foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1601-—foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk izfrHkwfrdj.k vkSj iquxZBu
rFkk izfrHkwfr fgr dk izorZu vf/kfu;e] 2002 dh /kkjk 21¼1½ }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj us ;g
fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd MkWñ 'k'kkad lDlsuk] vkfFkZd lykgdkj&II] foÙkh;
lsok,a foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj] rRdky izHkko ls] izfrHkwfrdj.k ls lacaf/kr
ysu&nsuksa ds iathdj.k] foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa ds iquxZBu rFkk laifÙk;ksa ls
l`ftr izfrHkwfr fgr ds mís'; ls dsUnzh; jftLVªkj] dsUnzh; jftLVªh ds
:i esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk fu;fer in/kkjh dh fu;qfDr gksus rd]
dsUnzh; jftLVªkj vkSj izca/k funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh]
dsUnzh; jftLVªh ds in dk vfrfjDr izHkkj laHkkysaxsA
[Qkñ lañ 56@05@2007&¼chvks&II½& fjdojh]
,eñ ,eñ nkSyk] voj lfpo]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 10th August, 2015
S.O. 1601.—In exercise of the powers conferred under
section 21 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002, the Central Government has decided that
Dr. Shashank Saksena, Economic Adviser II, Department of
Financial Services, Government of India will hold additional
charge with immediate effect for the post of Central Registrar
and Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Central
Registry for the purpose of registration of transactions
relating to Securitisation, reconstruction of financial assets
and security interest created over the properties till the
time a regular incumbent is appointed by the Central
Government as Central Registrar, Central Registry.
[F. No. 56/05/2007-(BO-II)-Recovery]
M.M. DAWLA, Under Secy.
fons'k ea=ky;
¼lhñihñohñ izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1602-—jktuf;d vkSj dkaslqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj
Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnz ljdkj ds }kjk Jh xqy'ku dqekj] lgk;d( Jh v'kksd dqekj]
lgk;d( Jh jkds'k #isyk] futh lgk;d( vkSj Jh lkSanj;k >k( fuEu
Js.kh fyfid dks 11 vxLr] 2005 ls Hkkjr ds dksalqykokl] nqcbZ esa
lgk;d dkaslqyj vf/kdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy,
izkf/kd`r djrh gSA
[lañ Vh- 4330@1@2015]
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dkaslqyj ½
3326GI/15
(3355)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 33]
ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 9—vxLr 15] 2015] '[email protected] 18—Jko.k 24] 1937
No. 33]
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 9—AUGUST 15, 2015, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 18—SRAVANA 24, 1937
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
3356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 11th August, 2015
S.O. 1602.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section
2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)
Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby
authorizes Shri Gulshan Kumar, Assistant; Shri Ashok
Kumar, Assistant; Shri Rakesh Rupela, PA; and
Shri Soundarya Jha, LDC in Consulate General of India,
Dubai to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer
with effect from 11 August, 2015.
[No. T. 4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
dkfeZd ] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;]
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1603-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh iqfyl LFkkiu
vf/kfu;e 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6 ds lkFk
ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
vksfM'kk izns'k ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] Hkqous'oj ds
fnukad 27-10-2014 dh vf/klwpuk lañ 39445@lh ,aM ,pvkj }kjk
izkIr lgefr ls vksfM'kk izns'k jkT; ds Hkhrj iqjh rV iqfyl LVs'ku esa
vfer vxzoky ds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh gR;k ds laca/k esa fnukad
14-12-2013 dks ntZ ekeyk la[;k 215 ds vijk/k ds vUos"k.k ds
laca/k esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj
vfèdkj {ks= dk foLRkkj laiw.kZ vksfM'kk jkT; ij djrh gSA
[lañ 228@61@2014&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2015
S.O. 1603.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Odisha, Home Department, Bhubaneswar
vide Notification No. 39445/C&HR dated 27.10.2014, hereby
extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State
of Odisha for investigation of Puri Sea Beach Police Station
Case No. 215 dated 14.12.2013 relating to murder of family
members to Amit Agrawal.
[No. 228/61/2014-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1604-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal /kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
Hkk ek lañ ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½% o"kZ
1-
6500006095
20150702
esllZ raxkeby Tosyjh fyfeVsM
LoZ.k ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq, ]
IS 1417% 1999
109&110] dqeju jksM
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh—'kq)rk
fr#Iiqj&641 601
,oa eqgjkadu
2-
6500006196
20150702
esllZ raxkeby Tosyjh fyfeVsM
LoZ.k ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a
IS 1417% 1999
11A@1] dPpsjh LVªhV] 'kfDr xksih
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk
eq[; lM+d
,oa eqgjkadu
xkschpsV~Vhiky;e&638 452
3-
6500006297
20150707
esllZ bZ'kk dykWfFkax
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan½
IS 14543% 2004
14@93A] 7 xkaW/kh LVªhV]
feujy ty ds vykok½
vfoukf'k CykWd]
jkDdS;kiy;e] vfoukf'k
rkyqd] fr:Iiqj&641 654
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3357
4-
6500006398
20150707
esllZ ohñ vkjñ iEIl
xgjs dqvksa ds fy, fuEutuh;
IS 14220% 1994
lañ 26] egky{eh xkMZUl]
iEIlsV
rksV~Vhiky;e jksM]
fpfUu;eiky;e]
dks;EcÙkwj&641 062
5-
6500006499
20150708
esllZ raxkeby Tosyjh fyfeVsM
pkaWnh ,oa pkaWnh feJ/kkrq,a
IS 2112% 2003
11A@1] dPpsjh LVªhV] 'kfDr xksih
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh—'kq)rk
eq[; lM+d
,oa eqgjkadu
xkschpsV~Vhiky;e&638 452
6-
6500006503
20150708
esllZ raxkeby Tosyjh fyfeVsM
pkaWnh ,oa pkaWnh feJ/kkrq,a
IS 2112% 2003
109&110] dqeju jksM]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh—'kq)rk
fr#Iiqj&641601
,oa eqgjkadu
7-
6500006604
20150714
esllZ Jh vEeu baMLVªhl
d`f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,
IS 9079% 2002
lañ 7] txUukFku bafMfLVª;y ,LVsV]
lkQ BaMs ikuh ds fctyh ds
vfriky;e jksM] fpUukosneiV~Vh]
eksukslsV iEil
dks;EcÙkwj&641 049
8-
6500006806
20150717
esllZ dqulUl ikbIl izkbosV fyfeVsM fo|qr izfr"Bkiu ds fy,
IS 9537% Part 3%
,l ,Q lañ 458@1] 458@2] 459@1A] okfgdk—Hkkx 3—l[r ,oa
1983
459@2 osYyeMh]
lknk fo|qr vojks/kh okfgdk
dks;EcÙkwj&641 110
9-
6500006705
20150717
esllZ izHkq baMLVªh
lkQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,
IS 8472% 1998
733@4] rksV~Vhiky;e jksM]
vidsanzh; iqu#Riknd iEi
flfoy ,sjksMªkWe iksLV
dks;EcÙkwj&641 014
10-
6500006907
20150722
esllZ egky{eh Mk;jh
eykbZjfgr nw/k ikmMj—
IS 13334% (Part 1½
1@492] dYMsuisV] lkseuwj jksM]
Hkkx&1—ekud jksM
Hkkx 2014
iYyMe rkyqd] fr:Iiqj&641 401
11-
6500007097
20150724
esllZ Jh raxEeu feujYl
iSdtcan is; ty ¼iSdtcan½
IS 14543%2004
2@800¼11½] Jh vejtksrh xkMZu]
feujy ty ds vykok½
ohjkikUMh ¼ds jkLrs½] x.kifriky;e
iksLV] iYyMe rkYyqd]
fr#Iiqj&641 605
12-
6500007303
20150731
esllZ dkosjh ikWyhelZ ,.M baMLVªhl is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,
IS 4985%2000
159@1] Vh oh ,l uxj jksM]
vIykfLVd`r ih oh lh ikbIl
doqUMriky;e] dks;Ecrwj&641 030
[lañ lh,eMh@13%11]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
ek ek lañ ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½% Hkkx
3358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 7th August, 2015
S.O. 1604.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulation, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant
Name and Address (Factory)
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
No.
No.
Date
of the Party
Sec. Year
1.
6500006095
20150702
M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery
Gold and Gold Alloys,
IS 1417 : 1999
Limited 109-110, Kumaran Road,
Jewellery/Artefacts
Tiruppur - 641 601
Fineness and Marking
2.
6500006196
20150702
M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery
Gold and Gold Alloys,
IS 1417 : 1999
Limited 11A/1, Cutcherry Street,
Jewellery/Artefacts
Sakthi Gopi Main Road,
Fineness and Marking
Gobichettipalayam - 638 452
3.
6500006297
20150707
M/s. Isha Clothing
Packaged Drinking Water
IS 14543 : 2004
14/93-A, 7, Gandhi Street,
(other than Packaged
Avinashi Block, Rakkiya Palayam,
Natural Mineral Water)
Avinashi Taluk, Tirupur - 641 654
4.
6500006398
20150707
M/s. V.R. Pumps
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220 : 1994
No. 26, Mahalakshmi Gardens,
Pumpsets
Thottipalayam Road
Chinniyampalayam,
Coimbatore-641 062
5.
6500006499
20150708
M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery
Silver and Silver Alloys,
IS 2112 : 2003
Limited 11A/1, Cutcherry Street,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Sakthi Gopi Main Road,
Fitness and Marking
Gobichettipalayam - 638 452
6.
6500006503
20150708
M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery
Silver and Silver Alloys
IS 2112 : 2003
Limited 109-110, Kumaran Road,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Tiruppur - 641601
Fineness and Marking
7.
6500006604
20150714
M/s. Sri Amman Industries
Electric Monoset
IS 9079 : 2002
No. 7, Jaganathan Industrial Estate,
Pumps for Clear, Cold
Athipalayam Road, Chinnavedam
Water for Agricultural
Patti, Coimbatore - 641 049
and Water Supply Purposes
8.
6500006806
20150717
M/s. Kunsons Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
Conduits for electrical
IS 9537 : Part 3:
SF No. 458/1, 458/2, 459/1A, 459/2
installations-part 3—Rigid
1983
Vellamadi, Coimbatore - 641 110
plain conduits of
insulating materials
9.
6500006705
20150717
M/s. Prabhu Industry
Centrifugal Regenerative
IS 8472 : 1998
733/4A, Thottipalayam Road,
Pumps for clear, cold water
Civil Aerodrome (Post),
Coimbatore - 641 014
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3359
10.
6500006907
20150722
M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Dairy
Skimmed Milk Powder -
IS 13334
1/492, Kaldenpet,
Part 1 - Standard Grade
(Part 1): 2014
Somanur Road, Palladam (Tk),
Tiruppur — 641 401
11.
6500007097
20150724
M/s. Sri Thangamman Minerals
Packaged Drinking Water
IS 14543 : 2004
2/800 (11), Sri Amarjothi Garden,
(other than Packaged
Veerapandi (Via), Ganapathipalayam Natural Mineral Water)
Post, Palladam Taluk,
Thiruppur — 641 605
12.
6500007303
20150731
M/s. Kavery Polymers &
Unplasticized PVC pipes
IS 4985 : 2000
Industries 159/1, TVS Nagar Road,
for Potable Water Supplies
Kavundampalayam,
Coimbatore — 641 030
[No. CMD/13:11]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist ‘F’ and Head
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1605-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%µ
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds varxZr
jí gksus dh
lañ
lh ,e@,y&
oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
frfFk
tqykbZ 2015 & 'kwU;
[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%13]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 7th August, 2015
S.O. 1605.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below
have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence No. Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with relevant
Date of
No.
CM/L
Indian Standard covered by the
Cancellation
licence cancelled/suspension
JULY 2015 - NIL
[No. CMD/13: 13]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head
Sl.
Licence
Grant
Name and Address (Factory)
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
No.
No.
