was not including in the
misconduct enumerated under Clause 26 of the certified
standing orders. That misconduct alleged under clause
26.30 did not arise. There was no question of overstaying
the sanctioned leave. The absence of workman was on
the ground of his ailment. Medical certificates were
produced. That enquiry conducted against workman was
false. Termination of workman was by way of victimization
of management. Enquiry was conducted in violation of
principles of natural justice. Workman could not cross-
examine management's witness. The list of witnesses was
not supplied to him. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry
with ulterior motive. Workman had completed 24 years
continuous unblemished service. the punishment of
dismissal imposed against him is illegal.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1/ to 10/
6 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that
it is Government company incorporated under section 617
of Companies Act 1956. 5-6 Incline are in Rajnagar Sub
Area. Workman Swamideen was working as Trammer under
5-6 Incline of Rajnagar Sub Area. It is alleged that the
workman was unauthorisely absent from duty.
Chargesheet was issued to him, enquiry was conducted
against workman, working days of workman are shown in
para 12 of the Written Statement. Workman never informed
emplyee about his illness. They have not applied for leave.
His leave was never extended. Workman deliberately not
attended his duties. Workmam was declared fit by Medical
Officer. Workman had participated in the enquiry. Charges
issued against workmen were proper. Direct rules of
Evidence Act are not applicable in the matter. It is denied
that Competent Authority not applied his mind while
imposing the punishment.
4. As per order dated 24-7-2013, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal.
5. Considering pleadings on record and findings on
preliminary issue, the points which arise for my
consideration and determination are as under. My findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as
below:—
(i)
Whether the misconduct
In Affirmative
alleged against workman is
proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii)
Whether the punishment of
dismissal imposed against
In Nagative
workman is proper and
legal?
(iii)
If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?
REASONS
6. As per order dated 24-7-13, enquiry is found legal.
The question whether charges alleged against workman
are proved needs to be decided from evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings. Departmental Enquiry conducted against
workman is found legal as workman had not examined
himself to substantiate his contentions about enquiry
conducted against him. As per document Exhibit M-1
charges against workman were of habitual absence from
duty, absence from duty without sanctioned leave. Exhibit
M-3 chargesheet shows attendance of workman only 48
days during the period 1-4-95 to 31-3-96. In Exhibit M-11,
workman has claimed that he was admitted in hospital from
26-4-95 to 27-4-95. Workman had not produced any
documents about his illness or treatment received by him.
The perusal of Enquiry Report shows workman denied
charges against him as per Exhibit M-1-C, Enquiry
Proceedings dated 12-7-93. The Enquiry Officer recorded
statement of workman himself instead of recording
evidence of management's witnesses. Again statement of
workman was recorded. Workman was subjected to
interrogation. Workman did not produce documents about
his illness or medical treatment. Without recording
statement of any of the management's witnesses, Enquiry
Officer submitted his findings and workman failed to
produce documents about his illness. The charges against
workman were held proved. As per Exhibit M-5 again
workman was asked whether he was admitting charges
against him. Then Management Representative was
directed to produce his evidence. Enquiry Proceedings
Page 8 shown that again workman was asked to lead
evidence as he had denied the charges. The Enquiry
Proceedings dated 3-6-96 page 9 again statement of workman
was recorded and he shown his inability to produce
documents about his illness. Statement of Management's
Representative is recorded at Page 10. It refers to the
charges against workman. The workman had worked 28
3322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
days in 1993, 53 days in 1994, 76 days in 1995 and did not
work for a single days in 1996. Workman has failed to adduce
any evidence on preliminary issue as well as other issues.
The perusal of record of enquiry shows workman had not
disputed his absence from duty. Only defence that because
of illness, he could not attend duty is not supported by
documents. Enquiry Officer in his report referred to the
certificate issued by Summary Clerk & Incharge of Incline
5-6 is not found in the record of enquiry. Therefore the
findings of Enquiry Officer is not supported by cogent
evidence. Therefore I record my finding on Point No. 1 in
Negative.
7. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 2,
the charge of unauthorized absence alleged against
workman is proved, the punishment of dismissal is imposed
against workman for unauthorized absence workman was
in service of IInd party from 31-3-1972. He was terminated
as per order dated 4-12-96. The length of service was not
considered while imposing punishment. For unauthorized
absence, punishment of dismissal from service overlooking
his length of service appears excessive. Therefore
punishment of dismissal is not proper and legal. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No. 2.
8. Point No. 3—As per finding on Point No. 2
punishment of dismissal imposed against workman
overlooking length of his service from 1972 cannot be
upheld. The punishment of dismissal therefore need to be
modified to the punishment of compulsory retirement.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 3.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of SECL in dismissing
Shri Swamideen S/o Shri Shyamlal, Trammer/
Explosive Carrier, Rajnagar 5/6 Incline from company
services w.e.f. 4-12-96 is not proper and legal.
(2) The punishment of dismissal is modified to
compulsory retirement. Workman be allowed all retiral
benefits.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk-1580-&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 89@98½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@500@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 89/98) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industiral dispute
between the management of South Eastern Coalfields
Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 27/07/2015.
[No. L-22012/500/1996-IR(C-II]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THECENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/89/98
General Secretary,
Chhattisgarh Khadan Karkhana Mazdoor Union,
Banki Mogra,
Distt. Balaspur
....Workman/Union
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
SECL, Banki Colliery,
Post Banki Colliery,
Distt. Bilaspur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of July, 2015
1. As per letter dated Nil 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, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/500/
96-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of SECL in
retiring the workman Shri Bhanwar Sai, S/o Gulal,
Ex-Conveyor Khalasi w.e.f. 17-7-96 by treating his
date of birth as 1-7-36 instead of 2-1-43 is legal and
proper? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?"
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3323
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/3. Ist party workman submits since 1967, he
was working in NCDC Banki coliery as Mazdoor Category I.
The signature of workman Bhanwar Sai was obtained in
Form B Register by Dy. Suptd. of Mines. While preparing
the Form B register, his age was shown 24 years at the time
of his initial appointment on 2-1-67. On 2-7-87, the service
excerpts were supplied to workman, his date of birth was
recorded 2-1-43. Workman did not raise any objection to
it. He was not worried about his age, according to which
he would retire on 1-1-2003. In April 1995, workman was
given his pay slip, his date of birth was recorded 17-7-36.
His date of birth shown in pay slip was objectionable.
Workman submitted application for correction of his date
of birth. On 29-5-95, notice of retirement was issued to
workman on 7-2-96 for his retirement on 11-7-96. It is
reiterated that his application for correction of date of
birth was not considered. Workman was retired from
17-7-96 instead of 11-7-76 as per notice. Workman reiterates
his date of birth from 2-1-43 was corrected to 17-7-36
without any document. On corrected date of birth, he was
retired from service. Workman prays that his retirement
from 17-7-96 is illegal. He prays for his reinstatement.
3. IIn party filed Written Statement at page 5/1/ to 5/4
opposing claim of the workman. Initial appointment of
workman from 2.1.67 is not disputed. IInd party submits
that the date of birth of workman was recorded 17-7-36
and not 2-1-43. Any excepts circulated to workman, his
date of birth was recorded 2-1-43 by the mistake by the
concerned clerk, it was clerical mistake. The workman was
expected to substitute entry therein of his correct date of
birth in his service excerpts. That in Form B Register
adopted in 1976, date of birth of workman was shown
17-7-36. It is not fair on part of workman to file false claim
assuming something in his favour. The claim is on basis of
presumption and the error committed by clerk IInd party
submits that claim of workman is not legal.
4. Union submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1/ to 6/2
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. It is
submitted that workman is illiterate, only he could sign.
He could not write his date of birth. Workman was not
supplied documents. Workman claims ignorance about
those documents.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded each of them for the reasons as
below:—
(i)
Whether the action of
management of SECL in retiring
the workman Shri Bhanwar Sai,
In Affirmative
S/o Gulal, Ex-Conveyor Khalasi
w.e.f. 17-7-96 by treating his
date of birth as 1-7-36 instead
of 2-1-43 is legal and proper?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging his retirement by
management considering his date of birth 17-7-36 instead
of 2-1-43. Workman filed affidavit in support of his claim
covering his contentions in statement of claim. His initial
appointment as General Mazdoor Category was 2-1-67.
The rules for retirement were framed on 27-7-87, his service
excerpts were supplied. His date of birth was recorded
2-1-43. That at time of his initial appointment on 2-1-67, his
age was shown 24 years. In pay slip of April 95, his date of
birth was shown 17-7-36. On basis of said date of birth he
was retired from 17-7-96. Workman has produced certain
documents. No care was taken to advice evidence to prove
for proof of those documents by workman. I will deal with
those documents at later part of award. workman in his
cross-examination says his date of birth is 1-2-93. He did
not have documents about his date of birth. he told his
date of birth at the time of his appointment. He denies
thump mark on Exhibit M-1. he denies that he was putting
his thump mark in the earlier page. He admitted his photo
on M-2 but denied his thump mark. Workman denied that
his date of birth is 17-7-36 recorded at the time of his
joining. Workman admits M-4 his pay slip. His date of
birth was recorded as 1936. Thereafter he submitted
application Exhibit W-3.
7. Management's witness Shri P.K. Jain failed affidavit
of his evidence supporting contentions of management in
Written Statement. That date of birth of workman was
recorded 17-7-36 in Form B. copies is produced at Exhibit
M-1, M-2. Service excerpts were served on workman by
clerical mistake, date of birth was shown 2-1-43 instead of
17-7-36. As per I.I.No. 37 of NCWA-II, notice was
displayed on notice board on 15-1-82 displaying date of
birth of employee. The objections were invited withing
30 days. His date of birth was recorded 17-7-36. Workman
was given fair reasonable opportunity to submit any
complaint. Workman had not submitted complaint
disputing his date of birth 17-7-36. the copies of documents
Exhibit M-3, 4 are produced. The evidence of management's
witness remained unchallenged as management's witness
was not cross-examined by the workman.
3324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
8. Documents Exhibit W-1 is copy of service excerpts
of workman his date of birth is mentioned 2-1-43, date of
appointment is shown 2-1-67. In W-2, copy of pay slip for
April 95, his date of birth is shown 17-7-36. Document W-3
is copy of application submitted by workman on 29-1-95
for correction of his date of birth. Documents W-5 was
application submitted by Secretary of the Union for
redressal of the grievances of the workman about his date
of birth. Document W-9 is service excerpts of one Bansi
loader. It is relevant for deciding controversy about date
of birth of workman. workman has not produced
documents of school leaving certificate or his date of birth
recorded in public record.
9. Management produced document M-1 bearing thump
impression of workman. date of birth of workman is
recorded 17-7-36 Copy of form B register document M-2
bears photograph of the workman. he admitted his thump
mark on said document, his date of birth is recorded
17-7-36. Genuiness of said document is not challenged.
Document M-3 is produced by management shows in 1982,
the objections were called from employees within 90 days
about their date of birth. Name of workman was appearing
at Sl.. No. 209. His date of birth is shown 17-7-36. Copy of
Form B register is enclosed with said document. The age
of workman is not mentioned in it. The evidence of workman
that at the time of his initial appointment, his age was
24 years is not supported by any document. In 1982, when
objections were called, workman has not adduced any
evidence why they have not submitted any objection at
that time. His date of birth 17-7-96 in document M-3
produced by management. When date of birth of workman
was shown 17-7-76 in Form B register and document M-3.
Workman has not produced documents like school leaving
certificate or any public document that his date of birth
was 2-1-43. workman has failed to establish his date of
birth as 2-1-43. His evidence is not sufficient to establish
that action of management retiring workman form service
considering his date of birth 17-7-36 is illegal. For absence
of cogent evidence, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of SECL in retiring
the workman Shri Bhanwar Sai, S.o Gulal, Ex-
Conveyou Khalasi w.e.f. 17-7-96 by treating his date
of birth as 1-7-36 instead of 2-1-43 is proper and
legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk-1581-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,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; vklulksy] ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 72@2005 dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@312@2004&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. .1581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes their award Ref. No. 72/2005 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court ASANSOL as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Kalidaspur Project of M/s, ECL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 27/07/2015.