Date
of the Party
Sec. Year
3360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1606-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
ykbZlsal uañ
Lohd`r
ykbZlsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx
vuqñ
o"kZ
lañ
djus dh
'kh"kZd
ekud
frfFk
lañ
o"kZ@ekg
01
5900003206
2050401
TosylZ fot; jkt ,.M lal
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ
1417
1999
lnj jksM] ckyksn]
feJ/kkrq,a]
rglhy&ckyksn]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh
ftyk& ckyksn]
'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu&
NRrhlx<+& 491226
fof'kf"V
02
5900003307
20150413
Jh lkbZ okVj iSdsftax
iSdstcan is;
14543
2004
baMLVªht
ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd
xzke&Hkqjdksuh] xzke iapk;r&
fefujy ty ds
Niksjk] CykWd&/kjlhok
vykok½
ea/kkj jksM]
ftyk&jk;iqj ¼Nñxñ½
03
5900003408
2050413
,fjLVks Vªkalehlu izkñ fyñ
lajpukRed iz;ksx ds
4923
1997
IykWV uañ 100 ,oa 101]
fy;s bLikr ds [kks[kys
baMLVªh;y ,LVsV] flyrkjk]
dkV& fof'k"V
Qst& II,
ftyk& jk;iqj]
Nñxñ& 492001
04
5900003509
2150413
,fjLVks Vªkalehlu izkñ fyñ
ikuh vkSj eyty ds
3589
2001
IykWV uañ 100 ,oa 101]
fy, bLikr
baMLVªh;y ,LVsV] flyrkjk]
ikbZi ¼168-3 ls
Qst&II, ftyk& jk;iqj]
2540 feeh ckgjh
Nñxñ& 492001
O;kl ds½& fof'k"V
05
5900003610
2150413
,fjLVks Vªkalehlu izkñ fyñ
lkekU; xq.krk ds
9295
1983
IykWV uañ 100 ,oa 101]
lajpuk bLikr&
baMLVªh;y ,LVsV] flyrkjk]
fof'k"V
Qst&II, ftyk& jk;iqj]
Nñxñ& 492001
06
5900003711
20150421
le`n~f/k TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ
1417
1999
calkyh gkbZV~l] lnj cktkj]
feJ/kkrq,a]
ugkrk ekdsZV ds lehi]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh
jk;iqj ¼Nñxñ½& 492001
'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
07
5900003812
20150427
gkbZ&Vsd ikWoj ,.M LVhy fyñ
daØhV izcyu ds fy,
1786
2008
xzke&ijlnk] iksLV&ljksjk]
mPp 'kfDr fo:fir
rglhy& frynk]
bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&
ftyk& jk;iqj]
fof'kf"V
Nñxñ& 493114
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3361
08
5900003913
20150430
ekW dkyh ,ykW;t mn~nksx ¼izkñ½
lkekU; lajpuk
2830
2012
fyñ
bLikr gsrq iquosZYyu
xzke&ikyh] iksLV& xSjokuh]
ds fy, dkcZu <yokW
ftyk& jk;x<+]
bLikr baxV] fcysV]
Nñxñ& 496001
Cywe ,oa LySc&fof'kf"V
09
5900004006
20150429
TosylZ izke pan vuhy
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ
1417
1999
dqekj lqjkuk
feJ/kkrq,a]
tokgj pkSd] nqxZ]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh
Nñxñ& 491001
'kqn~/krk ,oa
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
10
5900004107
20150506
fl[kj iSdst fMªfdax okVj
iSdstcan is;
14543
2004
[kljk uañ 581@2]
ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd
xzke&>jgkxkao]
fefujy ty ds
ftyk&eqaxsyh
vykok½
Nñxñ&495334
11-
5900004208
20150506
ykypankuh dsfedYl
iSdstcan is;
14543
2004
'ksM uañ 21] lsDVj&lh]
ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd
baMLVªh;y ,fj;k] flfjfxêVh]
fefujy ty ds
ftyk& fcykliqj]
vykok½
Nñxñ&495 001
12-
5900004309
20150430
tsñihñ fcojsTl
iSdstcan is;
14543
2004
cM+s mykZ] vHkuiqj]
ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd
ftyk& jk;iqj]
fefujy ty ds
Nñxñ&493 661
13-
5900004410
20150508
ckykth ikWyhIykLV
ikuh dh vkiwfrZ gsrq
4984
1995
IykWV uañ 328@40] esVy ikdZ
mPp ?kuRo
baMLVªh;y ,fj;k] jokHkkVk]
ikWyhbFkbyhu ikbi
ftyk& jk;iqj]
Nñxñ&493 111
14-
5900004511
20150507
ckykth ikWyhIykLV
flapkbZ miLdj&
14151
2
2008
IykWV uañ 328@40] esVy ikdZ
fLizadyj ikbi&
baMLVªh;y ,fj;k] jokHkkVk]
fof'kf"V Hkkx 2 lgt
ftyk& jk;iqj]
la;ksth ikyh,fFkuhu
Nñxñ&493 111
ikbi rFkk fQfVaXl
15-
5900004612
20150512
Hkkjrh fcojsTl gkml
iSdstcan is;
14543
2004
IykWV uañ 99] iFkjMhg]
ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd
/kjlhok CykWd]
fefujy ty ds
ftyk& jk;iqj]
vykok½
Nñxñ&492 001
Øe
ykbZlsal uañ
Lohd`r
ykbZlsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx
vuqñ
o"kZ
lañ
djus dh
'kh"kZd
ekud
frfFk
lañ
o"kZ@ekg
3362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16-
5900004713
20150519
Jh jk;iqj lhesaV IykWV ¼Jh
iksVZySaM ikstksykuk
1489
1
1991
lhesaV fyñ dh ,d bZdkbZ½
lhesaV& fof'kf"V
xzke& [kkijMhg]
rglhy& flexk] HkkVkikjk]
ftyk& ckyksnk cktkj
NÙkhlx<+&493 332
17-
5900004814
20150519
NÙkhlx<+ VsaV rkjimyhu
vYi ?kuRo ikWyhFkhu
2508
1984
baMLVªht+
fQYe dh fof'kf"V
esu jksM+ xzke& dkanjdk]
rglhy& /kke/kk]
ftyk& nqxZ
NÙkhlx<+
18-
5900004907
20150521
Jh jk;iqj lhesaV IykWV ¼Jh
iksVZySaM /kkrqey lhesaV
455
1989
lhesaV fyñ dh ,d bZdkbZ½
xzke& [kkijMhg]
rglhy& flexk] HkkVkikjk]
ftyk& ckyksnk cktkj
NÙkhlx<+&493 332
19-
5900005008
20150527
Jh jkuh lrh feujy okVj
iSdstcan is;
14543
2004
xzke& frykbZ]
ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd
rglhy& vdyrkjk]
fefujy ty ds
ftyk& tkatxhj&paik]
vykok½
NÙkhlx<+&495 552
20-
5900005109
20150611
;kyLdks jh;y bZLVsV ,.M
iSdstcan is;
14543
2004
,xzks Qkfe±x fyfeVsM
ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd
xzke& lkYgs]
fefujy ty ds
rglhy& Mksaxjxkao]
vykok½
ftyk& jktukanxkao
NÙkhlx<+&491 661
21-
5900005210
20150615
Jh ixkfj;k TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ
1417
1999
gyokbZ ysu] jk;iqj]
feJ/kkrq,a]
gyokbZ ysu] jk;iqj]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh
Nñxñ&492 001
'kq)rk ,oa eqdjkadu&fof'kf"V
22-
5900005311
20150707
ekW egkek;k TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ
1417
1999
egkek;k ekdsZV]
feJ/kkrq,a]
esu jksM] 'kfDr]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh
ftyk& tkatxhj&paik]
'kq)rk ,oa eqdjkadu&
Nñxñ&495 689
fof'kf"V
Øe
ykbZlsal uañ
Lohd`r
ykbZlsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx
vuqñ
o"kZ
lañ
djus dh
'kh"kZd
ekud
frfFk
lañ
o"kZ@ekg
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3363
23-
5900005412
20150723
vkse ikWyhelZ
fo|qr laLFkkiuksa ds
9537
3
1983
[kljk uañ 316@1 ikVZ]
fy, daM~;wVl Hkkx% 3
xzke& xFkqyk] iksLV&cksjh]
fo|qr jks/ku lkexzh
ftyk& jktuanxkao
ds í<+ lkns daM;wV&
NÙkhlx<+&491 441
fof'kf"V
24-
5900005513
20150730
ckykth fcojsTl
iSdstcan is;
14543
2004
xzke& ranqvk] ok;k& frynk]
ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd
ftyk& jk;iqj]
fefujy ty ds
NÙkhlx<+&493 116
vykok½
25-
5900005614
20150731
lR;k vk;j.k ,.M LVhy izkñfyñ
iSdstcan is;
14543
2004
5@,y] gSoh baMfLVª;y ,fj;k]
ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd
gkFk[kkst] fHkykbZ]
fefujy ty ds
ftyk& nqxZ]
vykok½
NÙkhlx<+&490026
[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]
,lñ Hkkoky] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 10th August, 2015
S.O. 1606.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given below
in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence No.
Grant
Name and address of the
Title of the Standard
IS No.
Part.
Sec.
Year
No.
Date
party
01.
5900003206
20150401
Jewellers Vijay Raj and
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
2004
Son's
jewellery/artefacts -
Sadar Road Balod,
fineness and marking -
Telhil- Balod,
Chhattisgarh-491 226
02.
5900003307
20150413
Shri Sai Water
Packaged drinking
14543
2004
Packaging Industries
water (other than
Village: Bhurkoni, G.P.-
packaged natural
Chhapora, Block-
mineral water) -
Dharsiva, Mandhar
Road, District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh
03.
5900003408
20150413
Aristo Transmission Pvt.
Hollow steel sections
4923
1997
Ltd.,
for structural use
Plot No. 100 & 101,
Industrial Estate,
Siltara, Phase-II,
Raipur (C.G.)-492 001
Øe
ykbZlsal uañ
Lohd`r
ykbZlsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx
vuqñ
o"kZ
lañ
djus dh
'kh"kZd
ekud
frfFk
lañ
o"kZ@ekg
3364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
04.
5900003509
20150413
Aristo Transmission Pvt.
Steel pipes for water
3589
2001
Ltd.,
and sewage (168.3 to
Plot No. 100 & 101,
2540 mm outside
Industrial Estate,
diameter) -
Siltara, Phase-II,
Raipur (C.G.)-492 001
05.
5900003610
20150413
Aristo Transmission Pvt.
Steel tubes for idlers
9295
1983
Ltd.,
for belt conveyors
Plot No. 100 & 101,
Industrial Estate,
Siltara, Phase-II,
Raipur (C.G.)-492 001
06.
5900003711
20150421
Samriddhi Jewellers
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
Bansali Heights,
jewellery/artefacts -
Sadar Bazar,
fineness and marking-
Nr. Nahta Market, Raipur
Chhattisgarh-492 001
07.
5900003812
20150427
Hi-Tech Power & Steel
High strength
1786
2008
Limited
deformed steel bars
Village- Parsada,
and wires for concrete
Post- Sarora, The/- Tilda
reinforcement
District: Raipur
Chhattisgarh-493 114
08.
5900003913
20150430
Maa Kali Alloys Udyog
Carbon steel cast
2830
2012
(P) Ltd.
billet ingots, billets,
Vill- Pali, P.O.-Gairwani
blooms and slabs
District- Raigarh,
for re-rolling
Chhattisgarh-496 001
into steel for general
09.
5900004006
20150429
Jewellers Prem Chand
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
Anil Kumar Surana
jewellery/artefacts -
Jawahar Chowk, Durg
fineness and marking-
Chhattisgarh-491 001
10.
5900004107
20150506
Sikhar Package
Packaged drinking
14543
2004
Drinking Water
water (other than
Khasra No. 581/2
packaged natural
Vill.- Jharhagaon,
mineral water) -
Distt.-Mungeli
Chhattisgarh-495 334
11.
5900004208
20150506
Lalchandani Chemicals
Packaged drinking
14543
2004
Shed No. 21, Sec.-C,
water (other than
Industrial Area,
packaged natural
Sirigitti,
mineral water) -
District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh-495 001
12.
5900004309
20150430
J.P. Beverages
Packaged drinking
14543
2004
Bade Urla, Abhanpur
water (other than
District-Raipur,
packaged natural
Chhattisgarh-493 661
mineral water) -
Sl.
Licence No.
Grant
Name and address of the
Title of the Standard
IS No.
Part.
Sec.
Year
No.
Date
party
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3365
13.
5900004410
20150508
Balaji Polyplast
High density
4984
1995
Plot No. 328/40,
Polyethylene pipes for
Metal Park Industrial
potable water supplies
Area, Rawabhata,
District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh-493 111
14.
5900004511
20150507
Balaji Polyplast
Irrigation equipment -
14151
2
2008
Plot No. 328/40,
sprinkler pipes - part
Metal Park Industrial
2: quick coupled
Area, Rawabhata,
polyethylene pipes
District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh-493 111
15.
5900004612
20150512
Bharti Bewerages House
Packaged drinking
14543
2004
Plot No. 99, Pathardih,
water (other than
Dharsiwa Block,
packaged natural
District- Raipur
mineral water) -
Chhattisgarh-492 001
16.
5900004713
20150519
Shree Raipur Cement
Portland pozzolana
1489
1
1991
Plant (A unit of Shree
cement part 1 flyash
Cement Ltd.)
Village: Khapradih,
Tehsil: Simga,
District: Baloda Bazar,
Chhattisgarh-493 332
17.
5900004814
20150519
Chhattisgarh Tent
Low density
2508
1984
Tarpaulin Industries
polyethylene films
Main Road, Village:
Khandarka, Tehlsil:
Dhamdha, District-Durg,
Chhattisgarh
18.
5900004907
20150521
Shree Raipur Cement
Portland slag cement
455
1989
Plant (A unit of Shree
Cement Ltd.) Village
Khapradih, Tehsil: Simga,
District: Baloda Bazar,
Chhattisgarh-493 332
19.
5900005008
20150527
Sri Rani Sati Mineral
Packaged drinking
14543
2004
Water
water (other than
Village- Tilai,
packaged natural
Tah.- Akaltara, Janjgir,
mineral water) -
District- Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh-495 552
20.
5900005109
20150611
Yalsco Real Estate &
Packaged drinking
14543
2004
Agro Farming Ltd.
water (other than
Village- Salhe,
packaged natural
Tah-Dongargaon,
mineral water) -
District- Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh-491 661
21.
5900005210
20150615
Shri Pagariya Jewellers
Gold and Gold alloys,
1417
1999
Halwai Lane, Raipur,
jewellery/artefacts -
Chhattisgarh-492 001
fineness and marking -
Sl.
Licence No.
Grant
Name and address of the
Title of the Standard
IS No.
Part.
Sec.
Year
No.
Date
party
3366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22.
5900005311
20150707
Maa Mahamaya
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
Jewellers
jewellery/artefacts
Mahamaya Market,
fineness and marking -
Main Road, Sakti, District-
Janjgir Champa,
Chhattisgarh-495 689
23.
5900005412
20150723
Om Polymers
Conduits for electrical
9537
3
1983
Kharsa No. 316/1 Part,
Installations: Part 3
Village: Gathula,
Rigid plain conduits of
Post- Bori,
insulating materials
District : Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh-491 441
24.
5900005513
20150730
Balaji Bewerages
Packaged drinking
14543
2004
Vill- Tandua,
water (other than
Via- Tilda,
packaged natural
District: Raipur
mineral water) -
Chhattisgarh-493 116
25.
5900005614
20150731
Satya Iron And Steel
Packaged drinking
14543
2004
Pvt. Ltd.
water (other than
5/L, Heavy Industrial
packaged natural
Area, Hathkhoj, Bhilai,
mineral water) -
District-Durg,
Chhattisgarh-490 026
[No. CMD/13:11]
S. BHOWAL, Scientist-E & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1607-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] dks ykblsal j) fd, x, gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
ykblsal ds varxZr
jí@LFkfxr djus
lañ
uañ
oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh;
dh frfFk
ekud dk 'kh"kZd
1-
5803568
eSllZ] fodkl b.MLVªh]
Hkk ek 14543% 2004
17-07-2015
32@2] eqds'k fudqat] chtsih
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
vkWQhl ds ihNs] flfoy ykbu]
izkd`frd fefujy ty ds
cyksnk cktkj] jk;iqj]
vykok½ & fof'kf"V
NÙkhlx<+&493 332
1-
8978824
eSllZ ekW egkek;k jksfyax fey
Hkk ek 1786 % 2008
30-07-2015
izkbZosV fyfeVsM] 6@2] xzke% fnykjh
daØhV izcyu ds fy, mPp
tsjokuh ds ikl]
'kfDr fo:fir bLikr lfj,
ftyk% jk;x<+] NÙkhlx<+&496 001
,oa rkj & fof'kf"V
[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]
,lñ Hkkoky] oSKkfud&bZ ,oa izeq[k
Sl.
Licence No.
Grant
Name and address of the
Title of the Standard
IS No.
Part.
Sec.
Year
No.
Date
party
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3367
New Delhi, the 10th August, 2015
S.O. 1607.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the licences particulars of which are given below have
been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licences No.
Name and address of the
Article/Process with
Date of
No.
CM/-L-
Licensee
relevant Indian Standards
Cancellation
covered by the licence
cancelled/suspension
1.
5803568
Vikas Industry
IS 14543 : 2004
17.07.2015
32/2, Mukesh Nikunj,
Packaged drinking water (other
Behind BJP Office< Vicil
than packaged natural mineral
Line, Baloda Bazar,
water) - Specification
District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh-493 332
2.
8978824
Maa Mahamaya Rolling Mill
IS 1786 : 2008
30.07.2015
Pvt. Ltd.
High strength deformed steel
6/2 Village Delari, Near
bars and wires for concrete
Germani
reinforcement-Specification
Distt : Raigarh Chhattisgarh-496 001
[No. CMD/13:11]
S. BHOWAL, Scientist-E & Head
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 25 Qjojh] 2015
dk-vk- 1608-—nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ ds [k.M 10 ds mi [kaM ¼2½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]
dsUnz ljdkj Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ds lkFk ijke'kZ ds ckn] ,rnn~okjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku
djrh gS] uker%&
2- nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa Øe la- 72 ds dkWye 2 vkSj 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa
jktLFkku MsaVy dkWyst ,oa vLirky] t;iqj ds lkeus jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj n~okjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk dh fMxzh dh
ekU;rk ds laca/k esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks 'kkfey fd;k tk,xk uker%&
ekWLVj vkWQ MsaVy ltZjh
isfj;ksMksaVksykWth
,eMh,l ¼isfj;ks½] jktLFkku LokLF;
¼3 lhVksa lfgr] ;fn 21-6-2014 dks ;k mlls igys iznku dh xbZ gksa½
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj
daljosfVo MsafVLVjh vkSj ,aMksMksfUVd
,eMh,l ¼dal- MsafVLVjh½] jktLFkku
¼3 lhVksa lfgr] ;fn 24-6-2014 dks ;k mlls igys iznku dh xbZ gksa½
LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj
vksFkksZMksafVDl ,aM MsaVksQSflyk vkFkksZisfMDl
,eMh,l ¼vksFkksZ½] jktLFkku LokLF;
¼3 lhVksa lfgr] ;fn 26-6-2014 dks ;k mlls igys iznku dh xbZ gksa½
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj
vksjy esfMflu ,aM jsfM;ksykWth
,eMh,l ¼vksjy esfM-½] jktLFkku
¼3 lhVksa lfgr] ;fn 28-6-2014 dks ;k mlls igys iznku dh xbZ gksa½
LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] t;iqj
izksLFkksMksfUVDl vkSj Økmu ,aM fczt
,eMh,l ¼izksLFkks½] jktLFkku LokLF;
¼3 lhVksa lfgr] ;fn 28-6-2014 dks ;k mlls igys iznku dh xbZ gksa½
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj
[la- oh&12017@24@2009&MhbZ ¼Hkkx&1½]
lq/khj dqekj] voj lfpo
3368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2015
S.O. 1608.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section(2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948),
the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in
Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
2. In the existing entries of column 2&3 of Serial No. 72 in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948)
pertaining to recognition of Dental Degrees awarded by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur against Rajasthan
Dental College and Hospital, Jaipur, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:—
Master of Dental Surgery
Periodontology
MDS (Perio), Rajasthan University of
(with 3 seats if granted on or after 21.6.2014)
Health Sciences, Jaipur
Conservative Dentistry and Endodontic
MDS (Cons. Dentistry), Rajasthan
(with 3 seats if granted on or after 24.6.2014)
University of Health Sciences, Jaipur
Orthodontics & Dentofacila Orthopaedics
MDS (Ortho.) Rajasthan University of
(with 3 seats if granted on or after 26-6-2014)
Health Sciences, Jaipur
Oral Medicine & Radiology
MDS (Oral Med.) Rajasthan University
(with 3 seats if granted on or after 28.6.2014)
of Health Sciences, Jaipur
Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge
MDS (Prostho) Rajasthan University of
(with 3 seats if granted on or after 28.6.2014)
Health Sciences, Jaipur
[No. V-12017/24/2009-DE(Pt-I)]
SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.
d`f"k ea=ky;
¼d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1609-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e
¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx] d`f"k ea=ky; ds
Lok;Rr fudk; ukfj;y fodkl cksMZ] dksph ds iz'kklfud
fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa dks ftlds 80% deZpkjh o`Un us
fgUnh dk dk;Zlkk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr djrh gS %µ
1- ukfj;y fodkl cksMZ] jkT; dsUnz] jksM la- 16] tsM ysu] okxys
,LVSV] Bk.ks] egkjk"Vª&400 604
2- ukfj;y fodkl cksMZ] izn'kZu&lg&cht mRiknu QkeZ] 149]
vacsMdj uxj] Mkiksyh] lrifr ,lvks iky?kj] egkjk"Vª&401405
3- ukfj;y fodkl cksMZ] izn'kZu&lg&cht mRiknu QkeZ] osfxokM+k
¼xkao½ edku la- 688] rfMdykiqMh ¼}kjk½ if'pe xksnkojh ¼ftyk½
vka/kz izns'k&534 452
[la- 3&3@2011&jk-Hkk-uhfr]
jkts'k dqekj flag] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(Department of Agriculture and Cooperation)
New Delhi, the 12th August, 2015
S.O. 1609.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of the Rule
10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby
notifies the following offices which is under the
adminstrative control of the Coconut Development Board,
Cochi, an autonomous body of the Department of
Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,
whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge
of Hindi-
1. Coconut Development Board, State Centre, Road
No. 16, Z Lane, Wagle Estate Thane, Maharashtra - 400 604
2. Coconut Development Board, Demonstration cum
Seed Production Farm, 149 Ambedkar Nagar, Dapoli, Satpati
SO Palghar, Maharashtra - 401 405
3. Coconut Development Board, Demonstration cum
Seed Production Farm Vegivada (Village) P.O. House
No. 688 Tadikalapudi (Via) West Godavari (Dist.) Andhra
Pradesh-534 452
[No. 3-3/2011-Official Language Policy]
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3369
izoklh Hkkjrh; dk;Z ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1610-—mRizokl vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼1983 dk 31½
dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh eksguh'k oekZ] vkbZñvkjñ,lñ
¼vkbZ-Vh-% 1987½] dks rRdky izHkko ls 5 o"kks± dh vof/k ds fy, ;k
vkxkeh vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] izoklh Hkkjrh; dk;Z ea=ky; esa
mRizokl egklaj{kh ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[lañ ,ñ 42015@16@2015&ih-,-]
lqrik etwenkj] vkfFkZd lykgdkj
MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 10th August, 2015
S.O. 1610.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (1) of Section 3 of the Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of
1983), the Central Government hereby appoints
Shri Mohanish Verma, IRS (IT:1987) in the Ministry of Overseas
Indian Affairs as Protector General of Emigrants, Ministry of
Overseas Indian Affairs with immediate effect for a period of
five years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[No. A. 42015/16/2015-PA]
SUTAPA MAJUMDAR, Economic Advisor
lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;
¼nwjlapkj foHkkx½
¼jktHkk"kk izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1611-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr] 1987] 2007
rFkk 2011½ ds fu;e 10 ¼04½ ds vuqlj.k esa nwjlapkj vfHk;kaf=d
dsUnz ¼VhbZlh½] nwjlapkj foHkkx] ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd
deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
2- ;g vf/klwpuk jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA
[lañ bZ&11016@01@2015&jktHkk"kk]
lqjs'k pUnz 'kekZ] mi egkfuns'kd ¼lh-,.M ,-½
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Telecommunications)
New Delhi, the 10th August, 2015
S.O. 1611.—In pursuance of rule 10(4)of the Official
Languages (use for official purposes of the Union) Rules,
1976 (as amended 1987, 2007 and 2011), the Central
Government hereby notifies the Telecom Engineering Centre
(TEC.) Department of Telecom, where more than 80% staff
have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
2. This notification shall come into force from the date
of its publication in the Official Gazette.
[No. E-11016/1/2015-O.L.]
SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA, DDG (C.&A.)
;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1612-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}okjk jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds
'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi
fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa ;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky; ds
v/khuLFk dk;kZy; jk"Vªh; lsok ;kstuk {ks=h; funs'kky;] y[kuÅ
¼mRrj izns'k½ ftlds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkjhc`an us fganh dk
dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
[feñ lañ 11011@2@2008&fgñ,ñ]
,lñ ,yñ ehuk] mi lfpo
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2015
S.O. 1612.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule of 10
of Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union)
Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notified National
Service Scheme Regional Directorate, Lucknow a
Subornidate office of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
whereof more than 80% staff have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi.
[F.No. E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]
S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 1613-—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 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 250@99½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@09@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@37@99&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 24th September, 2014
S.O. 1613.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 250 of 99) of the
Central Government Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
3370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
between the employers in relation to the management of
the Deputy Superintending Archaeological Survey of India
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 22/09/2014.