[No. L-22012/312/2004-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 72 OF 2005
PARTIES
:
The
management
of
Kalidaspur Project of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Bishnu Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
None
For the union (Workman):
None
INDUSTRY: COAL
State: West Bengal
Dated: 10.07.2015
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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3325
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
312/2004-IR(CM-II) Dated 20.07.2005 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Kalidaspur
Project of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited in
dismissing Sh. Bishnu Bouri is legal and justifed?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
Having received the order No. L-22012/312/2004-
IR(CM-II) dated 20.07.2005 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 72 of
2005 was registered on 17.08.2005 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 the parties are absent.
On perusal of the case record I find that the union filed
written statement on 25.10.2005 but the management neither
appeared nor filed written statement so far. Union also
neither appearing nor taking any step from 17.04.2006.
Notice issued to the parties on 18.05.2009. Again notice
was issued on 30.12.2011 after giving 14 opportunities.
Then 5 dates were granted. Last notice was issued on
09.09.2014 and today is the 2nd date but none of the parties
turned up. It seems to me that the union is now at all not
interested to proceed with the case further. 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] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk-1582-&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 lanHkZ ¼la[;k 34@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@121@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1582.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes their award (Ref. No. 34/05)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of South Eastern Coalfields
Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 27/07/2015.
[No. L-22012/121/2004-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/34/05
The President,
Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),
C/o Sanjay Mishra, Telephone Exchange,
PO Kotma Coliery,
Distt. Annuppur
...Workman/Union
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
Kotma Govinda Sub Area,
SECL, PO Kotma,
Distt. Annuppur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 29th day of June 2015
1. As per letter dated 13-5-05 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/
121/2004-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
3326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
"Whether the action of the management of Kotma/
Govinda Sub Area of SECL in not regularizing Shri
Suresh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Khemraj Yadav in the
post of Tech. Lineman Helper, Category-II is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 7/1 to 7/3. Case of workman is that he was initially
appointed as General Mazdoor in SECL on 18-11-91. He
was employed as Electrial Helper Cat-II from 16.1.96. He
was directed to report for duty to Suptd. Engineer Kotma
colliery. Workman continuously worked as Electrical Helper
Cat- II since 16-1-96. He was not paid difference of wages
admissible for the post of Electrical Helper Cat-II. The
settlement was arrived between workman and management.
he was paid difference of wages from 96 to 98. Management
stopped paying difference of wages though he was
employed as Electrical Helper Cat-II. From 20-4-02,
workman was directed to perform duties as Telephone Line
Helper Cat-II in Kotma colliery. Workman was continuously
working I said capacity. His request for regularization and
payment of difference of wages was not accepted by
management. It is reiterated that he was continuously
working more than 190 days underground and 240 days
surface duty on said post. He is entitled for regularization
on said post. He also claims entitled for difference of wages.
After continuous working for 3 days, workman was entitled
for promotion to the post of Lineman Cat- IV and after
completion of 3 years working on said post, he claims to
be entitled to Sr. Line man Technical Grade B. accordingly
workman is praying for regularization on the post of
Cat-II from 1996 and Cat- IV from the year 1992 Sr.Lineman
Grade B, Lineman Technical Grade B from 2002.
3. Management filed Written Statement at page 8/1 to
8/5 opposing claim of the workman. preliminary objection
is raised that workman is claiming promotion from 16-1-96.
The dispute is raised near 2005 is highly belated is no
tenable. The terms and conditions of employees in SECL
are covered by settlement under NCWA. The settlement
provide promotional channel as per cadre scheme. The
cadre scheme for ministerial staff are given in Appendix
VIII-I circulated on 8-7-84. The promotion cannot be
claimed as right, it is managerial function. workman was
initially appointed as General Mazdoor Category I, he is
still working in same category. Workman was never
appointed as Telephone Line Helper CAT-II. It is reiterated
that for purpose of granting promotion, DPC is constituted
for considering eligibility of candidates. Only on
recommendation of DPC, promotion are given to eligible
candidates. Working of workman as Telephone Lineman
Helper Cat-II doesnot give him right to the promotional
post. At the time conciliation, there was settlement between
workman and management. The difference of wages of
higher post were paid. Union agreed to withdraw demand
for regularization. Workman is trying to take undue
advantage to letters issued to him. The officers who issued
letters have no authority to issue such letters. The letters
were issued without approval of the Competent Authority.
The workman cannot be allowed promotion violating the
provisions of cadre scheme as it will create industrial unrest.
Management cannot discriminate among its employees
Management has no authority to take away right of other
employees waiting chance for their promotions as per cadre
scheme. Workman is not entitled to promotions/
regularization of the post claimed by him.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Kotma/
Govinda Sub Area of SECL
in not regularizing Shri
Suresh Kumar Yadav S/o
Shri Khemraj Yadav in the
post of Tech. Lineman
Helper, Category-II is legal
and justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to ?"
entitled to any
relief
REASONS
5. Workman is claiming regularization to the post of
lineman helper Category-II. However he failed to participate
in reference proceeding. Workman has not adduced
evidence in support of his claim. His evidence is closed
on 23.10.2013. The document produced by workman and
admitted by management Exhibit W-1 is officer order dated
16.1.96 workman was directed to report for further duties
to suptd. Engineer Kotma colliery, W-2 is letter issued by
Dy. Regional Manager, Kotma Mines. Workman was
working on post of General Mazdoor as per settlement
with the management. Difference of wages of higher post
are paid for 96 to 98. Exhibit W-3 is copy of settlement
relating to payment of difference of wages. To working
days are shown in it. Exhibit W-4 is copy of order dated
20.4.02. Exhibit W-5 is forwarding letter for approval to
regularization of the workman submitted by Sub Area
Manager, Kotma Mines.
6. Management has produced cadre scheme.
Management filed affidavit of witness Shri R.K. Sharma
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3327
supporting his contentions. His evidence remained
unchallenged. Workman has failed to adduce evidence.
Therefore claim of workman for regularization is not
supported by evidence. The action of the management
cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Kotma/Govinda
Sub-Area of SECL in not regularizing Shri Suresh
Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Khemraj yadav in the post of
Tech. Lineman Helper, Category-II is proper and
legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk-1583-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ 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 80@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@308@2003&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015
S.O. 1583.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.80/04) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
27/07/2015.
[No.L-22012/308/2003-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/80/04
Shri Brij Lal S/o Shri Madar Das,
R/o Kabir Nagar, Basna,
Distt. Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.
...Workman
Versus
District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Madina Manzil,
Kutchery Chowk,
Raipur (C.G).
Regional Manager
FCI. Telibandha,
Near Ring Road,
Raipur (CG)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of June, 2015
1. As per letter dated 30.6.2004 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/
308/2003-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
“Whether the punishment of removal from services
awarded to Shri Brij Lal Das, Assistant Grade-II
vide Order No. V & S/4(23) RYP/96-Vol. IV dated
7.3.2001 by the Disciplinary Authority/Sr. Regional
Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bhopal 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 5/1
to 5/9. Case of Workman is that he was initially appointed
as Assistant Grade III by FCI in 1973. Considering his
excellent work, he was promoted as Assistant Gr. II in 1992.
He worked at different depots. He put about 21 years
service in one depot at Basna. His service record was
excellent, any punishment was not imposed against him.
Sr. Regional Manager has power to take building on rent
for godown purpose. For purpose of obtaining the
godown, the Senior Regional Manager and his associates
inspect the building and it found fit, necessary agreement
is executed between the owner and the management of
3328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
FCI. The building used for godown is owned by Tanwani
Trading Co. was taken for godown for the FCI, the
agreement was executed. There were 5 numbers of
godowns with Kalinga Traders. All the godowns were in
poor condition. The Godown No. 3 has only one wooden
door and another entrance covered only half tin and half
with wire mesh. Godown No. 4 had only two entrance
without doors. One gate was found opening in the mid
and another outside. FCI management did not provide
any watch and guard on those godowns. During the
relevant period, Shri P.S. Rajputh was holding post of
Assistant Manager. He was overall in-charge of the
godown. Shri K.K. Thakur T.A. Grade I, M.V. Rao TA Grade I
(Purchase), and others were working in shifts. Grains are
received by Depot In-charge and TA (Putchase), entries
were made by them in relevant record. Goods were stacked
in godown. Physical verification was done time to time
and no shortage of food grain was found. Physical
Verification Committee of Zonal Office, Bombay on
verification did not found any shortage. It is further
submitted that the weighment is godown at the time of
acceptance and storageof rice bags were done by AG-III.
Many times Shri Rao TA (Purchase) used to get the wage
check memos prepared by millers themselves and bring to
workman in depot office for his signature. Workman being
along couldnot supervise operations at all godowns in
person. He relied Mr. Rao.
3. M/s. Kalinga Traders has taken mill on lease basis
wanted to leave the place, its intimation was given to District
Office, Raipur. Between 16.11.94 to 29.4.95, the preservation
was assigned to Shri K.K. Thakur TA Grade I. Shri Ramji
Sharma Asstt. Manager who Joined Basna on 15.12.95 was
assigned work job of supervision of procurement under
levy at Basna. Workman further submits that it was decided
to vacate the godown for shifting to the godown owned by
FCI. During course of shifting the stacks, shortage of food
grain was noticed. However no action was taken to find out
the shortage of foodgrains. The charge-sheet was issued
to him was replied. Workman has pleaded that Shri T.R.
Palaha was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Without his
consent, Shri D.R. Dharmik was appointed as Enquiry Officer.
It is pleaded that enquiry was only paper work. He was not
given opportunity of defence. Principles of natural justice
were not followed. Enquiry Officer did not conduct enquiry
fairly allowing proper opprtunity for his defence. Defence
Assistant was not allowed. It is reiterated that material
documents were not supplied to him. Enquiry was not
conducted properly. The findings of Enquiry Officer are
perverse. Punishment of dismissal imposed on him is illegal.
On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/15
opposing claim of the workman. IInd party has pleaded
that workman was initially appointed in 1973. He was
promoted as Assistant Grade II in 1992. Workman was
posted as depot in-charge at Basna Depot in 1994-95.
Workman committed gross misconduct accepting short
number of bags and while accepting the delivery of levy
rice from various millers traders in connivance with Shri
M.V. Rao TA Grade I and stored in Katangi godown to
give undue benefits to the parties for his personal gains
and committed various irregularities. He was found
responsible for shortage of 1592 bags rice causing loss of
Rs. 10,00,000/- to FCI, It is reiterated that in connivance
with Shri Rao, less weighed bags were accepted which
resulted in abnormal storage losses. That FCI suffered
loss of Rs. 10,03,099.94 charge sheet was issued to workman
on 6.8.98 as per Regulation 58 of FCI (Staff) Regulations
1971. Workman submitted reply to charge sheet on 6.8.98.
Shri N.K. Kesharwani was appointed as Presenting Officer
and Shri B.R. Dharmik as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was
conducted giving opportunity for his defence. Enquiry
officer submitted his report on 14.9.00 holding charges
against workman proved. Enquiry was properly conducted.
Considering report of Enquiry Officer, punishment of
removal was imposed against workman. The appeal
preferred by workman was dismissed on 29.11.01. The
contentions of workman about enquiry conducted illegally
by Enquiry Officer are denied. That only after proper
inspection conducted in presence of workman on his
consent, written proposal for godown hired by FCI were
accepted. Workman was supposed to pointout
discrepancies in the godown in his possession. Workman
was responsible for maintanance of stock accounts and
proper preservation of food rains. It is denied that the
stock were received by TA Grade I, AG III.Workman was
custodian, in-charge of food grains. Workman was
responsible for storing stock in systematic manner leaving
proper space for variation and to take proper treatment.
The reported shortage of food grains has been inspected
and disciplinary proceedings as per provisions of FCI
Regulations 1971 was initiated. Workman was given
proper opportunity for his defence. Whole enquiry was
conducted as per rules. Violation of principles of natural
justice is denied. The contentions of workman that he was
assured by the higher officers that he would be let off
after completion of the formalities of the enquiry is denied.
In Para 30 of the written statement, IInd party has given
the details of the Enquiry Proceedings allowing
opportunity for defence to the workman. It is reiterated
that shortage of 1237 bags of P.B. Common Rice 275+80
bags of P.B. Fine Rice in the godown was suffered. That
the punishment of dismissal is proper. IInd party submits
that claim of workman is not justified.
As per order dated 5.3.2012, enquiry conducted against
workman is found proper and legal.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3329
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
removal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief
REASONS
7. As stated above, enquiry conducted against
workman is found legal and proper, question remains for
decision is as to whether charges alleged against
workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings. Wherther punishment of removal imposed
against workman is proper and legal. Ist point needs to
be decided considering evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.
Exhibit M-1 produced by IInd party is memorandum/
articles of charges. The charges against workman relates
to accepting 291 bags of husk, dust and dirt instead of
sound rice causing loss of Rs. 1,84,503.11. Article No. 2
relates to accepting less number of bags of rice as
mentioned in records at the time of delivery of rice stock
resulting in shortage of 1595 bags rice causing loss of
Rs. 10,03,099.94. Article No. 3 relates to workman in
connivance with Shri M.V. Rao TA-I accepted less weight
bags as recorded in booked of account resulting to loss
to the tune of Rs. 3,18,614.55. Article No. 4 relates to
while working at Basna depot during 94-95 failed to
supervise the stacking operations at the time of
acceptance of delivery when stacking was made at
Kalangi godownre resulting wherein no timely technical
treatment was provided etc. Article No. 5 is during 1994-
95, workman failed to report factual position/condition
about hiring of all the Kalangi godowns in view of
security and storage worthy before hiring at Basna as
per FCI norms. Management's witness Shri R.G. Tailor
Dy. Manager in his evidence has stated that Exhibit P-
1 which is report of investigation about misappropriation
of rice stocks at Kalinga Rice Mill Premises godowns,
Basna and planting of bags filled with husk, dust and
dirt in godown No. 1 of Kalinga Rice Mill, Basna. The
report was signed by him on 12.7.96 and its enclosures
bears his signature. The report relates to shortage of
1237 full bags rice and PB Fine numbering 275 bags.
During investigation, 291 bags filled with husk, dust,
dirt was found in stack No. 1/5 & 1/6 in Kalinga godown.
Rice in 5 godowns in Kalinga godown were not found
according to the declaration given by workman, depot
in-charge. Exhibit P-5 was letter of workman addressed
to police incharge about shifting of 80 bags rice noticed
on 27.3.96. In his cross-examination, management's
witness says that godown were hired by Depot In-
charge, Basna as per hiring proposals forms and handing
and taking over forms. Copies of undertakings which
are part of proposal forms for hiring the godown refers
to certain condition of FCI. In his further cross-
examination, 291 bags filled with husk. Dust etc is part
and parcel of the food grain stocks held in the Kalinga
godown premises. 291 bags filled with husk etc were
found physically in godowns but at the time of arriving
net shortage of full bag rice these were not taken into
account and net shortages of full bags rice in total
1512. 1512 shortage of 80 bags rice were attributed by
the in-charge to a theft case for which FIR was lodged.
In the evidence of management's witness, workman was
depot in-charge was not challenged. Management's
witness Shri Ramji Sharma in his evidence says that
when he joined Basna depot, the position of Kalinga
godown was absolutely packed without leaving any
alleays and the stacks was touching roof of godown.
It was only the door which could possibly be opened
for entry in the godowns. At the time of dispatch from
the packed godown the bags filled with husk, dust etc
were noticed from stack No. 1/5, 1/6. After his joining
the matter was reported to District Manager, Raipur. His
further evidence is devoted about inspection of godown
by Shri G.P. Tiwari on 11.1.1996 with great difficulty both
officer could enter the godown and observe that the
godown with full of stocks and infested with heavy
Khapra and advised to the OC staff of the depot. His
further evidence is devoted on the point that on 310-6-
96, stocks were removed from godown for Mandirhasud.
Workman noticed the bag filled with husk. He reported
said incident to Shri Ramji Sharma. The despatches were
suspended and immediately the matter was reported to
the DO, Raipur by Shri Ramji Sharma. In his cross-
examination, above witness of management says that his
statement was recorded by Inspection Officer. He denies
that his statement was recorded under pressure. That
during the period Zonal PV squad conducted the PV, he
was on leave from 16.12.95. He received message that
his father at native place was hospitalized. He was posted
at Basna. He was also directed to look after depot at
Sarai and Basna.
8. The evidence of management's witness Shri P.S.
Rajput is on the point during course of his inspection,
it was found that there was no alleyways left while
stacking. At that time Shri M.V. Rao, TA-I was posted
at Kalinga Rice Mill Godown premises, Basna. He was
assigned duty of procurement of rice at Basna. In his
cross-examination, he says there was no official order
to look adter the work of AM(OC). However District
Manager has verbally given orders to look after work
of AM(D) in addition to AM(OC). In his statement,
3330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
management's witness Shri R.L. Tiwari says that against
storage capacity, godown hired from Private party i.e. 6200
MTs, the storage of food grains was at this centre 9395
MTs up to 7.3.95. Management's witness Shri D.R. Thakur
AG-III in his evidence says that he was assigned duty of
payment of stocks received in the department. He never
signed the cheque memorandum. Rice stocks being received
at the depot were machine stitched doubled line bearing
marking of 95 kg net. The check memo bears the signature
of Shri B.L. Das and others including representative of
contractor. His evidence is not shattered in his cross-
examination. Management's witness also examined witness
Shri P.B. Pandey, Vijendra Singh, A.K. Pachori. Learned
counsel for workman Shri A.K. Shashi did not pointout
evidence of any of the management's witness during course
of his argument including the evidence of defence
witnesses in support of his argument that charges alleged
against workman could not be proved from evidence in
Enquiry Proceedings. The evidence on record discussed
above supports contentions of management w.r.t. the
charges alleged against workman. in Enquiry Proceedings.
That burden of proof is not as required as in criminal cases,
charges should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The
notes of argument submitted by learned counsel for IInd
party Shri S. Pandey supporting the charges against
workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.
The findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence.
It cannot be said that findings of Enquiry Officer are not
supported by any evidence. Therefore I donot find
substance in the argument advanced by Shri A.K. Shashi.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
9. Point No.2 In view of my finding in Point No.1
charges alleged against workman are proved, question
remains to be considered is whether punishment of removal
against workman is proper and legal. The charges alleged
against workman relate to shortage of huge quantity of
rice of various categories causing loss more than Rs.10
lakhs. Ist party was incharge of godown at Basna depot is
not shattered in cross-examination of any of the witnesses.
Charges proved against workman are of serious nature.
The punishment of removal imposed against workman
appears justified. no interference in the matter of
punishment would be justified. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The punishment of removal from services
awarded to Shri Brij Lal Das, Assistant Grade-II
by the management of Food Corporation of India,
Bhopal is legal and proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
(3) Parties to bear their respective costs.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1584-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-60@09½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@13@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2015
S.O.1584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government here by publishes the Award (Ref. 60/09) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Bank of India and their workman,
received by the Central Government on 29/07/2015.
[No. L-12011/13/2009-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO.CGIT/LC/R/60/09
General Secretary,
Prathadith Karamchari Kalyan Manch,
F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp Engineering College,
Ujjain
.....Workman/Union
Versus
Branch Manager,
Bank of India,
Shujalpur Mandi Branch,
Distt. Shujalpur (MP)
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 3rd day of July, 2015
1. As per letter dated 29.4.2009 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-12011/
13/2009-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether Shri Tejprakash Choudhary is entitled for
payment of difference of wages from 1-1-86 to
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3331
1-12-98 as per Bipartite Settlement? To what relief he
is entitled to get?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim through
General Secretary of Union. The case of Ist party Union is
that workman Shri Tej Prakash Choudhary was engaged as
peon in Sujalpur branch from 1-6-86 by Branch Manager
Shri Mani. He was working more than 8 hours in a day. He
worked more than 240 days continuously in the year.
Workman was initially paid wages Rs.30 per day. The wages
were increased to Rs.60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 & 120 per day.
Workman challenged his termination for violation of Section
25-F of ID Act in R/308/02. Said reference is pending.
Workman submits that he was continuously working from
1-6-86 to 1-12-98. He was paid scale wages as per Bipartite
Settlements. As per Bipartite settlement No. IV dated
17-9-84, the pay scale of substaff was increased from Rs.430
to 790, in 5th settlement dated 10-4-89 pay was increased
from Rs.815 to 1510, in 6th settlement dated 14-2-95 pay
was increased from Rs. 1600 to 3020, in 7th settlement dated
27-3-00 pay was increased from Rs.2750 to 5850 & in 8 th
settlement dated 2-6-05 pay was increased from Rs.4060 to
7560. Those settlements were implemented from
1-11-82, 1-11-87, 1-11-92, 1-11-97 & 1-11-02 respectively.
Workman submits that he possess eligibility for scale
wages of subordinate staff. The peon working on daily
wages in State Bank of India, Bank of Maharashtra get
arrear as per scale wages. Workman submits that on
1-6-86 to 1-12-98, he was working under different Branch
Managers Shri Mani, Nazmi, Saraiya, Gurnani, Somani, Arora
and Jain. It is reiterated that the workman is entitled for
arrears as per pay scale fixed in IVth to VIIIth Bipartite
settlement.
3. IInd party submitted Written Statement opposing
claim of the workman 2nd party submits that R/308/99 was
fixed for hearing on 20-10-08, the next date was fixed
19-4-2011 for cross-examination of workman. Meantime
workman raised present dispute claiming difference of
wages. Workman was never appointed in any cadre by the
Bank. He is not workman defined under ID Act. No industrial
dispute exists between management and workman.
Management has recruitment rules for appointment of staff.
Any appointment without following recruitment rules is
illegal. Workman was engaged as casual labour on daily
wages in leave vacancy of permanent staff. Workman have
never completed 240 days continuous service during any
of the year. Workman was paid his remuneration
comensurated to his work @ rate in locality. The pay scale
are given to the regular employees of the Bank. Pay scales
are not applicable to casual labours. Pay scales as per
bipartite settlement are not applicable to the labours
engaged on daily labours. All adverse contentions of
workman are denied. It is submitted that bipartite settlement
are executed between Indian Bank Association and
representative of Union those settlements are applicable
only to the regular employees. It is denied that chapter 16
of Sastry Award deals with categorization of bank
employees. Workman was not appointed following
recruitment policy of the Bank. He is not entitled to
difference of wages. Representative of workman Shri Ram
Nagwanshi claims to be General Secretary. He is not
employee of the Bank, he is not competent to raise the
dispute.
4. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating its contentions
in statement of claim and documents are also produced.
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 Shri Tejprakash In Negative
Choudhary is entitled for
payment of difference of
wages from 1-1-86 to
1-12-98 as per Bipartite
Settlement?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?”
to any relief.
REASONS
6. The terms of reference relates to whether the
workman Tejprakash Choudhary is entitled for payment of
difference of wages as per Bipartite settlement.
Management has denied the claim on the ground that
workman was not appointed following recruitment rules.
He not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman
was engaged as casual labour during leave vacancy of
regular employee.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. However
representative of workman Shri R. Nagwanshi submitted
in writing that workman is not desiring to adduce oral
evidence. Workman has not appeared for his cross-
examination. Evidence of workman was closed on 11-8-
2014. Management also not adduced evidence though the
case was fixed for evidence of management on December
2014. As such it is clear that both parties have not adduced
evidence to substantiate their contentions. At the time of
hearing. Shri R. Nagwanshi Union representative drawn
my attention to pay scale revised in 4th to 7th bipartite
settlement pointing out documents produced by 1st party.
Workman has not adduced any evidence to prove those
documents. IInd party has not admitted the documents
about settlement No. 4 to 7 and the pay scales revised
therein. When workman has not appeared for his cross-
examination as he has failed to adduce evidence to prove
the documents produced by him, claim of workman is not
supported by any thread of evidence. When claim of
workman is denied and workman failed to adduce evidence
in support of claim or revised pay scale, the claim of workman
is not proved.
3332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
8. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K. Shashi
relies on ratio held in
Case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd versus
Ashok Ranghba Ambre reported in 2008(2) SCC 717. Their
Lordship held setting aside of illegal termination as violative
of Section 25 F does not necessarily follow that workman
is entitled to status of permanency and claim of regular pay
scales and other benefits based on permanency.
Next reliance is placed in case of Indian Drugs and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus their workmen reported in
2007(1) SCC408. In para-14 of the judgment their Lordship
observed the distinction between a temporary employee
and a permanent employee is well settled. Whereas a
permanent employee has a right to the post, a temporary
employee has no right to the post.
In para-15 of the judgment their Lordship observed
similarly no direction can be given that a daily wage
employee should be paid salary of a regular employee vide
state of Haryana versus Tilak Raj.