[No. L-42011@37@99-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 250 of 99
Sri Surender Singh,
President,
Bhartiya Puratatva P rekshan Karamchari Parishad,
(INTUC) 68 Sector, 16,
Sikandra, Agra.
And
Superintending Archaeologist,
Archealogical Survey of India,
Agra Circle, 12,
Mall Aga Cantt.
AWARD
1. Central Government Mol, New Delhi, vide notification
No. L-42011/37/99-IR (DU) dated 13.09.99, has referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the Suptd. Archaeologist ASI,
Agra Circle in not regularizing the services of 58 workers
working in Tajmahal and Etmadudaulla is legal and justified?
If not to what relief are entitled?
3. There is a reference for regularization of services of
58 workers as mentioned in the enclosed list.
4. Aftaer exchange of pleading between the parties the
case was fixed for evidence of the parties. But none of the
parties appeared in the case despite providing adequate
opportunities to them for adducing their respective
evidence in support of their case.
5. Therefore, it is a case of no evidence from either side.
6. The documents filed by both the parties have been
perused by me. The claimant has filed 9 documents vide
list 16/1, mostly all these documents are photocopies and
there is no supporting evidence against these documents.
Similarly claimant has filed 10 documents vide list 19/2 and
these are also photocopies. Unless supported by any
cogent evidence these documents cannot be read as a
evidence. Opposite party has filed 2 documents vide paper
no. 40/1.
7. I have thoroughly examined the evidentiary value of
these documents cognizance cannot be taken of these
documents.
8. It is therefore, concluded that neither the union nor
the management is inclined to press their claim before the
tribunal. Under the facts and circumstances of the case,
the reference is bound to be decided against the Union in
the absence of cogent and plausible evidence, as the
burdent lies on the Union to prove its case before the
tribunal but they have failed to do so.
9. Therefore, the reference is decided against the Union
and in favour of the management.
10. Reference is answered accordingly.
dt. 31.12.2013
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer.
'kqf)&i=
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1614-—bl ea=ky; dh fnukad 09-05-2006 dh vf/
klwpuk dkñvkñ lañ&2010 ¼Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx&2] [kaM&3]
mi&[kaM (ii) esa 14 ebZ] 2006 dks izdkf'kr½ esa mfYyf[kr ^flgksj* ds
jktLo {ks= dk yksi gks tk,xkA
[lañ ,l&38013@70&2014&,lñ,lñ I ]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2015
S.O. 1614.—In this Ministry's Notification S.O. No.
2010 dated 09.05.2006 (published in Part-2, Section-3, Sub-
Section(ii) of the Gazette of India on 14th May, 2006), the
revenue area of 'Sihor' Mentioned therein shall stand
omitted.
[No. S-38013@70&2014-SS-I)]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1615-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p,,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 2] eqEcbZ ds ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@24 vkWQ 2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@168@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th August, 2015
S.O. 1615.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 2/24 of 2008) of the of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal cum Labour Court,No. 2,
Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Hindustan
Aeronautics Limited, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 06/08/2015.
[No. L-42012@168@2005-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3371
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
K.B. KATAKE,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/24 OF 2008
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE
MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN AERONATIUCS
LTD.
The Chief Manager (P & A)
Hinustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Ojhar Township (PO)
Nasik MS 422 207
AND
Their Workmen
The Vice President
Nashik Workers Union
CITU Centre
Thombak Road
Sathpur
Nasik (MS)-422 206
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer
:
Mr. Abhay Kulkarni,
Advocate
For the Workmen
:
Mr. R.S. Pande,
Representative.
Mumbai, the 9th February, 2015
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No. L-42012/168/2005-IR (CM-II),
dated 07.04.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred
the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Ref.CGIT-2/24 of 2008
"Whether the demand of the Nashik workers' Union for
absorption of contract labourers, as per list enclosed is
legal and justified? If so, to what relief are they entitled
to ?"
List of workmen
Stores Department
1.
Kandekar Bajirao Murlidhar
2.
Chaudhari Laxman Shivram
3.
Dhiklar Bhausaheb Laxman
4.
Bhavar Yashwant Puja
5.
Jagtap Vilas Madhay
6.
Vangurde Vasant Popat
7.
Pagar Pradip Shankar
8.
Survanshi Arun Popat
9.
Gangurde Rajaram Janardhan
10.
Jadhav Madhukar Kachru
11.
Jadhav Balu Barku
12.
Hire Ramcharndra Nivrutti
13.
Randhir Vasant Chaburao
14.
Nevkar Bharat Kishore
15.
Kadam Dhatera Ganpat
16.
Sonwane Bhausaheb Bajunath
17.
Here Ashok Kashiram
18.
Gangurde Suresh Muridhar
19.
Pathade Balasaheb Dattaray
20.
Potinde Ramkisan Waman
21.
Bhandande Nivrutti Lohu
22.
Nikam Bal Srishna
23.
Dhikale Vasant Tukaram
24.
Bairagi Babandas Ramdas
25.
Shinde Shivaji Bhimrao
26.
Kale Haricharnra Shankar
27.
Navre Ramesh Annaji
28.
Birari Bapu Pandharinath
29.
Loknar Bharat Bhaugi
30.
Pathak Arun Ganesh
31.
Kakad Gulab Kashiram
32.
Padangle Rama Yashwant
33.
Mandlik Sashshiv Ramcharndra
34.
Kshirsagar Bhaskar Chabu
35.
Dhorte Badu Shankar
36.
Loknar Anil Dhanaji
37.
Dhotre Sitaram Shankar
38.
Ghule Ramesh Punjaji
39.
Chaure Ramchandra Kashinath
40.
Jadhav Raosaheb Eknath
41.
Ugle Sahebrao Rambhau
42.
Murdhanar Uttam Waman
43.
Waghmare Rajendra Kauduiji
44.
Sonwane Arun Kishan
45.
Dengle Balkrishna Dagu
3372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
46.
Gholap Kashinath Dagu
47.
Loknar Santu Dhanaji
48.
Tajane Shankar Haribhau
49.
Gite Ashok Rakmaji
50.
Warde Daulat Murlidhar
51.
Nikam Balu Dhamuji
52.
Rumaje Shantaram Ghagu
53.
Khare Pradip Hiraman
54.
Chaudhari Balu Shivram
55.
Palsande Shankar Sitaram
56.
Loknar Bhikaji Thakaji
57.
Wani Anil Murlidhar
58.
Ahire Ramesh Trambak
59.
Gangurde Gangadhar Puja
60.
Jadhav Dattu Mahadu
61.
Gaikwad Jagannath Barku
62.
Berad Raghu Sahud
63.
Mojad Davidas
64.
Mahajan Jagdish Shivram
65.
Pathan Shabir Noorkhan
66.
Shaikh Baba Chank
67.
Thakare Balu Budhaji
68.
Nisal Kisan Sukha
69.
Jagtap Prabhakar Trimbak
70.
Waghchaure Ramesh Yashwant
71.
Nagvekar Gangaram Narayan
72.
Nikam Kandu Baliram
73.
Bhalerao Ashok Raghunath
74.
Birari Gangadhar Nimba
75.
Guthale Rohidas Bhikaji
76.
More Vasant Dagaji
77.
Ahire Eknath Fakira
78.
Kadam Chndhu Ramchandra
79.
Kshirsagar Vitthal Ganpat
80.
Rajput Dhamu Surshing
81.
LahangeBhaskar Rambhau
82.
Pawar Tulshiram Kashinath
83.
Kongari Vincent Marthin
84.
More Pandurang Khanderan
85.
Lande Baban Deoram
86.
Gaikwad Bapu Sadhipan
87.
Shingade Chabu Bhimrao
88.
Maule Sakharam Kashinath
89.
Randhir Ashok Chaburao
90.
Pimpre Ashok Shankar
91.
Gagjap Dilip Nivarutti
92.
More Rajaram Dagu
93.
Tamble Dilip Popat
94.
Lokanar Ramesh Bhaguji
95.
Navagire Dattaray Laxman.
96.
Chaure Naran Kashinath
97.
Lokhande Balkrishna Baburao
98.
Jadhav Ravindra Vasant
99.
Rokade Vinayak Valchand
100.
Rokade Saheb Walchand
101.
Battse Ashok Shankar
102.
Loknar Balu Dhauji
103.
Gumbade Somnath Kashinath
104.
Rajole Hari Vishram
105.
Bairagi Satyrao Adapa
106.
Rajkar Chandrakant Lala
107.
Jejurkar Dashrath Karbhari
108.
Ahire Hiralal Bhila
109.
Ahire Rajendra Baburao
110.
Somwanshi Anna Murlidhar
111.
Gaware Pandit Nimba
112.
Gaikwad Gautam waman
113.
.............................................
114.
Hadole Ramdas Mohniraj
115.
Loknar Bakerao Baghugi
116.
Jadhav Kisan Ramchandra
117.
Sharma Nimai Chandra
118.
Daspute Balchandra Vishwanath
119.
Kadbhane Punja Rajaram
120.
Nimbalkar Anna Saheb
121.
Patil Prabhakar Vanket
122.
Gaikwad Chandrakant Gandha
123.
Kanade Rajendra Shankar
124.
Thair Shaikh Abadi
125.
Avhad Santosh
126.
Wani Shehlala Arun
127.
Jain Mahandrakumar Harkchand
128.
Sonwane Prakash Namdeo
129.
Kadam Parshuram Balkrishna
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3373
130.
Tajanpure Sunil Khanderao
131.
Dudhe Suman Gobind
132.
Jagtap Bharat Murlidhar
133.
Chajed Ashokkushal Chand
134.
Gasavi Atmaram Ashruba
135.
Bhandare Navnath Namdeo
136.
Sutar Hanumant Kashinath
137.
Dhikale Santosh Rajaram
138.
Mahale Uddhav Janardhan
139.
Kankariya Subhash Babulal
140.
Kolapkar Sharada Ramesh
141.
Jagtap Kailash Guman
142.
Ahire Virendrasing Sardar
143.
Prihar Gajendra Baldas
144.
Barve Bandhu Ramchandra
145.
Mahajan Sanjay Ambadas
146.
Jadhav Mahendra Pandhari
147.
Lokhande Dilip Madhav
148.
Salve Sidharth Sadhu
149.
Kothari Majoj Chandmal
150.
Arote Vllaya Eknath
151.
Shaikh Abid Haroon
Horticulture Deptt.
1.
Ambadas Hari Korde
2.
Chindu Dhondiram Bhongade
3.
Sashinath Murlidhar Jadhav
4.
Shripat Ramchandra Gaikawd
5.
Arun Damodhar Gholap
6.
Parbat Soniram Kokate
7.
Mohan Nathu Pagare
8.
Prakash Murlidhar Gaikwad
9.
Bhausaheb Pundlik Aragade
10.
Laxmibai Gangaram Ahire
11.
Tarabal Sampat Nikam
12.
Sakhubai Shankar Wagh
13.
Reshmabai Sakharam Mahale
14.
Anjanabai Bhima More
15.
Mahadu Kashinath Pradhan
16.
Dinkar Mohram Potinde
17.
Dinkar Punja Satale
18.
Yaday Mahadu Bhoj
19.
Gangadhar Eknath Lahange
20.
Shankar Chandrakant Shingade
21.
Raghunath Dhondiram Gangurde
22.
Santu Pandu Kadale
23.
Rangnath Rambhau Lahange
24.
Murlidhar Ramji Waghire
25.
Ravsaheb Rangnath Chandore
26.
Gangaram Trambak Nisal
27.
Pandurang Chimna Raut
28.
Trambak Kashinath Bhor
29.
Nanubai Shankar Gaikwad
30.
Gangugai Nivrutti Shardul
31.
Bhagubai Sitaram Dalvi
32.
Tanhubai Ramdas Dhuh
33.
Lilabai Parshuram Bhoi
34.
Hausabai Baburao Gangurde
35.
Sopan Fakira Pithe
36.
Walu Tukaram Jondhale
37.
Bhima Laxman Bendkule
38.
Bhaskar Mahadu Chaudhari
39.
Shivaji Chandrabhan Jadhav
40.
Shrawan Popat Watane
41.
Anna Bhikaji Shardul
42.
Jagnnath Bhimaji Kore
43.
Balu Kachru Gangurde
44.
Rangnath Shankar Mahale
45.
Shivaji Shankar Pawar
46.
Vijay Santosh Raut
47.
Shravan Deoram Navghire
48.
Ramdas Popat Watate
49.
Ganpat Jairam Hengade
50.
Vishnu Punja Pawar
51.
Nivrutti Walu Malode
52.