Ist party workman has not adduced evidence to
substantiate his claim. Its pleadings are clear that he was
not engaged following recruitment process therefore the
claim for scale wages as per settlement IV to VIII cannot be
upheld.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The workman Shri Tejprakash Choudhary is not
entitled for payment of difference of wages from
1-1-86 to 1-12-98 as per Bipartite Settlement.
(2) Parties to bear their own costs.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1585-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 27@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@01@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2015
S.O. 1585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2010) of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. 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 workman, received by the Central Government on
29/07/2015.
[No. L-12012/01/2010-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. 27 of 2010
Employer in relation to the management of
Bank of India, Ranchi
AND
Their Workman
PRESENT
Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate.
For the Workman
: Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Banking
Dated
: 16/7/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-12012/01/2010-IR(B-II), dated 10/3/2010,
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 Bank of
India, Ranchi Zonal Office in compulsorily retiring Mr. Jib
Narayan Jha, Ex-Clerk-Cashier from service w.e.f. 14.11.2008
is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
25.03.2010. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed. The Workman files their written statement on
06.05.2010. And the management files their written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 28.09.2011. Document of
management marked as M-1 to M-5.
3. During the pendency of this case the concerned
workman died and Smt. Pusp Lata Jha W/o deceased
workman is substituted.
4. The workman has been retired compulsory in the
capacity of cashier, he could not, accounted for a sum of
Rs. 81,000/- and on detection, he deposited the same.
5. The enquiry conducted. Workman took part. During
the enquiry, charges of misconduct is proved, and Rs. 81,000/-
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3333
is returned by the workman concerned. During the enquiry,
concerned workman wrote a letter dated 17.01.2008 that he
admitted his charges and misconduct, marked in as Ext. M-1
Series and also says he will not repeat the same.
6. The domestic enquiry accepted by the workman as
fair and proper.
7. In bank where public money is dealt, any sorts of
misdemeanor is not tolerated. The bank management
however not imposed harshest punishment like dismissal.
He only allowed the workman to retire compulsorily with
all retirement benefits.
8. In the Opinion of this Tribunal that the action against
the workman is neither harsh not inhuman.
9. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,
I hold that, the action of the management of Bank of India,
Ranchi, Zonal Office in compulsorily retiring Mr. Jib
Narayan Jha, Ex-Clerk-Cashier from service w.e.f. 14.11.2008
is justified. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief in this
reference.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1586-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks cSad 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- 125@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@175@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2015
S.O.1586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 125/99)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 29/07/2015.
[No. L-12012/175/98-IR (B-II)
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/125/99
Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma,
S/o Shri Ramchandra Sharma
R/o Village Ghinoda,
Tehsil Khachrod,
Distt. Ujjain (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
UCO Bank, Regional Office,
Arera Colony,
Bhopal.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of July, 2015
1. As per letter dated 23-3-99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
175/98-IR (B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank
in terminating the services of Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma
w.e.f. 15-5-97 is justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through General Secretary of Union at page 2/1 to 2/5.
Case of Ist party workman is Branch Manager engaged Ist
party workman for sweeping, cleaning work on 25-10-89.
Workman was paid wages Rs. 18/- per day. The wages
were increased to Rs. 25, 65 per day by the subsequent
Branch Managers. Workman was doing cleaning, sweeping
work honestly. He was also doing work of peon. Separate
wages were paid for said work. Workman had requested
management for payment of bonus and permanent
appointment. Management without considering his
demands terminated his services from 10-5-97.
3. Workman submits that he completed more than
240 days continuous service. He is eligible for regular
appointment. Workman had completed continuous service
more than 7 years. His services were terminated without
issuing 3 months notice. Other labours engaged with him
are continued in service. IInd party has not followed
section 25-F of ID Act, Para 507, 524 of Sastry Award.
Award was not paid retrechment compensation. IInd party
not violated principles of first come last go and thereby
violated Section 25-G, N of ID Act. It is also alleged that
after termination of his service on 10-5-97, IInd party has
engaged other persons on daily wages. Workman was
not given opportunity of re-employment thereby IInd
party violated Section 25 H of ID Act. Workman was not
paid bonus under Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act.
Union has raised complaint to ALC, Indore. After hearing
of the matter, bonus of Rs. 4541/- was paid by them on
13-3-99. The workman had complained that the bonus
due was Rs. 5353.35. He was paid less bonus of Rs. 812.35.
Thereafter said matter was pending for hearing. On such
contentions, workman is praying for his reinstatement
with consequential benefits.
3334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/5
opposing claim of the workman. Preliminary objection is
raised by IInd party. That General Secretary, Dainik Vetan
Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan Union raised dispute is
not authorized as per the rules, therefore reference is not
tenable. That Bank has its recruitment rules. Manager has
no authority or power of appointment of regular employees.
Workman was engaged on daily wages as per exigencies.
No work no pay was followed. The wages for the working
days were paid to workman at local collector rate. Workman
was free to attend duties which were casual in nature.
Workman was doing job of contingent nature. He was not
engaged as cleaner, waterman in first half, remaining half
was not working against the vacant post. It is reiterated
that workman engaged for casual work as per exigencies. It
is denied that workman was terminated as he raised demand
of regularization and bonus. It is denied that workman was
working more than 240 days during each of the year.
Workman was not entitled for regularization of his service.
Violation of Section 25-F,G,H is denid by IInd party.
5. In additional submissions, IInd party submits that
for the low profitability and the manpower deployment in
the Bank not being optimal, the Government of India,
Financial Department and Reserve Bank of India have
imposed a complete ban on further recruitment of staff and
even replacement for retirements and resignations. The
Bank is forced to take policy decision to curtail staff for
avoiding the loss. The claim of workman for regularization
is not tenable.
6. Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating his
contentions in statement of claim.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
“(i) Whether the action of
In negative
the management of UCO
Bank in terminating the
services of Shri Dilip Kumar
Sharma w.e.f. 15.5.97 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?”
REASONS
8. Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F,G.,H of ID Act. Claim of workman
is denied by management on the ground that workman was
engaged as casual labour. He not completed 240 days
continuous service during any of the year.
9. Workman filed affidavit of evidence supporting his
claim in statement of claim. In his affidavit of evidence,
workman says that he was engaged on daily wages by
Branch Manager from 25.10.89 on wages Rs. 80/- per day.
That he completed more than 240 days continuous service.
His services are terminated on 10.5.97 without notice,
retrenchment compensation is not paid to him. In his cross-
examination, workman says that he failed 10th standard.
He was appointed after death of regular peon Shri Khet
Singh. He admits that after death of Shri Khet Singh, his
son was engaged for 3 months, thereafter he was engaged
in the Bank. He was paid wages under debit voucher. In
1997, he was working at same place. His working days are
shown in documents about payment of bonus produced
on record. On 10.5.97, he was orally terminated. The order
of termination was not given to him, that as per the
payments made to him, he says he completed more than
240 days working. There is no denial by 2nd party in his
cross-examination of workman that workman had not
completed 240 day continuous service.
10. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witnesss
Shri Sagarmal Sanwaria supporting contentions of
management. That 1st party was not appointed against
regular vacancy on vacant post as per recruitment policy
of the Bank. Appointment letter was not issued to the
workman. Attendance Register/Muster roll was not
maintained. The engagement of workman was as per
urgency. That workman did not furnish authentic evidence
about his working from 25.10.89 to 12.5.97. Workman was
considered for empanelment as per circular dated 19.10.89.
Workman was not fulfilling criteria of employment, therefore
his services were discontinued. Management's witness in
his cross-examination says his affidavit is filed as per
record, workman did not worked under him. He heard about
workman working during emergency. Workman produced
documents about payment of bonus, exgratia. As workman
was not permanent employee, retrenchment notice was not
issued to him.
11. Management's witness Shri Pannalal filed affidavit
of his evidence. The witness states that workman was never
appointed against vacant post following recruitment policy
of the Bank. Muster roll was not maintained. Workman
was engaged during urgency as daily wage labour.
Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service
preceding year of his termination. As per policy of the
Bank, workman did not apply for absorption to the
management. He could not be considered for empanelment,
his name was not found in seniority list of daily wage
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3335
workers. Non-engagement cannot be said dismissal or
retrenchment. In his cross-examination, management's
witness says he was not working in Ghinoda branch during
1989 to 1997. He claims ignorance about the documents
about payment of bonus. Workman had filed proceeding
before Competent Authority for bonus. Management's
witness admitted documents Exhibit W-1 and W-2.
However he denied the documents about chart of working
days. That Khet Singh working in Ghinoda branch had
died. Workman was not given appointment letter. His
attendance register was not maintained. Any documents
about working days of workman are not produced. That
he had discussed the matter related to workman with Retired
Branch Manager Kukraj Vora. Workman was not issued
termination notice. The witness claims ignorance payment
of retrenchment compensation to workman. Management
has not produced any documents about working days of
workman. Management's witness admitted document
Exhibit W-1, W-2 Exhibit W-1 relates to payment of bonus
of Rs. 4541 to workman on 13.3.99. W-2 payment of bonus
Rs. 7017 to workman on 4.4.99. Those documents
corroborate evidence of workman that amount of bonus
paid to him are incorrect. However the working days for
which the bonus was paid is not shown in W-1, W-2.
12. IInd party produced documents Exhibit M-1
related to empanelment and absorption of persons
engaged on daily wages. The terms of reference does not
pertain to regularization therefore discussion of those
rules for absorpition of daily wage employees is not
absolutely not necessary. Exhibit M-2 produced by 2nd
party is about prohibition of empanelment of casual
workers. Circular is issued dated 19.10.89. The evidence
of workman that his services were terminated from 25.10.97
is not challenged. Management has absolutely not
produced any documents about working days of
workman, payment of wages to him, management's
witnesses were not working in the branch at the relevant
time. Both management's witnesses have no personal
knowledge about the working of workman. The affidavit
of evidence prepared on the basis of documents in the
Bank, those documents are not produced by 2nd party.
On other hand, workman was paid bonus as per Exhibit
W-1, W-2, His evidence is corroborated about his working
in the Bank. However the working days for which bonus
is paid by Exhibit W-1, W-2 are not shown. Considering
the evidence adduced by both parties as witnesses of the
management have been no personal knowledge and
evidence of workman is corroborated by documents
Exhibit W-1, W-2, I find it proper to accept the evidence
of workman that he completed 240 days continuous service
preceding 12 months of his termination.
13. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Bhattacharjee
during course of argument submits that workman has not
discharged duty to prove more than 240 days during any
of the year. Mr. Bhattacharjee relies on ratio held in.
Case of Karur Vysya Bank Employees Union Bangalore
versus Presiding Officer, CGIT Bangalore reported in 1988
LAB.I.C. 1746. His Lordship of Karantaka High Court
dealing with Section 2-A of ID Act-termination of Bank
employee held services of person utilized intermittently to
do certain work which arose only on certain occasions.
Employment is of casaul nature and not connected with
work of Bank named Banking work connected therewith.
Failure of employee to prove that he worked for 240
continuous days in a year. Provisions of Section 25-F not
attracted.
In present case, as discussed above, evidence of
workman is supported by document Exhibit W-1, W-2.
Management's witness did not produced documents they
had seen before filing their affidavit. Therefore the ratio
held in the case cannot be applied to the case at hand. On
the point of ownus of proof, Shri Bhattacharjee relied on
ratio held in case of
Rang Forest Officers versus S.T. Handimani reported
in 2002-SCC(L&S) 367. Their Lordship held ownus and
manner of proof. Where workman claimed that he worked
for more than 240 days in a year preceding his termination
or discontinuation by the employer, it is for the claimant to
lead evidence. That workman's affidavit was not sufficient
evidence for that purpose.
In present case, evidence of workman is corroborated
by document W-1, W-2. 2nd party has not produced any
documents about working of the workman. Therefore the
ownus is discharged by workman. The burden of proof is
discharged. The ratio held in the case does not advance
the arguments by Shri Bhattarcharjee.
Reliance is also placed in Case of Surendranagar
district Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported
in 2006 (SCC) (L&S) 38 on the point of calling adverse
inference was wrongly found. The scope of enquiry before
Labour Court was confined to only twelve months
preceding the date of termination to decide question of
continuation of service for purpose of Section 25-F of ID
Act.
In present case, though enquiry for violation of Section
25-F of ID Act is restricted to one year before termination,
management has not produced any documents about
working days. No reasons are given for the point. Therefore
the ratio held in the case support the argument advanced
by Shri Bhattacharjee. In the evidence discussed above
and the legal position, I find no reason to disbelieve
evidence of workman supported by document. The
evidence of management's witnesses having no personal
knowledge and not produced any documents cannot be
accepted. Workman was terminated without notice.
Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Therefore
I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
14. Point No. 2-in view of my finding in Point No. 1
termination of Ist party is illegal for violation of
3336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Section 25-F, G of ID Act, question remains for decision
whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with back
wages.
15. Shri Bhattacharjee relies on ratio held in Case of
Union of India and Others versus Bishamber Dutt reported
in 1997 SCC (L&S) 478. Their Lordship dealing with
entitlement for regularization. The appointment on regular
basis after selection according to rules held a condition
precedent. That persons appointed on part time employees
dehors the rules even though regularly working for a long
time are not entitled to regularization.
The terms of reference pertains to legality of
termination, regularization is not included in the reference
therefore ratio held in the above cited case cannot be
applied.
Reliance is also placed on ratio held between Secretary,
State of Karnataka versus Umadevi reported in 2006-
SCC(L&S) 753. Their Lordship dealing with casual Labour/
Temporary employee status and rights of unequal
bargaining power. Held such employees do not have any
right to regular or permanent public employment further
termporary, contractual, casual ad hoc or daily wage public
employment must be deemed to be accepted by the
employee concerned fully knowing the nature of it and the
consequences flowing from it.
Workman in his cross-examination says that he was
engaged on daily wages. He was not given appointment
letter. His pleading and evidence does not show that he
was appointed after following selection process. Workman
was working during period 1988 to 97 but his appointment
was not followed by selection process therefore the
workmen could not be granted reinstatement with
backwages.
16. Union Representative Shri R. Nagwanshi has
produced copy of Award in R/180/00, 105/03, 27/04 passed
by this Tribunal. Each case requires to be decided as per
evidence adduced by the parties. The award cannot be
treated as binding Precedent. The evidence in this case
shows that the workman was not appointed following
selection process. His termination is illegal for violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act. Considering the working period
from 1988 to 1997, compensation Rs. 2 Lakh would be
appropriate Accordingly, I record my finding in Point No. 2.
17. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of UCO Bank in
terminating the services of Shri Dilip Kumar
Sharma w.e.f. 15.5.97 is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 2 Lakhs to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award.In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1587-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] p.MhxM+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 159@2003½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@66@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj]MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi the 29th July, 2015
S.O. 1587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 159/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Punjab
National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 29/07/2015.
[No. L-12012/66/2003-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 159/2003. Reference No. L-12012/66/
2003-IR(B-II) dated 10.09.2003
Shri Anil Kumar Rally
R/o C/o Shri N.D. Rally
102/13, Sastri Nagar,
Near Octroi Post, Kullu (HP).
....Workman
Versus
1. The Regional Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Jail Road, Mandi (HP).
....Respondent
APPEARANCE :
For theWorkman
: Shri P.K. Longia Advocate
For the Management
: Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate
AWARD
Passed on 14.07.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
Notification L-12012/66/2003-IR(B-II) dated 10.09.2003 has
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3337
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab
National Bank giving compulsory retirement of
Sh. Anil Kumar Rally Ex-clerk-cum-Cashier from
service w.e.f. 1.3.99 is just and legal? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from
which date?”
2. The workman filed claim statement in which he has
pleaded that he was issued charge sheet by the
management. He replied to the charge sheet but punishing
authority without considering the reply appointed an
Enquiry Officer. It is pleaded by the workman that enquiry
was not conducted in fair and proper manner and proved
the charges without appreciating the record. The Enquiry
Officer also did not give any finding regarding
responsibility for loss of record and not touched the crux
of the charges but gave his finding on surmises and
conjectures. It is also pleaded that during enquiry
proceedings, original recrod like ledger sheet was not
produced by the management despite the repeated request
by the workman. It is also pleaded that charge sheet is
also vague and there is no specific allegations against
the workman and charge sheet was not issued by the
disciplinary authority but by a senior manager who is
subordinate of the disciplinary authority. The Enquiry
Officer also not appreciated the statement of MW1 and
MW2 who were responsible to ensure the account but
the responsibility was shifted on the workman by the
Enquiry Officer. It is also pleaded that as per Ex. M8 there
is no entry of Rs. 10,000 on 15.06.95 and by no stretch of
imagination this charge could be proved. It is also pleaded
that there is no financial loss caused to the bank
management as the whole amount has been deposited
along with interest and the workman was having
unblemished record. It is prayed by the workman that
order dated 1.3.99 of compulsory retirement of workman
may be queshed and he may be reinstated in service with
continuity and full back wages.
3. The management filed reply. Preliminary objection
has been taken that disciplinary action against the
workman taken under the provisions of bipartite settlement
and punishment was imposed upon him is commensurate
with the gravity of the charges proved against the
workman in dully conducted departmental enquiry in
accordance with the principles of the natural justice and
do not warrant any interference. On merits it is pleaded
that fair and proper enquiry was held after framing the
following charges:—
"While working at BO: Kullu, you created the
following fictitious entries in your S/F A/C. No. S-48
and withdrew the amount on the dates given against
each entry:—
Sl. Entry created for
Amount
No. Rs. Between the dates
Withdrawn on
1. 2000/- (21.4.95 to 24.4.94)
24.4.95
2. 2000/- (4.5.95 to 9.9.95)
9.9.95
(While officiating as C/I
Evening Counter).
3. 1000/- (1.6.95 to 9.6.95)
4. 4000/-(22.6.95 to 26.6.95)
From the above facts it is clear that you defrauded the
bank for Rs. 9000. It has been established that you have
been tallying the balances fictitiously for the period from
4/95 to 9/95 in the Staff Ledger by altering the balances in
the balance book.
Further you also creatd fictitious entry of Rs. 7000 in
your OD A/C No. 2858 (Limit Rs. 95000 and withdraw the
amount on different dates.
Later you raised the limit fictitiously from 9500 to
Rs. 19500 by putting I before 9 on 07.06.1995 and created a
fictitious entry of Rs. 10,000 in your OD Account No. 2858.
“On 15.6.95 you again created a fictitious entry of
Rs. 10,000/- in the account and withdrew the amount. After
that you again raised the limit fictitiously from 19,000 to
49,000. On 3.7.95 you deposited Rs. 30,000/- in the account
and the remaining balance was adjusted on 7.7.95 from the
proceeds of your Anupam, FDR for Rs. 10,000.”
4. It is also pleaded by the management that if this
Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is not
fair, then Bank may be allowed to adduce the evidence
before the Tribunal. On merits it is pleaded that Enquiry
Officer was rightly appointed by the punishing authority
and the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner
adhering to the principles of the natural justice. The
workman was given punishment for his misconduct which
was fully proved during departmental enquiry. It is also
pleaded that charge sheet was rightly issued in terms of
provisions of P.D. circular No. 1012 dated 13.4.87. It is prayed
by the management that the claim of the workman being
devoid of merit may be rejected.
5. The workman filed replication reiterating the claim
made in the claim statement.
6. In evidence workman filed his affidavit. The
management also filed affidavits in evidence. The
management also placed on record documents from page 1
to 101 which consist of charge sheet, enquiry proceeding,
enquiry report and documents relating to the appointment
of Enquiry Officer.
7. My predecessor heard the arguments on fairness of
enquiry and vide order dated 27.10.2010 held as follows:—
"Accordingly, I am of the view that a fair, proper and
reasonable enquiry was conducted against the
3338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
workman and there has been no violation of any
rules of the principle of natural justice. As stated
earlier, that issue of perversity in decision making
has been raised by the workman. So workman and
the management both shall be at liberty to file/move/
adduce any evidence on the following issues:—
(1) Perversity in decision making by the Enquiry
Officer, disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority.
(2) On the quantum of punishment."
8. The parties were afforded opportunity of evidence
on the point 1 and 2 mentioned above. Workman in evidence
tendered his affidavit as Ex.W1. In rebuttal, the management
produced Shri T.R.Ranta Senior Manager PNB who
tendered his affidavit Ex. M1 in evidence.
9. The learned counsel for the workman also filed
written arguments.
10. I have heard the parties, gone through the evidence
and record and also the case laws relied upon by the
workman.
11. In written arguments, workman assailed the charge
sheet stating that charge sheet is vague and the workman
is not in a position to understand the charges. On merits
also workman submitted that the workman never committed
the alleged fraud. It is further submitted in written argument
that the passed record of the work and conduct of the
workman has not taken into consideration while awarding
punishment as there is no adverse remark/entry prior to
alleged incidents and the punishment is excessive and not
commensurate with the misconduct. On the other hand
learned counsel for the management submitted that this
Tribunal has already held the enquiry fair and proper and
now issue remains of perversity in decision making and on
quantum of punishment on which the workman failed to
point out any infirmity in the enquiry. The conclusion and
enquiry report based on the evidence and documents
produced during enquiry and the charges were fully proved
against the workman and the punishment imposed was
proportionate to the misconduct of the workman.
12. Workman in his evidence before this Tribunal
stated that he received the enquiry report for the comments.
He also stated that he never given any application to the
department for enhancing limit. The initial limit of OD
account was Rs. 10,000. He also admitted that as per bank
record he was having the OD limit of 9500 and against F.D.
it was Rs. 10,000. The workman though denied that he
fabricated the limit from 9500 to Rs. 19500 and furhter
fabricated to Rs. 49500. Through the Tribunal he replied
that account of OD was in his name having cutting.
Although he replied that the documents placed before him
not prepared and maintained by him. In this context the
Enquiry Office in his report found that workman Anil Rally
had tallied the balance of SF ledger No. 13 fictitiously and
this part of the charge was found proved. The Enquiry
Office further found that on ledger sheet the limit was
enhanced to Rs. 19500 from 7.6.95 yet it is not
understandable that how the passing officer has passed
the cheque for Rs. 400 on 20.3.95 allowing the availment up
to 18922. The Enquiry Office came to the conclusion that
limit was factitously increased from 9500 to 19500.
13. The learned counsel for the workman relied on
2002 LIC 880 Griffon Laboratories Vs. Maharastra Shramik
Sena, 1996 LIC 1178 BHEL Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court UP at Merrut and another and 1996 (2) SCT 690 Punjab
State Co- operative Supply and Marketing Fed. Ltd. Vs.
Presiding Officer. I have gone through the case laws placed
on record by the learned counsel for the workman. The
facts and cirrcumstances of the case laws cited are quite
different from the facts and circumstances of the case in
hand. Therefore, the same are applicable.
14. From the record , it reveals that the workman was
supplied copy of report for comments. The workman was
given personal hearing which the workman availed and
appellate authority also provided personal hearing to the
workman which was duly availed by the workman and to
this effect nothing has been pointed out by the workman
in his evidencer or through documents.
15. The workman was charge sheeted for making
factitious entries enhancung. the OD limit of his account
several times and withdrawing the money from his enhanced
OD limits. This act of the workman is very serious in nature
and he was given the punishment of compulsory retirement
which is not disproportionate in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
16. In view of the discussion above , as the workman
failed to point out anything in the order passed by the
disciplinary authority, therefore, it is held that the action of
the management of Punjab National Bank giving
compulsory retirement to Sh.Anil Kumar Rally ex-clerk -
cum-Cashier from service w.e.f. 1-3-99 is just and legal and
workman is not entitled to any relief.
Chandigarh
14-7-2015
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1588-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad 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- 149@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@160@98&vkbZvkj ¼chñ&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3339
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2015
S.O. 1588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 149/99)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of UCO Bank and and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
29.07.2015.
[No. L-12012/160/98-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/149/99
Shri Gopalkrishna Dave,
S/o Shri Amritlalji Dave,
R/o Urdupura,
Tehsil and Distt. Ujjain.
....Workman
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
UCO Bank,
Regional Office, E-5,
Arera colony,
Bhopal
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of July, 2015
1. As per letter dated 26-30/3/99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section - 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-12012/160/98/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:—
"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank
in terminating the services of Shri Gopalkrishna Dave
w.e.f. 19-11-91 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through General Secretary of Union at Page 4/1 to 4/7.
Case of Ist party is that the workman was interviewed by
Branch Manager on 1-8-87. After considering those
documents, he workman was appointed as peon on daily
wages Rs. 10/-. The workman was working in the Bank
from opening till closing of the Bank. He was working with
devotion. On 30-4-88, workman was called by Branch
Manager. He was informed that Management was impressed
by his devotion and working. He was transferred to Maksi
Road branch Ujjain on 2-5-88, workman was orally
transferred to Maksi Road branch. He was working
continuously in said branch. Muster roll was maintained,
he was signing on Attendance Register. His salary was
through Saving Account. He completed more than 240 days
continuous service. On 20-12-88, workman was called for
interview. After his interview, he was called by branch
manager. He demanded amount of Rs. 2000 for his posting.
Anyhow workman had arranged Rs. 1000 taking loan on
3% interest per month. Thereafter workman was not
regularised. Workman had spent about Rs. 3000, that he
completed 649 days from 1-8-87. His services were
terminated on 19-11-91 without notice, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to him. Workman submits that
when he raised dispute before ALC, Bhopal, 2nd party
contented that age of workman was less than 18 years
therefore he was discontinued. Workman further submits
that date of birth of other employee Shri S.N. Vyas was
6-5-69. He was appointed on 8-4-86 when his age was 16
years. Other employee Maharwal was of 17 years 1 month
at the time of his initial appointment on 2-5-86, he was
continued in Ujjain branch. Workman submits that he
worked more than 240 days, his termination is in violation
of Section 25-F of ID Act, para 507, para 524 of Desai Award.
2nd party also violated Section 25 G,H of ID Act. On such
ground, workman prays for his reinstatment with
backwages.
3. 2nd part filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/6
opposing claim of the workman. Preliminary objection is
raised by 2nd party that no documents are produced by
Ist party authorizing to raise dispute. The reference is not
tenable. 2nd party denies appointment of Ist party. Ist party
workman was engaged as casual labour on daily wages as
per exigencies on 1-8-87. The contentions of workman about
transfer is denied. The pleadings are to mislead the court
for taking wrongful benefit. It is denied that workman has
taken charge of Maksi Road Branch of the Bank. Workman
was engaged as casual labour in daily wages as per
exigencies. No muster roll was maintained. The contents
w.r.t. forwarding application for interview are admitted. The
contentions of workman submitting applications for
regularizing are not disputed. Workman was found ineligible
as he was only of age of 17 years as on 1-8-87 i.e. date of
appointment. As per settlement dated 20-10-89 between
Union and management daily rated casual workers not
fulfilled consideration age. The date of birth of workman is
2-7-70. He was below normal age of 18 years.
4. 2nd party denies for knowledge about personal
dealing with other after his engagement are not admitted.
Workman was disengaged for want of emergent work. Claim
of workman is not tenable and deserves to be rejected. As
per policy of Bank, staff is curtailed to avoid the loss.
Regularization of other casual daily wage workers could
not be allowed. The judgment in Writ Petition No. 1339/98
by Hon'ble Apex court is submitted. The claim of workman
cannot be accepted.
3340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
5. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. It is
submitted that one Mr. L.S. Vyas was appointed on 8-4-86
was below 18 years. He is still working in the Bank.
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
In Affirmative
the management of UCO
Bank in terminating the
services of Shri Gopalkrishna
Dave w.e.f. 19-11-91 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?"
to any relief.
REASONS
7. Point No. 1 - workman is challenging termiantion of
his service for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act.
Workman has pleaded that other persons below 18 years
engaged in the Bank were continued. He had completed
649 days, he had completed more than 240 days continuous
service, his services were terminated without notice. In
support of his contentions, workman filed affidavit of his
evidence. In his affidavit of evidence, workman has stated
that he was engaged as permanent peon on 1-8-87, he was
paid Rs. 10 per day. On 2-5-88, he was transferred to Maksi
Road Branch. The wages were increased to Rs. 15,20,25,41
per day. He was paid bonus. Workman did not appear for
his cross-examination. Union Representative submitted
that he does not want to get witness cross-examined, his
evidence is closed. As per ordersheet dated 7-5-2012,
evidence of workman was not to be considered in the case.
As Ist party workman though filed affidavit of his evidence
in support of his claim, failed to appear for his cross-
examination, his evidence cannot be considered in the
matter.
8. Management filed affidavit of his Shri Arun Kumar
Supporting contentions in Written Statement filed by the
management. In his cross-examination, managment's
witness says during 1987-88, he was not working in the
branch Ujjain. He was also not working in Maksi Road
branch in 1980-81. His affidavit is prepared as per the record.
The documents which he had seen are not produced in the
case. He did not discuss the matter with Branch Managers
working at the relevant time. The witness of management
was unable to tell what procedure was followed before
engaging workman. His name was sponsored through
Employment Exchange. Workman was not interviewed.
Permission of Controlling Authority was not obtained
before engaging workman. Muster roll was not maintained.
Workman was paid from miscellaneous fumd. He claims
ignorance whether workman was paid salary through
Saving Account. However the management's witness has
admitted documents P-21, P-3, P-4. Those documents are
marked as marked Exhibit W-1, W-2, W-3/1 to 3/2. Document
P-3 shows 469 working days of Ist party workman during
12-10-86 to 11-10-89. The age of workman is shown 19 years.
Document P-4 is letter issued by Dy. Chief Officer calling
information about unauthorized engagement. Those
document do not clearly show working more than 240 days
by workman preceding 12 months of his termination.
Workman has not entered in witness box for his cross-
examination therefore his evidence cannot be considered.
Workman failed to establish that he was working more than
240 days preceding his termination. However the
management in its written statment has pleaded that the
age of Ist party workman was 17 years 29 days at the time
of his first engagement, he could not be absored in the
Bank.
9. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Bhattacharjee
relies on ratio held in —
Case of management of G.C. of BCCL versus their
workman. Their Lordship of the Apex court dealing
with regularization held disability of being under age
at the time of appointment held regularization based
on much appointment cannot be upheld.
Reliance is placed in case of Pankaj Gupta versus
State of J & K and others reported in 2004(9)SRJ 103.
Their Lordship held no person illegally appointed or
appointed without following procedure prescribed
under law should be continued in service.
In case of Karur Vyas Bank Employees Union versus
Presiding Officer, CGIT reported in 1988 LAB.I.C.
1746. Their Lordship considering Bank employees
services of persons utilized intermittently to do
certain work which arose only on certain occasions.
Employment is of casual nature and not connected
with work of Bank namely Banking work connected
therewith. Failure of employee to prove that he worked
for 240 continuous days in a year, provisions of
Section 25-F is not attracted.
In case of Surendranagar District Panchayat versus
Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported in 2006-SCC-(L&S)
38. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F, B, 2(oo)
& 2(s) of ID Act held the fact must be proved b
workman to claim protection under Section 25-F (i)
there exists relationship of employer and employee,
(ii) he is a workman under Section 2(s), (iii)
establishment in which he is employed is an industry
within meaning of the Act and (iv) he has put in not
less than one year of continuous service as defined
in Section 25-B under employer, if any one is missing
then Section 25-F will not be attracted.
In present case, workman has not appeared for his
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3341
cross-examination as such his evidence cannot be
considered. Documents Exhibit W-1 to W-3 do not
show completion of 240 days continuous service
preceding year of his termination. The claim of
workman is not established.
10. Shri Bhattacharjee for 2nd party further relies on
ratio held in Case of Union of India and others versus
Bishamber Dutt reported in 1997 SCC (L&S) 478. Their
Lordship held persons appointed as part time employees
dehors the rules even though regularly working for a long
time are not entitled to regularization. I make it clear that
terms of reference does not include claim for regularization
therefore the ratio held in above case cannot be applied to
case at hand.
Next reliance is placed on ratio held in case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus
Umadevi and other reported in 2006 SCC-(L&S) 753.
Their Lordship observed merely because an
employee continued under cover of an order of the
court under litigious employment or had been
continued beyond the term of his appointment by
the State or its instrumentalities, he would not be
entitled to any right to be absorbed or made
permanent in service, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment was not made
by following a due process of selection as envisaged
by the relevant rules.
Reliance is also placed in ratio held in case of
Secretary to Government School Education
Department Chennai versus R. Govindswamy and
others reported in 2014-2SCC(L&S) 108. Their
Lordship dealing with question of regularization of
part time sweeper working more than 10 years held
mere continuation of service by a temporary or adhoc
or daily wage employee under the cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon
him any right to be absorbed into service, as such
service would be litigious employment which has
been prescribed by the constitution bench.
The ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case
at hand as service of Ist party workman was not
protected. In above cited case, their Lordship also
considered ratio held in Umadevi's case 2006(4) SCC-1
quoting that even temporary adhoc or daily wage
service for a long number of years, let along service
for one or two years will not entitle such employee to
claim regularization if he his not working against a
sanctioned post.
As workman has not remained present for his cross-
examination, his evidence cannot be considered.
There is no cogent evidence that workman completed
240 days working preceding year of his termination.
Therefore protection of Section 25-F cannot be
allowed to the workman. Violation of Section 25-F is
not established. As workman failed to appear for
cross-examination, violation of Section 25-G, H of ID
Act is also not established. Therefore I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of UCO Bank in
terminating the services of Shri Gopalkrishna
Dave w.e.f. 19-11-91 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
P.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29] tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1589-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
k easa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 71@02½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@14@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2015
S.O. 1589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/02)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Punjab National Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 29/07/2015.
[No. L-12012/14/2002 - IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMNET
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/71/02
Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal,
S/o Rameshchandra Agrawal,
422, Suresh Nagar, Thatipur,
Morar, Gwalior.
....Workman
Versus
Zonal Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Zonal Office, Jawahar Bhawan,
Roshanpura,
Bhopal (MP)
....Management
3342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 24th days of June 2015
1. As per letter dated 29-4-02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section - 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
12012/14/2002-IR (B-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
''Whether the action of the management of Zonal
Manager, Punjab National Bank in ordering dismissal
of the service of Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal w.e.f.
16-6-2000 is justified? If not, what relief the workman
is entitled for?''
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties, Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1
to 2/3 Case of workman is that he was selected as peon on
probation as per letter dated 11-4-85. He joined duty on
16-4-85. Workman was promoted as Daftary on 19-9-91.
Chargesheet was issued to him on 19-2-99. Chargesheet
was not accommodated with list of documents, list of
witnesses, Workman has alleged that enquiry was not
properly conducted, principles of natural justice were
violated. Preliminary issue is decided as per order dated
29-10-2013. Enquiry conducted against workman was found
legal. Therefore the pleadings in statement of claim about
legality of enquiry are not required to be narrated in details.
The Enquiry Officer recorded his finding that charges
against workman were proved. Workman was dismissed
from serivce as per order dated 12-06-00. Workman had
challenged order of dismissal filing appeal. On 15-07-00,
his appeal was dismissed as per order dated 3-10-00.
Workman reiterated that the punishment of dismissal
imposed as per the enquiry conducted illegally is not legal.
Workman prays for setting aside order of dismissal and
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. Management filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to
5/12 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party had denied
violation of bipartite settlement. It is not disputed that
workman was working as Daftary during relevant period.
However management submits that the performance and
conduct of workman was not satisfactory since beginning.
Workman was suspended on 11-07-96 for the misconduct
of abusing the Manager. Chargesheet was issued to
workman on 17-7-96. DE was conducted against workman
giving opportunity for his defence. Workman had assured
that he will not commit such acts in future and prayed for
mercy. Considering his appeal, punishment of dismissal
was modified to stoppage of six increments as per order
dated 7-3-98. The suspension of workman was revoked.
4. After revocation of workman, he had reported on
duty on 1-4-98. At that time workman was shouting against
Manager pointing out the letter issued by Regional office.
He was reistated after period of 2 years. It is also alleged
that workman uttered that he will report to duty at 11.30 AM
and would return back at 4.50 PM as he would attend his
duty from Gwalior. Branch Manager did not agree to all above
things. Workman insisted that Manager should give in
writing. Even on next day, workman refused to bring ledger,
carry cheque for payment to the cash cabin claiming that he
was not peon but was daftary. Complaint is received from a
cloth merchant that workman had committed theft of clothes
from his house on roadside, it is further alleged that workman
had submitted false report against Branch Manager.
Considering disorderly, improper, riotious and indecent
behaviour of the workman, he was suspended, chargesheet
was issued to him alleging misconduct of various nature
under different heads. That workman had misbehaved with
Branch Manager insulted Branch Manager Shri Awasthi
shouting, abusing, threatening the Branch Manager of
serious consequences. submitting false complaints Branch
Manager etc. It is alleged on 25-9-98, workman was found in
drunkenness condition while handing over letter to the
Branch Manager. Workman was accommodated with anti
social elements. Workman was threatening Branch Manager
Mr Sood. It is reiterated that after issuing chargesheet,
Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed.