Sudam Kushba Tarle
53.
Kashnath Deoji Waghmare
54.
Shatabai Sahadu Ahire
55.
Vimalbai Shankar Gangurde
56.
Zunabai Laxman Bhavan
57.
Yamunabai Chandrakant Jadhav
58.
Gulab Vishnu Khetade
59.
Trambak Ramji Gangurde
60.
Vithal Laxman Korde
61.
Arjun Bhimaji Bhandare
3374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
62.
Dilip Baburao Bagul
63.
Nndu Warnan Gaikwad
64.
Shivaji Raghunath Tongare
65.
Sampat Murlidhar Aher
66.
Madhukar Ganpat Jadhav
67.
Tuishiram Dada Jadhav
68.
Sankar Murlidhar Ahre
69.
Pandharinath Sitaram Mahale
70.
Yaswant Tukaram Mahale
71.
Dilip VVaman Pagar
72.
Rangnath Murlidhar Chaudhari
73.
Subhas Genda Panpatil
74.
Dattu Yashwant Shrikhande
75.
Laxman Sahadu Satale
76.
Bhaulal Laxman Wagh
77.
Vishnu Laxman Bendkule
78.
Ramu Punklik Kale
79.
Ashok Namdeo Hire
80.
Vishwanath P. Shingade
81.
Baban Rambhaj Adhav
82.
Rajubai Karbhari Barkale
83.
Prabhakar Rajaram Thorat
84.
Mangalbai Rajendra Thakare
85.
Dhondiram Nana Pawde
86.
Kausabai Vishram Gaikwad
87.
Hirabai Chabu Gabale
88.
Ramji Dhanaji Loknar
89.
Sunil Bhaskar Chaudhari
90.
Rakesh Narayan Vidhate
91.
Surendra Ranagnath Pardeshi
92.
Keshav Jagannath Chaudhari
93.
Devshingh Bhima Bagul
94.
Ramnath Ranoba Zhade
Maintenance & Aircraft cleaning/depainting work
1.
Sharad Shankar Ptambare
2.
Ramu Kondoji Mali
3.
Tanaji Bhimaji Gaikawad
4.
Raman Gopal Vaidhya
5.
Dilip Popat Bhalerao
6.
Ramesh Ashok Wawle
7.
Ramkisan Vishram Lokhande
8.
Muktar Chand Attar
9.
Shashikant Santosh Iste
10.
Milind Jaywant Salve
11.
Subhash Punjaji Pawar
Garbage contract—Factory work.
1.
Nitin Jagannath Mandale
2.
Sanjay Mahadev Shelar
3.
Kisan Narayan Kedare
4.
Sanjay Nandu Sonwane
5.
Babaji Punjaji Jadhav
6.
Dattaray Honaji Gawali
7.
Serpuddin jamalludin Shaikh
8.
Ramesh Bajirao Ahre
9.
Prakash Jagnnath Jagtap
10.
Kashinath Pandharinath Kedare
11.
Devanand Shidhar Kale
12.
Anant Jagannath Dhikale
13.
Shahebrao Bhimrao Ahire
14.
Sukadeo Tudaram Bodke
15.
Yusuf Gafure Shaikh
16.
Rajendra Sadashiv Chandramore
17.
Ashok Subhash Bankar
18.
Shukat Gulamali Sayyad
19.
Anil Ramrao Kandekar
2.
After receipt of the reference both parties were
served with notices. They appeared through their
representatives. The second party Union filed its statement
of claim at Ex-5. According to the union, the first party is
Central Govt. undertaking having more than 5000 permanent
employees. They have employed some 700/800 employees
as casual workers. Some of them were employed since 1976.
Many of them retired due to superannuation. Some of them
are employed since 1984. They are employed in various
departments of the first party. They are doing work of
perennial nature as like the regular workers. Till 1995 they
were branded as casual workers and company was paying
them even less than minimum wages. Till 1995 their
Provident Fund was credited with the company's Trust. In
the year 1995 company decided to separate them from
company P.F. and opened P.F. Account with Regional P.F.
Commissioner, Nashik. These workmen are the members of
the union since prior to 1995. Since 1995 company started
paying them minimum wages. About 85 workmen were
working in canteen till 2001. Till then the canteen was run
by the company. In 2001 they handed over the canteen to
contractor and the workmen therein were shifted to factory
in regular production work. Some of these workmen are
working in Transport Department. Some are in Storing
Fixtures for the purpose of jobs. Some were engaged in
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3375
Maintenance Deptt, Sanitary Deptt., Electrical Deptt.,
Hospital, Horticulture, Aircraft Cleaning and Garbage.
There are also permanent workmen working in these
departments. Their work is of perennial nature. However
the company is not paying them pay and wages at par with
the permanent workmen. Since 1995 company has started
inducting contractors. In fact the contractors are bogus
and camouflage merely to deprive these workmen from
getting their legitimate right of permanency. In fact all these
workmen were directly working under the supervision of
officials of the company. Their wages were paid by the
company. They were given subsidized canteen facility, bus
facility and hospital facility of the company. The contractors
are nominal and bogus. The union requested the company
to make these workmen permanent in the service and to
pay them the pay and extend other facilities at par with the
regular and permanent employees to which company
refused. Therefore the union has raised industrial dispute.
As conciliation failed, on report of ALC@, the Central
Labour Ministry sent the Reference to this Tribunal. Union
therefore prays for declaration that, the contract labour
system in the company is not genuine. It is mere paper
arrangement. They also pray that the company be directed
to make them permanent and pay them wages with all other
facilities at par with the regular employees of the first party
company and they be absorbed in the services of the
company.
3. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide its
written statement at Ex-7. According to the first party, the
Reference in the present form is not tenable in law. They
further contended that the union is not recognized at the
Ojhar unit of the company. The dispute raised by the union
is not a bona fide dispute. It is raised merely to gain foothold
in the establishment of the company. There is no dispute
between the permanent workers with the management. The
members of the union are not employees of the company.
There is no employer-employee relationship between them.
Therefore the dispute is not tenable. The union has no
locus-standi to espouse the alleged cause of contract
labourers. The members of the union are all contract
labourers and thus dispute is not tenable. Even the contract
labourers have no dispute with the management. The first
party is a Govt. company and cannot recruit employees
without following the recruitment process. Such a back
door entry is not permissible in the Public Undertaking.
The employer cannot be directed to create vacancy. Without
vacancy there cannot be direction for regularisation. The
contractors are not sham or bogus. On the other hand they
are genuine contractors. They are providing services to
some other companies also. The service conditions of
contract labourers are governed by terms of contract of
employment. They cannot raise industrial dispute of this
nature. The contractors have maintained all the documents
in respect of the contract labourers. Dispute in some other
establishment raised by the contract labourers came to be
rejected. By amendment the first party further contended
that many of the contract labourers have ceased to perform
their duties on account of resignation, retirement, etc. The
contractors have given information to that effect and such
persons are not entitled to any relief and their name required
to be deleted from the list of workmen. Management
therefore submitted that the second party be directed to
furnish the list of workmen who have been ceased to
perform their duties in the establishment. They denied all
the allegations in the statement of claim. They denied that
these workmen are recruited by them as casual labourers.
They denied that subsequently they have inducted the
contractors merely to deprive them from getting the benefits
under labour legislation. They have denied that the labour
contracts are sham and bogus and mere camouflage or a
mere paper work to deprive these workmen from getting
the benefits of permanent employees. Thus they pray that
the reference be dismissed with cost.
4. The second party union has filed rejoinder at Ex-8.
They have replied the new points raised by the first party
in their written statement. They have denied all the
allegations made in the written statement and reiterated
the contents in the statement of claim.
5. Following are the issues for my determination. I record
my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr.No. Issues
Findings
1.
Whether there exists employee-
Yes.
employer relationship between
the workmen under reference
with the first party company?
2.
Whether the labour contracts
Yes.
are sham, bogus and mere
paper work?
3.
Whether the workmen under
Yes.
reference are entitled to be
regularised in the services of
the first party?
4.
What relief the workmen are
As per final order.
entitled to?
REASONS
Issues Nos. 1 & 2:—
6. Both these issues are interconnected. Therefore in
order to avoid repetition of discussions, they are discussed
and decided simultaneously. In this respect it was submitted
on behalf of the first party that the workmen under reference
are contract labourers therefore they cannot raise the
industrial dispute.
7. The Ld. Adv. for the first party further submitted that
all the contracts are genuine. They have issued
advertisements in different news papers calling upon the
3376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
tenders from contractors. The contractors have submitted
their tenders. Officials of the first party have examined all
the documents of the contractors such as their registration,
partnership agreement, income tax return of the firm for the
last three years etc. Thereafter the company has accepted
the lowest tender. The contract was for 12 months. All the
contractors are duly registered and have complied with all
the documents. The documents pertaining to the
contractors are placed on record and are exhibited and
they are not disputed even by the representative of the
second party. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the
contractors cannot be called mere paper work, sham or
bogus as has been contended on behalf of the second
party. Further it was also pointed out that the WW-1 Mr.
Dilip Pagare has admitted in his cross at Ex-62 that, there is
no employer-employee relationship of the workman with
the company. In this respect I would like to point out that
this stray admission seems to have given inadvertently or
due to some misunderstanding. The workman is not a
learned person he is educated only up to sixth std. He is
almost illiterate and not very wise to reply cleverly. Therefore
his reply need not be treated as admission as such to record
the finding on the point. In this respect I would like take in
to account the pleadings, other evidence and all the
circumstances on record. It is the throughout case of the
second party that they are the employees of the company
and contractors are inducted subsequently and after 1995
merely to deprive them from getting their legitimate rights.
In short all the facts, circumstances and evidence cannot
be washed away by this stray admission. Therefore this
admission or any admission of like nature need not be
given undue importance.
8. In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the
second party that they are not disputing the eligibility and
competency of the contractors. They are also not disputing
the documents of the contractors. They may be duly
registered, etc. According to them these workmen were
recruited directly by the first party since 1984 and some of
the workmen were also employed since 1976. Many of them
retired. All of them were recruited directly by the company.
Till 1995 first party was making their payments directly and
their P.F. was also credited with the Provident Fund Trust
of the company.
9. Therefore according to them they are direct employees
of the first party and the contractors are inducted
subsequently. They are mere name lenders. It is their case
that, the labour contracts are sham, bogus and mere paper
work. The Ld. Adv. for the second party further submitted
that in such circumstances such workmen who are shown
contract labourers by the company can very well raise
industrial dispute. In support of his argument Ld. Adv.
resorted to Apex Court ruling in Steel Authority of India
Ltd. V/s. Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat 2004 II LLJ 970
wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that:
"The position of law, which emerges from the
reported decisions of the Supreme Court is that
workmen working under a contractor are entitled
to raise a demand that they should be declared as
workmen of the principal employer. It is always open
to the workmen concerned to place materials before
the Industrial adjudicator to show that the contract
between the principal employer and the contract
labourer is sham or not genuine and claim
declaration that they were always the employees of
the principal employer and are entitled to
appropriate service conditions."
10. Relying on the above Apex Court Judgement, Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in Sudarshan Chemical Industries
Ltd. V/s. Labour Commissioner & Ors (2013 III CLR
530) observed that;
"Where contract was found sham and nominal rather
a camouflage in which case contract labourer
working in the establishment of principal employer
was held in fact and in reality the employee of the
principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do
not relate to abolition of contract labour but present
instances wherein the court pierced the veil and
declared the contract position as a fact at the stage
after employment of contract labour stood
prohibited."
In para 6 of the judgment by referring the Apex Court
ruling, the Hon'ble Court further observed that;
"Thus, in substance, the Apex Court held that when
the contract is found to be sham or camouflage,
question of abolition of contract labour does not
arise inasmuch as in reality, contract does not exist.
In such case the employees who are allegedly shown
as employees of the contractor are in fact the direct
employees of the principal employer."
11. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted
that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1580
of 2012 Association of Engineering Workers V/s.
Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. in the similar
circumstances and evidence upheld the finding of the
Tribunal saying that, it has rightly decided that the
24 workmen therein were contract labourers and were not
the employees of the first party. In this respect I would like
to point out that the Hon'ble Court in this judgment para 8
thereof in respect of the evidence therein has observed
that;
"The evidence of Shri Mohite as indicated above is
too skeletal. In the statement of claim it is not
mentioned that, when the workers were engaged
for the first time and the dates of their termination.
It is in the evidence that an annexure is to be sought
to be produced. It is well settled that the evidence
without pleading is of no avail. In the light of the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3377
evidence which is on record, in my view the finding
of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted
with."