Enquiry was conducted on 1-5-99, 17-5-99, 6-6-99, 11-6-99,
25-6-99, 19-7-99, 17-8-99, 1-11-99, 9-12-99, 16-12-99, 7-1-00
and 14-1-00. It is submitted that workman was given
opportunity for his defence. After recording evidence,
Enquiry Officer submitted findings that charges against
workman are proved. Considering the findins of Enquiry
Officer, punishment is imposed after conducting enquiry is
legal. IInd party submits that workman had failed to participate
in Enquiry proceedings despite several opportunities given
to him. Management has also pleaded that enquiry is found
vitiated, management be given permission to prove
misconduct in court.
Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/2
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. Workman
has further contented that the findings of Enquiry officer
are perverse. The enquiry was conducted without giving
opportunity for defence.
6. Considering pleadings on record and findings on
preliminary issue, the points which arise for my
consideration and determination are as under. My findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as
below:—
(i) Whether the misconduct In Affirmative except
alleged against workman 8 (f), (h) & (i)
is proved from evidence
in Enquriy proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment In Negative
of dismissal imposed
against workman is proper
and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?''
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3343
REASONS
7. As discussed above, the enquiry conducted against
workman is found legal, question remains for consideration
is whether the charges alleged against workman are proved
from evidence in Enquiry proceedings. The next question
would be whether punishment of dismissal imposed against
workman is proper. Ist point whether charges against
workman are proved needs to be decided from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings. Register of Enquiry Proceedings is
produced at Exhibit M-17. Management's witness examined
Shri R.C. Soni incharge cashier on 1-4-98, Management's
witness Shri R.C. Soni in his statement says on 1-4-98,
workman had gone to join duty after his reinstatement had
thrown the order on table of Manager, Manager told
workman that he had come at 11 AM. He would be allowed
to join duty on next day. Management's witness further
says that workman was claiming he had come at 5 PM on
31-3-98. It was last day of the financial year. The Bank was
opened till 9 to 10 PM. The Manager told workman that
there was no question of joining on that day. Workman
told Manager that every day he would attend Bank at 11.30
AM and will go by 5 PM. Manager do not agree to it. There
was differences between Manager and workman.
Management's witness further says on 2-4-98, Manager
was sitting in his chair, he had asked workman to take
ledger and withdrawal forms from counter of cashier to his
table, workman told Manager that he was Daftary and not
peon and would not take ledgers to him. The statement of
management's witness Shri Shukla corroborates evidence
of Shri Soni that workman was saying that he had come on
transfer, he was under suspension for 2 years. He should
be allowed to join duty otherwise Manager should give in
writing that he would attend duty from Gwalior, Shri Shukla
Management's witness in his further statement says that
workman had threatened Manager of serious
consequences. Workman told Manager that several gundas
were his friends. Management's witness further says that
on25-9-98 around 11.30 AM, workman was found under
intoxication, gundas were accompanying him, workman
and his associates have given abuses to the Manager. The
statement of Management's witnesses Mr. Soni, Shukla is
corroborated by other witnesses. That workman had
shouted against Manager. Workman had abused Manager
in the name of his mother, sister using indecent language.
Even after workman was pursued, he did not stop his abuses
and indecent behavior. Statement of management's witness
at page 19 of the Enquiry proceedings shows that workman
had told Manager that he was residing in rented house.
Workman was residing near to Manager's house and he
was causing harassment to his family members. The
evidence of management's witnesses discussed above is
about misbehavior by workman abusing, insulting,
threatening Manager and his family members coming under
intoxication. The charges against workman are complaint
received against workman about theft of clothes is not
substantiated by any kind of evidence. The merchant who
complained is not examined before Enquiry officer, any
such report is not produced on record. The evidence is not
clear to which police station, report was filed. The report
was found false by police is not established from the
evidence. Similarly the charged workman was in drunken
condition on 25-9-98, handing over letter, workman was
accompanying by associate elements. The evidence on
record does not disclose name of person accompanying
the workman, whether the incident was reported to police,
whether workman was examined by the Medical Officer
and found in drunken condition. No such evidence is
adduced by the management therefore Charge No. 8(f), (h)
& (i) alleged against workman cannot be proved from
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. The findings of Enquiry
officer w.r.t. 8(f), (h) & (i) are not supported by evidence
and as such are perverse. Rest of the charges against
workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.
I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. Point No.2— in view of my finding in Point No.1
except charge No. 8(f), (h) & (i) , remaining charges proved
against workman.The document produced by management
Exhibit M-4 is order dated 7-3-98 is order of revocation of
suspension. The punishment of dismissal of workman was
modified to stoppage of six increments after considering
the apology submitted by workman. Said punishment was
imposed w.r.t. prior to incident. In present case, except
charge No. 8(f), (h) & (i), all other charges are proved against
workman. The charges proved against workman pertains
to workman disobeying to take register, withdrawal
vouchers from cashiers to table of Manager, abusing in
indecent language, threatening Branch Manager,
threatening family members of Branch Manager. The
service record of Ist party workman was not good as he was
imposed punishment of withholding six increments in the
past, the question remains for decision whether punishment
of dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal?
The proved charges against workman are about his personal
behavior. Bank has not suffered any kind of loss.
9. Learned counsel for Ist party workman has placed
reliance on ratio held in case of
"Scooter India Limited Lucknow versus Labour Court,
Lucknow reported in AIR 1989-SC-149. Their
Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with termination
of service. Disciplinary enquiry found to be fair and
lawful and its findings were not vitiated in any manner.
That by itself would not be ground for non
interference with order of termination of service by
Labour Court. Direction by Labour Court in the facts
for reinstatement of employee with 75% back wages
on ground that erring workman should be given
opportunity to reform himself and prove to be loyal
ad disciplined employee of company was upheld.
Next reliance is placed in case of Haryana Urban
Development Authority versus Devi Dayal reported
in 2002(93)FLR 327. Their Lordship allowed 50%
3344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
backwages instead of full backwages since workman
was engaged in work during the period of his
termination.
In present case, workman was given opportunity to
improve his conduct, earlier order of his dismissal
was modified to withholding of six increments
therefore the ratio cannot be beneficially applied to
present case at hand.
10. At the same time, what is nature of charges proved
against workman needs to be considered while deciding
propriety of the dismissal. The charges proved against
workman pertains to misbehavior with Branch Manager
abusing, disobeying, threatening the family members.
Workman was earlier dismissed from service.The
punishment was modified to withholding of six increments.
The reinstatement of workman would not be justified
considering the proved charges, misbehavior with Branch
Manager and past service record. Punishment of dismissal
deserves as a civil death not only for an employee but has
serious impact on family members also. The continuance
of workman in bank employee should not be allowed in
view of proved charges of serious nature. Considering
workman joined service in the year 1985, punishment of
dismissal was imposed in the year 2000, workman had almost
completed 15 years service, punishment of dismissal
appears harsh and disproportionate to the proved charges.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence on other issues.
His evidence in cross-examination shows his family
consists of his wife, daughters and son studying in 5th
standard. His family's expense is about 4000 to 5000 Rs. per
month. Workman further deposed that he is supported by
several persons for attending his case, for supporting his
family. It cannot be a ground for deciding proportionality
of the punishment. In view of the proved charges and earlier
punishment of dismissal modified to withholding six
increments, reinstatement of workman cannot be allowed.
The punishment of compulsory retirement would be
appropriate. 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 Zonal Manager,
Punjab National Bank in ordering dismissal of
the service of Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal w.e.f.
16-6-2000 is not proper and legal.
(2) The punishment of dismissal from service is
modified to compulsory retirement.
Parties to bear their own costs.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1590-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼33@2001½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS ]tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@267@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2015
S.O.1590.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 33/2001) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industiral dispute
between the management of Punjab National Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
29/07/2015.
[No. L-12011/267/2000-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TERIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/33/2001
Vice President,
Punjab National Bank Employees Association,
C/o PNB 74, Iqbal Nagar,
Nagar Nigam Colony,
Ashoka Garden, Raisen Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Regional Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Regional Office,
Shikhar Varta Press Complex,
MP Nagar, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 29th day of June 2015
1. As per letter dated 6-2-2001 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-12011/
267/2000-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab
National Bank Regional Office, Bhopal by not allowing
to attend the promotional test to Shri Rajendra Kumar
Raikwar is justified or not? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled for?"
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3345
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim through
Union at Page 4/1 to 4/4. Management filed Written
Statement opposing claim of the Ist party at page 10/1 to
10/4. When case was fixed for evidence, management had
filed application submitted by workman for withdrawal of
his claim. Today workman alongwith Secretary of Union
submitted application for withdrawal of his claim.
Management has given No Objection. As Ist party workman
and Secretary of Union have admitted contents of
application for withdrawal of claim and workman is not
inclined to prosecute his claim, the award is passed as
under:-"Dispute between parties could not be decided on
merit as Ist party workman withdrew his case. No orders as
to cost."
R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1591-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@52@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I)]
,eñ dsñ flag]] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2015
S.O.1591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2014)
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
31/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/52/2013-IR(CM-I]
M.K.SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A)
of I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference: No. 01/2014
Employer in relation to the
management of Lodna Area
M/s. B.C.C.L.,
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT:
SRI R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
: Shree D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State
: Jharkhand
Industry:
Coal
Dated 10/7/2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/52/2013-IR (CM-1) dated
16/12/2013, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Lodna
Colliery of M/s BCCL in fixing after conversation from P.R
wagon Loaders to T.R General Mazdoor-I in respect of
S/Sri Ramashray Rabidas and 12 other is fair and justified?
To what relief the concerned workers are entitled to?"
Annexure
List of workmen
1. Shri Ramashray Ravidas
2. Shri Dwarika Mahato
3. Shri Chhotu Barhi
4. Shri Anchha Bhuia
5. Shri Gopal Chamar
6. Shri Kyum Ansari
7. Shri Baldeo Dhari
8. Shri Santosh Kumhar
9. Sri Patit Pawan Kumhar
10. Md. Safique Alam
11. Shri Rakhal Bouri
12. Shri Samar Chamar
13. Shri Santosh Bouri
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.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
3346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1592-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
uñ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@39@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag]vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2015
S.O. 1592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2013)
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
31/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/39/2013-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A)
of I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference: No. 37 of 2013
Employer in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area
of M/s. B.C.C.L.,
AND
Their workmen.
Present :
SRI R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
: Shree D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: Shree S. C. Gour, Rep.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry:
Coal
Dated 10/7/2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/39/2013-IR (CM-1) dated
26/08/2013, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bastacolla
Colliery of BCCL in not providing employment to Sri Suraj
Deo Bhuia Dependant son of Late Akal Bhia under the
provision of NCWA is fair and justified? To what relief
Sri Suraj Deo Bhuia dependant son of Late Akal Bhuia is
entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld Counsel for
the workman submits that workman is not interested to
contest the case. 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] 31 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1593-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 04@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@59@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2015
S.O.1593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/
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
workman, received by the Central Government on
31/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/59/2013-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A)
of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference: No. 04 of 2014
Employer in relation to the management of Kustore Area
of M/s. BCCL,
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3347
AND
Their workmen.
SRI R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES
For the Employers
: Shree Nitish Sahay, Advocate
For the workman
: Shree K.N. Singh, Rep.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated 9/7/2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/59/2013-IR (CM-1) dated 01/01/
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 dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Alkusa
Colliery under erstwhile Kustore Area and now under
Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing Sri Deepak
Prakash Singh in the post of Attendance Clerk is fair and
justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld Counsel for
the workman submits that workman is not interested to
contest the case. 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] 31 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1594-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds izca/
kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 176@1999½dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@412@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2015
S.O.1594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 176/1999)
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
31/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/412/1996-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. 176 of 1999
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area,
M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
PRESENT
SRI R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES
For the Employers
: Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate
For the Workman
; Sri R.K. Mukherjee, Rep.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated 17/7/2015
AWARD
By Order No.-L-20012/412/1996 IR-(C-1), dated
03/11/1999, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act., 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of National Coal workers
congress for regularisation of Sri Bhichan Rajak and 5 others
washermen by the management of Kusunda Area of M/s.
BCCL is legal and justified, if so, what direction in this
connection is required to be given?”
3348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
List of worknen in not enclosed with Order of reference
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
07.12.1999. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement
on 18.01.2002. And the management files their written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 21.06.2002. One witness
examined on behalf of the workman.