12. In this respect it is rightly pointed out on behalf of
the second party that, in the case at hand, it is specifically
pleaded in the statement of claim that these workmen are
working since 1984. Some of them have even retired who
were working since 1976. It is specifically contended in the
statement of claim that, since 1995 onward, the first party
started inducting the contractors. In this case second party
has not admitted that they are the employees of the
contractors. On the other hand they have given the details
since when they are working with the first party. In the
circumstances the ratio laid down in the above referred
ruling is not applicable to the set of facts of the case at
hand.
13. In this respect Id. Adv. for the second party pointed
out that, specific question was asked to MW-1, Mr. Anil
Vaidya in his cross examination (Ex-68). He replied that he
does not remember the exact date when they were registered
under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1972.
He also replied that he does not know as to whether all
these workmen are working with HAL since much prior to
their registration under the said Act and also prior to the
license of the contractor. He also does not know as to
whether till 1995 P.F. amount of these workmen was
deposited in the fund of the company. The documents in
respect of Labour Contracts are of recent years and after
1995. It indicates that initially since 1976 up to 1995, the
workmen were recruited directly by the company and they
were under the full control of the company for all purposes.
It seems that in 1995 company has registered under Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1972 and thereafter
they have started inducting contractors. The contractors
were also inducted periodically for 12 months. However
the workmen are the same working continuously for years
together. Many of them are working since 1984. Some of
them are recruited in 1986 and thereafter. All of them were
recruited by the company and the company was paying
them directly. The first party use to credit their P.F. in the
PF Trust Account of the company. The contractors were
inducted subsequently. Every 12 months contractors were
changed, however the same workmen are working
continuously for number of years. Some of them are even
retired, who were recruited in the year 1976. All these facts
indicate that the first party has inducted contractors
subsequently merely to deprive these workmen from getting
their legitimate protection under the Labour Legislation
including the right of permanency.
14. In short in the light of above discussion and for
following facts, I hold these workmen are the employees of
the first party. (1) Initially since 1976 the company was
recruiting the employees directly for various works
mentioned above. These employees were recruited since
1984 onwards and the company stared inducting the
contractors since 1995 onwards. (2) Till 1995 the company
was paying the wages to the workers directly. (3) The
contractors were changed periodically whereas the same
workmen are working continuously. (4) Till the year 1995
the P.F. of these employees was credited in the P.F. Trust
fund of the first party company. Since 1995 they opened
P.F. Account with Regional P.F. Commissioner, Nashik. (5)
The various categories of works mentioned above are all
of perennial nature. (6) Engaging workmen for work of
perennial in nature on contract basis amount to unfair labour
practice. The management can be held guilty for the same.
(7) the work of these workmen is being supervised by the
officials of the company. All these circumstances indicate
that these workmen are not employees of the contractors
but are the employees of the first party.
15. In the light of above discussions I hold that there
exists employer-employee relationship between the first
party and the second party employees. Consequently I
also hold that the periodical labour contracts of various
contractors with the first party are found to be sham, bogus
and mere paper work. Accordingly I decide these issues
nos.1 & 2 in the affirmative.
Issue no. 3
16. Now in respect of regularisation, the Id. adv. for the
first party submitted that the workman herein cannot be
regularised in public service as neither they have been
selected by following the selection procedure nor have
complied with the requisite qualification for the post. In
support of his argument the Id. adv. for the first party cited
Apex Court ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s.
Uma Devi 2006 II CLR 261 wherein Hon'ble Court on the
point held that, temporary or contract labourers cannot be
regularised in public service, it would amount to back door
entry as they are not recruited by following the recruitment
process. In this respect the Id. adv. for the second party
submitted that in that case the workmen had sought for
abolition of contract labour system and for regularisation
of the contract workmen which cannot be allowed.
Furthermore in the case at hand the workmen herein are
working for the first party continuously for more than
15/20 years. The management has violated the principle of
"equal pay equal work". Moreover the works performed
by these workmen are of perennial nature and required to
be performed by the permanent employees. Engaging
contract workers to do such types of works, amount to
unfair labour practice. Management herein has not even
taken care to seek for permanent posts of Sweepers, Drivers,
Cooks, Watchmen etc. though their work is of perennial in
nature. In this backdrop the ratio in the above referred
ruling is not attracted to the set of facts of the present case
wherein the workmen are not employees of contractors but
are the employees of first party and they are doing the
work of perennial nature for more than 15/20 years. On the
3378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
point Id. adv. for the second party submitted that as the
various contracts entered in to are found to be sham and
bogus and the workmen are found to be the employees of
the first party and they are working continuously for years
together, therefore these workmen are entitled to get pay
and allowances at par with regular employees in the same
cadre. In support of his argument the Id. adv. for the second
party cited Apex Court ruling in UP Electricity Board V/s.
Pooranchandra Pandey and Ors. 2008 (115) FLR 1172
wherein in similar circumstances the Hon'ble Court observed
that:
"...In our opinion the decision in Uma Devi's case
(Supra) is clearly distinguishable. The said decision
cannot be applied to a case where regularization
has been sought for in pursuance with article 14 of
the Constitution."
17. The Ld. adv. for the second party further submitted
that in the light of facts, circumstances and the above Apex
Court ruling direction is required to be issued to the
employer to regularize the services of these workmen. In
support of his argument, the Ld. adv. for the second party
also cited Apex Court ruling in Steel Authority of India Ltd.
& Ors. V/s. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors.
2001 III CLR 349 SC wherein in para 121 (5), the Hon'ble
Court observed that;
"If the contract is found to be not genuine but a
mere camouflage, the so called contract labourer
will have to be treated as employees of the principal
employer who shall be directed to regularize the
services of the contract labourer in the concerned
establishment subject to the conditions as may be
specified by it for it that purpose............."
18. In the light of the above facts, circumstances and
the ruling referred herein above I am of the opinion that,
the workmen under reference are entitled to be regularized
in the services of the first party and entitled to get pay and
allowances at par with the regular workers in the same
cadre in the company or in any public under taking. The
work performed by these workmen is of perennial nature
and it was the duty of the management to get these posts
sanctioned, from the concern authority. Neither Tribunal is
required to give direction to create posts nor first party
should continue with the present arrangement of bogus
contractors. The work of perennial nature should not be
allowed to be performed by contract workers. It is not only
exploitation of poor class in the society but also amount to
unfair labour practice. In this backdrop I hold that the union
is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly I decide
this issue no. 3 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. The reference is allowed with no order as to cost.
2. The contracts between first party with various
contractors are declared as sham and bogus.
3. The workmen under reference are declared to be
the employees of the first party.
4. The first party is directed to regularize these
workmen in their respective services and pay them
pay and allowances at par with the regular workers
of the respective cadres working in any other
public undertaking, from the date of their
respective appointments (excluding the two years
period of probation).
5. The first party is directed to pay the 50% back
arrears in cash within 6 months from the date of
receipt of copy of award and rest of the arrears be
credited in their respective Provident Fund
Accounts.
Date: 09.02.2015
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1616-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ukFkZ MsYgh
E;qfufliy dk®fly 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;-1 MsYgh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 56@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@08@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@139@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th August, 2015
S.O. 1616.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 56/2015) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the North Delhi Municipal Council and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/08/2015.
[No. L-42011/139/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No.56/2015
The Secretary,
New Delhi Nagar Palika Karamchari Union (3574),
B-58/85, Rama Road,
New Delhi-110 015
... Workman
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3379
Versus
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Muncipal Council,
Palika Kendra, Parliament Street,
New Delhi
... Management
AWARD
Central Government, Vide letter No. L-42011/139/2014/
IR(DU) dated 19.01.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Are those category of the employees entitled to
receive pay and allowances as per Shiv Shankaran
Committee Report (SS Scales) who are at present not
in receipt of pay and allowances as per the said
Committee Report? If yes, with effect from which
date.
2. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the workman union as well as the managemant. None
appeared on behalf of the claimant union. Thus, it is clear
that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
3. Since the claimant union has neither put in their
appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove
their cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal
is left with no choice, except to pass a `No Dispute/Claim'
award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate
Government, as required under Section 17 of the industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated: July 14, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1617-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj tujy
nwjn'kZu dsUnz 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;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV lanHkZ lañ¼125@2012½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@08@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@13@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th August, 2015
S.O. 1617.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 125/2012) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Director General, Doordarshan Kendra
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/08/2015.
[No. L-42012/13/2012-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No.125/2012
The President,
Doordarshan Program Casual Employees Association
(Regd.),
Registered Office C 210, West Vinod Nagar
Near Primary School,
New Delhi
... Workman
Versus
The Director General,
Doordarshan Kendra,
Mandi House,
New Delhi-110 001
... Management
AWARD
Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that
Shri Bhupinder Singh Sondhi, claimant herein, raised an
industrial dispute with the averments that he was initially
employed by the management as Floor Artiste on 05.10.1983
and continued in service without any break to the entire
satisfaction of the management. The management has been
adopting unfair labour practice of engaging and continuing
the workers as casuals, giving artificial breaks in their
service so as to continue them as casual workers for years
together. There are allegations that some of the casual
workers of the management filed OAs in Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) claiming regularization in
service and challenging the aforesaid practice of employing
daily wagers without making them regular and CAT, vide
its judgement dated 05.10.1990 in OA No.563 of 1986 passed
order directing the management to frame a policy for
regularization of the casual workers in service.
2. Thereafter, the management framed a policy for
regularization of the casual workers in the year 1992 and
1994. The management also issued list of casual workers
covered under the scheme and name of the claimant herein
also appeared in the said list. Management has regularized
services of several workmen, including Muklinder Rai Sinha,
Anil Thakur, Ashok Kumar etc. whose names are mentioned
in para 7 of the statement of claim. While regularizing
services of he other workmen in 1992, the claimant herein
was dropped allegedly on the grounds that he was underage
as on 05.10.1983, i.e. initial date of his appointment.
3380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. In another OA No.2241 of 1999, which is also regarding
regularization of service, management took a stand that
the claimant herein, alongwith other workers, find mention
in the list of eligible candidates and they will be regularized
as per their seniority. CAT also directed the management
to expedite the process of regularization.
4. Pursuant to the above order, fresh list of candidates
vide OM No. 2/120/98-SL dated 08.08.1999 was issued
which also contained the name of the claimant herein. The
claimant also made specific reference to other similar cases
decided by the Hon'ble CAT wherein workmen were denied
regularization and seniority was also not accorded to them
at their respective places.
5. Claimant herein before joining the management was
working with Abhinay Theatre Society (Regd.) and had
submitted experience certificate issued by the Society.
Management, at that time, did not raise any objection and
accepted the same. Letter dated 22.09.2003 was, also written
by the Deputy Director (Admn.) to the Director General,
Doordarshan, followed by another letter dated 30.09.2003
to re-examine the case of the claimant herein for
regularization. Neither any action was taken by the
management nor any reason has been conveyed to the
claimant for denial of regularization. This action of the
management in not regularizing the workman in service is
highly discriminatory, particularly when the management
has regularized services of the workmen who were junior
to the claimant, herein.
6. Since the matter could not be resolved, as such the
workman approached the Union Government, who made
reference to this Tribunal in the following manner:
"Whether action of the management of Doordarshan
Kendra, New Delhi in not regularizing the services of
the workman Shri Bhupinder Singh Sondhi is illegal
and unjustified. If so, what relief the workman is
entitled to?’’
7. After consideration of statement of claim by the
workman, matter was listed for filing written statement on
behalf of the management. It is clear from the various orders
passed by this Tribunal that case for regularization of,
service of the claimant was in progress and management
sought adjournments from time to time, for regularization
of services of the claimant. It is clear from order dated
10.06.2015 that Shri R.K. Dhawan informed this Tribunal
that management is ready to regularize services of the
claimant and he has also filed copy of order No.16/2015-
SI(A) dated 06.05.2015 as well as subsequent letter dated
14.05.2015 which shows that management is willing to
regularize services of casual artists under the regularization
scheme 1992 and 1994.
8. Thereafter, claimant herein filed application dated
06.07.2015 seeking withdrawal of the present petition in
view of the fact that the management was ready to offer
appointment on regular basis to the workman herein. The
management has put a condition that for regularization,
the workman has to first withdraw his case. Thus, the
management has approved to regularize services of the
claimant herein in accordance with the scheme of regularization
of 92 and 94. No reply to the above application was filed by
the management for the simple reason that the management is
ready and willing to regularize services of the claimant herein
in terms of its policy of the year 92-94. Since the claimant did
not want to pursue the reference before this Tribunal for the
reason the management was ready and willing to regularize
his services, as such statement of the claimant regarding
withdrawal of the case was separately taken.
9. It is pertinent to note that under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (in short the Act), there is no specific provisions
relating to withdrawal of reference made by the Government
in terms of Section 10, sub-section 2A of the Act. However,
the Tribunal can take cognizance of the facts mentioned in
the application dated 06.07.2015.