3. The workman who are by profession washerman,
have claimed to be regularised as workman, on the pretext
that they have been washing table cloth, carpets, towels of
the management offices, Kusunda Area and receiving
payments.
4. On the other hand management submitted, that any
body can wash and receives payment, but there is no
question of regularisation.
5. The workman though examined, has not stated that
they are engaged by contractors, though plea was taken
that electricity and detergent was provided by the
management, that has not been proved by the workman.
6. There is no appointment letter, even no name of the
contractor and workmen. The management is at liberty to
engage any one for wash for any other work. But direction
of regularizaton can not be given, unless there is a post like
that.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that the demand of National Coal workers congress
for regularisation of Sri Bhichan Rajak and 5 other
washermen by the management of Kusunda Area of
M/s. BCCL is not legal and justified. Hence the claim of the
workman is negative, and they were not entitled to get any
relief.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ1595-&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;]
uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 89@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@594@2000&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2015
S.O. 1595.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 89/2001) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. CCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
31/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/594/2000-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. 89 of 2001
PARTIES
The Secretary.
R.C.M.S., Sirka Colliery,
PO: Argada, Dist. Hazaribagh,
Versus
The Project Officer,
Sirka Colliery of M/s. CCL,
P.O. Argada, Dist. Hazaribagh
Order No. L-20012/594/2000(C-I) dt. 16.3.2001
APPEARANCES
On behalf of the
: Mr. N.G. Arun,
workman/Union
Ld. Rep. of the Union
On behalf of the
: Mr. D.K. Verma
Management
Ld. Adv.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th June, 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/
594/2000(C-I) dt. 16.3.2001.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Sirka
Colliery of M/s C.C. Ltd. in not providing employment to
Smt. Bachchi Devi w/o Late Rameshwar or her son
Nageshwar Ram is justified? If not, to what relief the said
dependants(s) of the workman concerned entitled?"
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3349
2. Neither the Union Representative nor petitioner
Bachchi Devi or her son Nageswhwar Ram appeared but
Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management
is present without any Management witness for his
evidence.
Perused the case record. I find the case has been
pending for the evidence of the OP/Management. The
Instant Reference relates to an issue over providing an
employment to Smt. Bachchi Devi w/o Late Rameshwar or
her son Nageshwar Ram. But in spite of giving more than
ample opportunity for her evidence, not a single witness
was produced on her behalf within the period from
21.04.2004 to 30.03.2006, so the evidence of the petitioner/
workman was closed as per order No. 16 dt. 30.03.2006 by
the Tribunal. When the petitioner on whom the onus of
proof lies fails to produce any evidence at the point of the
reference, it seems absolutely unreasonable to run the case
on the point of producing Management witness.
Under these circumstances, it is useless to proceed
further for evidence of the OP/Management. In result, the
case is closed as no Industrial Dispute existent between
both the parties. Accodingly, an order of 'No Dispute' is
passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1596-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@2004½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@255@2003&vkbZñvkjñ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2015
S.O.1596.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 32/2004) 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
31.07.2015.
[No. L-20012/255/2003-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
Ref. No. 32 of 2004
Employers in relation to the management of P.B. Area of
M/s. B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen
PRESENT
SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
: Sri U.P. Sinha, Advocate
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal.
Dated: 07.07.2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/255/2003-IR(C-I), dated 26/03/
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:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Bhartiya Mazdoor
Sangh from the management of South Balihari Colliery of
M/s. BCCL for regularising Sri Raj Bahadur Yadav as
Supervisor (Dhowra Supervisor as the analogous cadre/
post) from the date, he has been authorised to work as
water supervisor is justified? If so, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled and from what date?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
19.04.2004. After notice both parties appeared, the
Sponsoring Union files their written statement on
26.04.2006. Thereafter the management files their written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 11.12.2009. One witness each
side examined on their behalf. Document marked as W-1 to
W-9 and X to X/8.
3. The claim of the workman to be regularised in the
post of Dhowra Supervisor or in its analogus post. Both
parties file their claim statement and the workman has been
examined as WW-1. But he has clearly stated in his evidence
that he has not been entrusted to work as Dhowra
3350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
supervisor and he also further stated that he was not
selected for promotion to the said post, and he was not
authorised to work in water treatment plant.
4. In view of his clear admission, that he was not worked
as Dhowra supervisor. Hence be can't be regularised in
that post.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that the demand of the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh
from the management of South Balihari Colliery of M/s.
BCCL for regularising Sri Raj Bahadur Yadav as Supervisor
is not justified. Hence he not entitled to get any relief.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1597-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1, /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 79@2004½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@179@2003&vkbZvkj¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2015
S.O.1597.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 79/2004) 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
31.07.2015.
[No. L-20012/179/2003-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
Ref. No. 79 of 2004
Employers in relation to the management of C.V. Area of
M/s. B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen
PRESENT:
SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
: Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate
For the Workman.
: Sri Lall Sahdeo Prasad, Rep.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal.
Dated: 15.07.2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/179/2003-IR(C-I), dated 17/12/
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
"(i) Whether the action of the management of
Basantimata Colliery under C.V. Area of M/s. BCCL
in not protecting the wages of Shri Naudad Ansari,
Md. Suleman Ansari, Jahangir Ansari, Kaukat Ali
Ansari, Almin Ansari and Nasuruddin Ansari while
converting them from P.R to T.R job is justified? If
not, to what relief are the concerned workmen
entitled?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
01.01.2004 by CGIT No. 2 Dhanbad. But the case relates to
CGIT No. 1, same is received by CGIT No. 1 Dhanbad on
20.07.2004. After notice both parties appeared, the
Sponsoring Union files their written statement on
27.12.2004, the management files their written statement-
cum-rejoinder on 17.05.2005. Thereafter rejoinder and
document filed by the parties.
3. One witness each examined by both sides.
Document of workman marked as W-1 to W-10. During the
pendency of this case, one workman out of six, Sri Almin
Ansari has died and his wife Smt. Safiran Khatoon is
substituted.
4. Short point to be decided in the reference as to
whether the workman concerned, who were piece rated
workmen, subsequently became time rated workmen, will
be entitled to pay protection or not, and they will be entitled
to SPRA or not.
5. As per the Rules of the management, if the
management converted piece rated worker to time rated
the management, is to protect their pay alongwith SPRA.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3351
6. But it is submitted by the management in this
particular case, on the request of the workmen, they were
converted to piece rated to Time rated workmen. In support
of that the management filed a settlement between the Union
and the management filed in this case the relevant terms
are as follows:—
"That is further agreed to carry out the pay fixation
shall be done from the date of regularization without
any arrears in this regard i.e. SPRA at the time of
regularization will be added to initial basic of the
category in which they were regularized."
7. This being the situation, if the management already
implemented the settlement, the workman is nothing to
get. If the same is not implemented, the management is
directed to implement the same forthwith.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1598-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 301@2000½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@231@2000&vkbZ vkj¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2015
S.O.1598.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 301/
2000) 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
31.07.2015.
[No. L-20012/231/2000-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1,
DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A)
of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference: No. 301 of 2000
Employer in relation to the management of Simlabahal
Colliery, Kustore Area, M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen
PRESENT :
SHRI R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
: None
For the Workman
: Shri R.R. Ram, Rep.
State
: Jharkhand.
Industry
: Coal
Dated: 8/7/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/231/2000/IR (CM-1) dated
29/09/2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise 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 BCCL, Kustore Area in
dismissing Shri Mangla Bhuiya from services w.e.f.
17.02.96 is just and fair? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. Both parties appeared. But appearing for certain
dates, Ld. Counsel for the workman submits that workman
is not interested to contest the case. 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] 5 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1599-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks c®d ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
3352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 8, 2015/SRAVANA 17, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] iVuk ds
iapkV 02 (lh)vkWQ2014 ds 'kqf)i= izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 05@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2015
S.O.1599.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Corrigendum Award (I.D.
No. 02(C) of 2014) of the Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/08//2015.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
PATNA
Industrial Dispute Case No. : 02 (C) of 2014
Between the management of Zonal Manager, UCO Bank
Zonal Office, S.K. Trafdar Road, Near Koilaghat Adampur,
Bhagalpur
AND
Their workman Shri Dablu Kumar, S/O Shri Banke Behari
Pandey Vill. & P.O. Baijani, P.S. Jagdishpur, Dist. Bhagalpur,
THROUGH
The State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association,
Bihar State Committee, 2nd Floor, Saboo Complex, P.O. Hotel
Republic, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001.
For the Management
: Shri Ashutosh Nath Acharya,
Senior Manager, UCO Bank,
Bhagalpur.
For the workman
: Shri B. Prasad, State Secretary,
UCO
Bank
Employees
Association, 2nd Floor, Saboo
Complex, P.O.-Hotel Republic
Exhibition Road, Patna-800001.
PRESENT :
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal, Patna
AWARD
Patna, dated: 22nd June, 2015.
This application has been filed under the provisions
of Section-2A (1) & (2) of the Industrial Disputes
(Amendment) Act, 2010. This case has been filed by the
workman Shri Dablu Kumar against the management of
UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur for seeking relief of
wrongful termination of the workman who was part time
sweeper in the bank.
2. Case was pending for the evidence of the
management. In this case both parties had appeared and
written statement was also filed on behalf of the
management bank.
3. Today attendance has been filed on behalf of the
management and the workman through State Secretary,
UCO Bank Employees Association, namely Shri B. Prasad,
representative of the union.
4. Petition has been filed on behalf of the workman
stating therein that he was working temporarily in UCO
Bank, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur as sweeper. He was removed
from the service and as such he has filed this case before
this tribunal. He without any pressure wants to withdraw
this case. Now he has no dispute or complaint against the
bank.
5. On the point of compromise W.W-1 Dablu Kumar
has been examined today and in his evidence he has stated
that he was working since 1st September, 2007 in UCO
Bank Branch Baijani but he was removed from the service
after 09.10.2013. Now he has been again appointed and he
is working in the bank since 04.02.2015 and posted at Khaisar
Branch, Dist.-Banka.
6. He further stated that after removal from the service
he filed Industrial Dispute Case No.- 02 (C) of 2014 and he
withdraw of this case without any pressure. Now he has
no complaint or dispute from the bank. In cross-examination
he has stated that he has no complaint and dispute against
the bank and he requested to pass “No Dispute Award”.
7. Since the workman wants to pass “No Dispute
Award” and he has no complaint or dispute against the
bank and he has again been appointed so “No Dispute
Award” is passed in this case.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 8] [email protected] 17] 1937
3353
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1600-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj gfjZlksal ey;kye
fyfeVsM] ,.kkZdqye] dsjy ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa us'kuy
baMfLVª;y fVªC;wuy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02 of 2014½ izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&51014@1@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ihth½]
v'kksd dqekj flag]mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 7th August, 2015
S.O. 1600.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. Misc.
Application No. 02 of 2014) of the National Industrial
Tribunal at Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Harrisons Mallayalam Ltd., Ernakulam,
Kerala and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 13/07/2015.
[No. L-51014/1/2000-IR(PG)]
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Misc. Application No. 02 of 2014
U/S. 33A of the I.D. Act, 1947
(Arising out of Reference No. NT-01 of 2000)
PARTIES:
The Secretary,
Plantation Employees Union
Regd. No. 478/86 (CITU),
Punalur P.O. 691305,
Kollam District, Kerala State
.... Applicant.
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.,
Bristow Road, Willington Island,
Cochin-3, Ernakulam District,
Kerala State
.... Opp. Parties.
PRESENT :
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCE
On behalf of the Applicant
: None
On behalf of the Opp. Parties
: None
State
: National.
Industry
: Plantation.
Dated: 10th April, 2015.
AWARD
This is an application under Section 33A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the General Secretary,
Plantation Employees Union, Punalur P.O. 691305, Kollam
District, Kerela State alleging change of service condition
of the concerned workmen during the pendency of
Reference No. NT-01 of 2000 before this Tribunal.
2. When the case is taken up today for hearing, none
appears on behalf of either of the parties inspite of service
of notice. It appears from the record that inspite of receiving
notice the Applicant of this case has not turned up since
19.12.2014.
3. From the above facts and circumstances it appears
that the Applicant is not interested to proceed with the
instant case further. In view of the above, present
application under Section 33A of the Act is rejected being
not moved.
4. An Award is accordingly passed.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 10th April, 2015.
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.