10. In view of the averments made in the application dated
06.07.2015 and the fact that the management is ready and
willing to regularize the services of the claimant in terms of
its policy of the, year 92 and 94, there is no need to pass an
award on merits. Contents of the application dated 06.07.2015
will form an integral part of the award. Moreover, the claimant
herein is not interested in pursing the present case. Hence,
an award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to
the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1618-—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 deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
dksVk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@119@99&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th August, 2015
S.O. 1618.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 36/1999) of the
Industrial Tribunal, Kota 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 06/08/2015.
[No. L-42012/119/99-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3381
vuqca/k
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS+|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jktñ½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jherh vfurk 'kekZ] vkjñ,pñtsñ,lñ
funsZ'k izdj.k Øekad vkSñU;kñ ¼dsUnzh;½µ36@1999
fnukad LFkkfir% 3@12@99
izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k
Øñ ,y&42012@119@99µvkbZvkj¼Mh;w½ fnukad
19@11@1999
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e] 1947
e/;
Jherh izseckbZ iRuh Loñ eksMflag }kjk Je lykgdkj] MMokMk]
dksVk taD'ku] dksVk
µ izkFkhZ;k Jfed
,oa
v/kh{k.k iqjkrRofon] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ foHkkx]
ekuljksoj] t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
µ vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%µJh ,uñ,lñ pkS/kjh
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%µ
Jh ftrsUnz flag
vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad 19@12@14
vf/kfu.kZ;
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad
19@11@1999 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls rnqijkar ^^vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k
tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ o mi/kkjk 2¼,½ ds varxZr bl
U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%µ
‘‘Whether the termination of services of Smt. Prem
bai W/o Late Shri Modsing by the Archaeological
Department from 26/11/97 is legal & justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2- funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k es izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkar
i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA
3- izkFkhZ;k dh vksj ls viuk Dyse LVsVesUV U;k;kf/kdj.k ds
le{k izLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ;k ds izfr eksMflag
vizkFkhZ ds v/khu Lekjd ifjpj ds in ij fpÙkkSM QksVZ esa dk;Zjr Fks
ftUgs vdkj.k gh vizkFkhZ us fnukad 5@4@93 ls lsok ls fudky fn;k Fkk
ftldk okn lhñ,ñVhñ tks/kiqj esa yfEcr FkkA chekjh ds dkj.k fnukad
27@7@94 dh izkFkhZ;k ds ifr dk nsgkUr gks x;k o izkFkhZ;k dks izkFkhZ;k
ds ifr ds LFkku ij vizkFkhZ us fnukad 8@9@96 dks ukSdjh ij j[k fy;k
Fkk] ijUrq fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s o fcuk dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru
o {kfriwfrZ&HkÙkk vFkok NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s izkFkhZ;k dks vizkFkhZ us
fnñ 26@11@97 ls ekSf[kd vkns'k ls ukSdjh ls fudky fn;k A izkFkhZ;k
}kjk vusdkas ckj vkizkFkhZ ls ukSdjh ij j[ks tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h
ijUrq mls ukSdjh ij ugha j[kdj muls dfu"B Jfedkas dks vizkFkhZ us
ukSdjh ij j[k fy;kA vizkFkhZ us Jfedks dh ofj"Brk lwph ugha cuk;h
o vkSñfoñ fu;eksa ds fu;e 77 dh vogsyuk dh A izkFkhZ;k us vizkFkhZ
ds v/khu fpÙkkSM+x< QksVZ esa ckjg dys.Mj ekg esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd
dk;Z fd;k gS] ijUrq izkFkhZ;k dks fcuk uksfVl ;k uksfVl {kfriwfrZ HkÙkk
fn;s ukSdjh ls gVkdj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds foijhi dk;Z
fd;k gS tks ukSdjh ls gVkuk vuqfpr o voS/k gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ;k
Jfed }kjk Dyse LVsVesaV izLrqr dj lsok dh fujUrjrk] lEiw.kZ osru
o leLr ykHkksa lfgr lsok esa iqu% cgky fd;s tkus ds vuqrks"k dh
izkFkZuk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh x;h gSA
4- mijksDr Dyse LVsVesaV dk tokc izLrqr dj vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
dh vksj ls O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ;k ds ifr eksMflag dks vizkFkhZ
}kjk fdlh fu;fer LFkkbZ@vLFkkbZ ¼;Fkk Lekjd ifjpj½ ij HkrhZ
fu;eksa ds varxZr fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk vfirq izkFkhZ;k dk ifr
izkphu laLekjd LFky rFkk iqjko'ks"k vf/kfu;e] 1958 ds varxZr
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk lajf{kr Lekjd fpÙkkSM+x< nqxZ ds iw.kZr;k vkdfLed
,oa vLFkkbZ izd`fr ds dk;Z ;Fkk lkQ&lQkbZ vkfn gsrq vdq'ky
Jfed ¼csynkj½ ds :i esa eLVªksy ij fngkMh ij yxk;k x;k FkkA
vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ;k ds ifr dks lsok ls fudkyus ls badkj fd;k gS vfirq
Lo;a Jfed eksMflag }kjk LosPNk ls fnñ 5@4@93 ds ckn ls dk;Z
NksM+dj pyk tkuk O;Dr fd;k gSA Jfed eksMflag us dsUnzh;
iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k] tks/kiqj cSap ds le{k o"kZ 1993 ds le{k ,d
izkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;k tks izdj.k vksñ,ñ lañ 333@93 eksMflag cuke
Hkkjr la?k o vU; ds uke ls lwphc) gqvkA Jfed eksMflag dh e`R;q
ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ;k us mDr cSap ds le{k ,d izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj
vksñ,ñ lañ 333@93 esa eksMflag dk uke gVkdj izkFkhZ;k dk uke jsdkMZ
ij ysus gsrq vkxzg fd;k o dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k us mDr
izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj djrs gq, ewy vksñ,ñlañ 333@93 esa eksMflag dk
uke gVkdj izkFkhZ;k izseckbZ dk uke jsdkMZ esa vafdr dj fy;k] ijUrq
dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k] tks/kiqj cSap us nksuks i{kksa dh lquokbZ
djus ds i'pkr vksñ,ñlañ 333@93 Jherh izseckbZ cuke Hkkjr la?k o
vU; esa fnukad 30@10@96 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr djrs gq, izkFkhZ;k dk
izkFkZuk&i= vLohdkj dj fn;kA izkFkhZ;k dks vizkFkhZ }kjk mlds ifr
ds LFkku ij dHkh Hkh ukSdjh ij ugha j[kk x;k] uk gh fu;qfDr nh x;h]
vfirq izkFkhZ;k dks izFker;k vizkFkhZ }kjk izkphu laLekjd iqjkrkfRod
LFky rFkk iqjko'ks"k vf/kfu;e] 1958 ds vUrxZr dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk
lajf{kr Lekjd &fot; LrEHk] fpÙkkSM+x< nqxZ ds ikfdZx LFky dh
ckm.Mªhoky iqu%fuekZ.k ds fo'ks"k ejEer dk;Z gsrq Lohd`r izkDdyu
ds le{k iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ ,oa vkdfLed izd`fr ds dk;Z ij fnñ
9@9@96 dks dqyh ¼vdq'ky Jfed½ ds :i esa fngkMh+ ij eLVªksy
ij j[kk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ;k }kjk lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk
ds le{k fnñ 16@11@98 dks is'k fd;s x;s izkFkZuk&i= esa fyf[kr
3382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dFku fd;k Fkk fd mls 1@7@96 dks ukSdjh ij j[kk x;k Fkk tcfd
vius Dyse LVsVesaV esa izkFkhZ;k fnñ 8@9@97 dks ukSdjh ij j[kk tkuk
dgrh gSA nksuksa dFku fojks/kkHkk"kh ,oa vlR; gksuk O;Dr djrs gq,
izkFkhZ;k dk Dyse LVsVesaV [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA vizkFkhZ
us ;g Hkh O;Dr fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ laLFkku@foHkkx }kjk dsUnzh;
ljdkj }kjk lajf{kr Lekjd@LFky ds j[k&j[kko rFkk lkaLd`frd èjksgj
dk cuk;s j[kus gsrq vko';drkuqlkj Lohd`r ctV dks e/; utj
j[krs gq, fofHkUu Lekjdksa ds fy, Lohd`r fo'ks"k ejEer izkDdyu ds
le{k ;Fkkle; miyC/k LFkkuh; Jfedksa dks iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ ,oa
vkdfLed izd`fr ds dk;Z fo'ks"k ds fy, eLVªksy ij vko';drkuqlkj
dq'ky@vdq'ky ;Fkk&eSlu@csynkj@dqyh bR;kfn ds :i esa fngkM+h
ij j[kk tkrk gSA ,sls Jfedksa dks dk;Z fo'ks"k dh lekfIr vFkok fdlh
dkj.ko'k dk;Z can gksus@jksdus vFkok Jfedksa dk dk;Z larks"ktud
ugha ik;s tkus ij gVk fn;k tkrk gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr vkdfLed
izd`fr ds dk;Z fo'ks"k ij j[ks tkus okys Jfedksa dks fdlh izdkj dk
dksbZ uksfVl vFkok {kfriwfrZ HkÙkk fn;s tkus dk dksbZ izko/kku ugha gksuk
O;Dr fd;k gSA bl izdkj vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ;k Jfed dks fdlh fu;fer]
LFkkbZ@vLFkkbZ in ij HkrhZ fu;eksa ds vUrxZr fu;qDr fd;s tkus ls
bUdkj fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ us mDr ejEer dk;Z rduhdh dkj.kksa ls cUn
jgus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ;k Jfed dks vkxs dk;Z ij j[kk tkuk laHko ugha
gksuk dgk gS o mDr fnukad ds i'pkr izkFkhZ;k ds fy, dHkh vizkFkhZ ds
;gka vkdfLed ,oa vLFkkbZ izd`fr ds fo'ks"k ejEer dk;Z gksus ls
bUdkj fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk vius tokc esa izkFkhZ;k Jfed }kjk fdlh
Hkh dys.Mj o"kZ esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka 240 fnu vFkok mlls
vf/kd dk;Z djus ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk eLVªksy ij j[ks tkus
okys Jfedksa dh ofj"Brk lwph cuk;k tkuk laHko rFkk U;k;laxr ugha
gksuk dgk gS o fnukad 26@11@97 ls vkxs fo'ks"k ejEer dk;Z rduhdh
dkj.kksa ls cUn jgus ds dkj.k mDr fnukad ls vkxs izkFkhZ;k dks dke
ij j[kk tkuk laHko ugha gksuk O;Dr fd;k gSA ifj.kker% vizkFkhZ us
viuk tokc izLrqr dj izkFkhZ;k Jfed }kjk izLrqr Dyse LVsVesaV
[kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA
5- lk{; esa izkFkhZ;k Jfed us Lo;a dk rFkk vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls
lqjs'k dqekj] dUtjos'ku vflLVsUV xzsM&II dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k
x;k gS ftuls mHk;i{k ds izfrfuf/kx.k }kjk ,d&nwljs ds 'kiFk&i=ksa
ij ftjg dh x;h gSA izys[kh; lk{; esa izkFkhZ;k Jfed dh vksj ls
izn'kZ MCY;w 1 o MCY;w 2 izLrqr dj iznf'kZr djok;s x;s gSa rFkk
vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls ,usDlj&1 yxk 3 is'k fd;s x;s gSa] ftudk
;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tk;sxkA
6- mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh x;h rFkk i=koyh
ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk /;kuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA
7- izkFkhZ;k Jfed ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd mlds ifr ds
LFkku ij vizkFkhZ us mls ukSdjh ij j[kk FkkA izkFkhZ;k us vizkFkhZ ds
v/khu 12 dys.Mj ekg esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk dk;Z dj fy;k gS
ijUrq vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ;k dks ekSf[kd vkns'k ls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
25 & ,Q dh ikyuk fd;s cxSj ukSdjh ls gVk fn;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ;k
dks lsok ls gVkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gksuk O;Dr djrs gq, izkFkhZ;k dks
lsok esa fujUrjrk o leLr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;s
tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA
8- blds foijhr vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk dFku gS fd
izkFkhZ;k dk ifr eksMflag fdlh LFkkbZ@vLFkkbZ in ij HkrhZ fu;eksa ds
vUrxZr fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ;k dks dHkh Hkh mlds ifr ds
LFkku ij ukSdjh ij ugha j[kk x;k] vfirq iw.kZr% vLFkkbZ ,oa vkdfLed
izd`fr ds dk;Z ij fnñ 9@9@96 dks dqyh ¼vdq'ky Jfed½ ds :i
esa fngkM+h ij eLVªksy ij j[kk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ;k Jfed dks fu/kkZfjr
HkrhZ izfØ;k rFkk HkrhZ dks fu;ekuqlkj fdlh Hkh Lohd`r vFkok fjDr
in ij fu;qfDr iznku ugha dh x;h Fkh] uk gh izkFkhZ;k us vizkFkhZ
fu;kstd ds ;gka 240 fnol ;k mlls vf/kd dk dk;Z fd;k gS] ,slh
fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ;k Jfed vf/kfu;ekUrxZr dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dh
vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA
9- izkFkhZ;k us U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k lk{; esa izLrqr fd;s x;s
vius 'kiFk&i= esa Lo;a dks vius ifr ds LFkku ij vizkFkhZ }kjk
nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa 35@& #ñ izfrfnu nj ls osru ij
ukSdjh ij j[kuk O;Dr fd;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh O;Dr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ;k
us fnñ 8@9@96 ls 30@11@97 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gSA bl lk{kh us
viuh ftjg esa O;Dr fd;k gS fd bldks viuh Lo;a dh dke djus
dh rkjh[k ;kn ugha gS] ijUrq blus ikap lky igys nks lky rd dke
fd;k FkkA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{kh lqjs'k dqekj us vius 'kiFk&i=
dh ftjg esa izkFkhZ;k }kjk fnñ 8@9@96 ls 26@11@97 rd Lo;a ds
foHkkx esa dk;Zjr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS o izkFkhZ;k dks U;wure nSfud
osru Hkksxh ds :i esa Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gSA bl lk{kh us
eq[; ijh{k.k esa lk{; esa izLrqr fd;s x;s vius 'kiFk&i= esa
fnñ 9@9@96 ls 26@11@97 rd yxkrkj Lo;a ds fu;kstu esa dk;Z djus
ls bUdkj fd;k gS rFkk mDr vof/k esa fdlh Hkh foÙkh; o"kZ esa 240
fnol dk;Z djus ls Hkh bUdkj fd;k gSA bl rF; dks fl) djus dk
Hkkj fd Jfed }kjk fujUrj 240 fnu rd fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa
dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] ges'kk Lo;a Jfed@deZdkj ij gksrk gS] tSlk fd
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius fuEu U;k;fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr
fd;k x;k gS%µ
‘‘(1) Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Jethabhai
Pitamberbhai-2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC);
(2) R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer - 2006
(108) FLR 213 (SC)"
10- U;k;n`"Vkar ^^vkjñ,eñ;sYV~Vh cuke lgk;d vf/k'kklh
vfHk;Urk & 2006 ¼108½ ,Q,yvkj 213 ¼,llh½** ds ekeys esa
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g Hkh izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd
deZdkj ij 240 fnu yxkrkj dke djus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus dk
tks Hkkj gS] mlesa deZdkj }kjk dsoy ek= vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g
fy[k nsuk fd mlus 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dke fd;k] i;kZIr ugha
gksxk] vfirq mls fdlh Bksl nLrkosth lk{; ls bl rF; dks lkfcr
djuk gksxk ftlls fd ;g rF; lEiq"V gks ldsA bl laca/k esa U;k;fu.kZ;
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3383
ds isjk la[;k 17 fuEukuqlkj gS %µ
‘‘Analyzing the above decesions of this Court, it is
clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms
do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying
general principles and on reading the aforestated
judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly
take the viwe that the burden of proof is on the
claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in
a given year. This burden is discharged only upon
the workman stepping in the witness box. This
burden is discharged upon the workman adducing
cogent evidence both oral and documentary. In case
of terminating of services of daily wages earner, there
will be no letter of appointment or termination. There
will also be no receipt of proof of payment. Thus in
most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call
upon the employer to produce before the Court the
nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of
appointment or termination, if any, the wage register,
the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse
inference ultimately would depend thereafter of facts
of each case. The above however make it clear that
mere affidavit or self-serving statements made by
the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of
discharge of the burden placed for 240 days in a
given year. The above judgement further lay down
that mere non-production of muster rolls per se
without any plea of supperssion by the claimant
workman will not be the ground for the Tribunal to
draw an adverse inference against the management.
Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic
pricniple, namely, that the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the
concurrent findings of fact of each case."
11- gLrxr ekeys esa izkFkhZ;k Jfed }kjk vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka
lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa
fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd, tkus ds rF; dks izekf.kr djus ds fy,
dsoy Lo;a dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ;g lk{kh viuh ftjg esa
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka dk;Z fd, tkus dh rkjh[k Hkh ;kn gksus ls badkj
djrh gSA ;)fi izkFkhZ;k Jfed dh vksj ls U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k
nLrkosth lk{; ds :i esa izn'kZ MCY;w 1 o MCY;w 2 dqy nks nLrkost
izLrqr dj iznf'kZr djok, x, gSa] ijUrq izn'kZ MCY;w 1 izkFkhZ;k }kjk
lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ LVs'ku jksM] dksVk ds le{k vks-fo-
vfèfu;e dh /kkjk 2&, ds varxZr izLrqr fd, x;s izkFkZuk&i= ds
lacaè esa vizkFkhZ dk tokc gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ;k vksj ls izLrqr
nLrkost izns'k MCY;w 1 izkFkhZ;k dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igqapkrk gSA blh
izdkj izkFkhZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr nLrkost izn'kZ MCY;w 2 U;k;ky;
fu;a=.k izkf/kdkjh varxZr xzsP;qVh vf/kfu;e] 1972 ,oa dk;kZy;
lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½dksVk }kjk izkFkhZ;k izse ckbZ dh vksj
ls xzsP;qVh Hkqxrku vf/kfu;e] 1972 ,oa dsUnzh; fu;e 10¼1½ ds
rgr xzsP;qVh fu/kkZj.k ,oa Hkqxrku gsrq funsZ'ku ckcr izLrqr fd, x,
izkFkZuk&i= ds laca/k esa ikfjr vkns'k gSa mDr vkns'k ds }kjk izkFkhZ;k
ds ifr eksMflag dh e`R;q gksus ij izkFkhZ;k dks 1800@& #ñ xzsP;qVh ds
:i esa Hkqxrku fd, tkus dk vkns'k vizkFkhZ dks fn, x, gSa] ijUrq
mDr nLrkost Hkh gLrxr ekeys esa izkFkhZ;k dks dksbZ ykHk ugha
igqapkrk gSA bl laca/k esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us lk{kh lqjs'k dqekj dh
lk{; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ys[kc) djok;h gS ftlesa izkFkhZ;k
}kjk fnñ 8@9@96 ls 26@11@97 rd Lo;a ds foHkkx esa nSfud osru
Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa fd;s x, dk;Z dk fooj.k izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk
izkFkhZ;k }kjk fdlh Hkh foÙkh; o"kZ esa fujUrj 240 fnol rd dk;Z fd,
tkus ls badkj fd;k x;k gSA fo)ku izfrfuf/k us U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x, lk{kh lqjs'k dqekj dh izfrijh{kk
dh vksj vkdf"kZr dj O;Dr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ;k ds fn- 8@9@96 ls
26@11@97 rd dh vof/k ds okLrfod dk;Zfnolksa esa lkIrkfgd
vodk'k ugha tksM+s x, gSaA vr% izkFkhZ;k ds mDr vof/k ds okLrfod
dk;Zfnolksa esa lkIrkfgd vodk'k fnol Hkh tksM+s tkdj mDr fnolksa
dh x.kuk fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh gSA ;)fi vizkFkhZ
ds xokg lqjs'k dqekj us viuh izfrijh{k esa izkFkhZ;k ds okLrfod dk;Z
fnolksa esa lkIrkfgd vodk'k ugha tksM+k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gS] ijUrq
bl laca/k esa U;k;n`"Vkar ^^2005¼107½ ,,yvkj
248¼dukZVdk½&fgeky;k Mªx daiuh cuke ljrkt vgen** ds ekeys
esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g Li"V :i ls izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd
vkS-fo- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds iz;kstu ls 240 fnoLk rd
fujUrj dk;Z fd;s tkus dk fu/kkZj.k djrs le; os dk;Zfnol ftuesa
etnwjh dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gS] o jfookj o vU; jktif=r
vodk'k ftuesa dksbZ etnwjh dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gS] dh x.kuk
ugha dh tk ldrhA mDr U;k;n`"Vkar dk voyEc ysrs gq, ge gLrxr
ekeys esa Hkh lkIrkfgd vodk'k tksM+s tkdj izkFkhZ;k ds okLrfod
dk;Zfnolksa dh x.kuk fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha ikrs gSaA
12- fo}ku izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ;k }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ,d rdZ
;g Hkh j[kk x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh
ikyuk fd;s cxZj izkFkhZ;k dks ukSdjh ls fudkyk x;k gS] vr% vizkFkhZ
fu;kstd }kjk Lo;a izkFkhZ;k }kjk fnukad 26@11@97 ds ckn Lo;a ukSdjh
ij mifLFkr ugha vkus ds laca/k es xyr dFku fd;k x;k gSA mUgksaus
U;k;kf/kdj.k dk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s lk{kh lqjs'k dqekj
ds 'kiFk&i= ds Hkkx lh ls Mh dh vksj /;kukdf"kZr djrs gq, O;Dr
fd;k gS fd mDr xokg us izkFkhZ;k dks fn- 26@11@97 ls vkxs fujUrjh
dk;Z ij j[ks tkuk laHko ugha gksuk dgk gSA bl laca/k esa U;k;kf/kdj.k
dk ekuuk gS fd izkFkhZ;k] vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk
ls iwoZ ds 12 dysaMj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnol rd dk;Z
fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgh gS] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa
esa lsok ls fu"dkflr fd, tkus ds vkns'k dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk ds
fcUnq ij fopkj.k fd, tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; gh izdV ugha gksrk gSA
13- ;|fi fo)ku izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ;k dk ,d rdZ U;k;kf/kdj.k ds
le{k ;g jgk gS fd ekeys esa izn'kZ McY;w 2 U;k;ky; fu;a=.k izkf/kdkjh
varxZr xzsP;qVh Hkqxrku vf/kfu;e] 1972 ,oa dk;kZy; lgk;d Je
vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk ¼jkt-½ }kjk fnuakd 24@11@99 dks ikfjr
3384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkns'k esa ;g ik;k x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk vius tcko o c;ku] nksuks
esa ;g vkifÙk ugha mBk;h x;h gS fd izkFkhZ;k Jfed fdlh o"kZ esa 240
fnu yxkrkj lsokjr ugha FkhA vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr vkifÙk ftjg ds le;
mBkuk ekurs gq, mDr vkifÙk dks ugha ekuk x;kA vr% gLrxr ekeys
esa Hkh izkFkhZ;k }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fujUrj 240 fnu rd dk;Z
fd;s tkus dk rF; izekf.kr ekus tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSa bl laca/k esa
U;k;kf/kdj.k dk ekuuk gS fd mDr ekeys esa lqlaxr vof/k] vFkkZr
lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 26@11@97 ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dysaMj ekg dh
vof/k esa izkFkhZ;k }kjk fujUrj vizkFkhZ ds ;gka fu;kstu esa jgrs gq, 240
fnu rd dk;Z fd, tkus dk rF; mDr nLrkost izn'kZ McY;w 2 ls
izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS] bl ifjfLFkfr esa mDr nLrkost izkFkhZ;k dks dksbZ
ykHk ugha igqapkrk gSA
14- vr% mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ge ;g ikrs gSa fd izkFkhZ;k
,d nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa fnukad 8@9@96 ls 26@11@97
rd dh vof/k esa vizkFkhZ ds ;gka dk;Zjr Fkh rFkk izkFkhZ;k dh fu;qfDr
fdlh LFkkbZ@vLFkkbZ ij ij HkrhZ fu;eksa ds varxZr ugha dh x;h FkhA
izkFkhZ;k lsok lekfIr dh 26@11@97 ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dysaMj ekg dh
vof/k esa fujUrj 240 ;k mlls vf/kd fnol rd dk;Z fd;s tkus ds
rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgha gS] vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa
izkFkhZ;k dks vf/kfu;ekUrxZr dksbZ laj{k.k izkIr ugha gksus ls og vizkFkhZ
fu;sktd dks fo:) dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh ugha
ik;h tkrh gS ,oa jsQzsUl Hkh blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYYkh }kjk
izklkafxd vkns'k fn- 19@11@1999 ds tfj, lEizsf"kr funs'k@fjÝsUl
fookn dks blh izdkj mÙkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k Jfed Jherh
izseckbZ vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 26@11@97 ls
Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dysaMj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240fnol rd dk;Z
fd, tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgh gS] vr% og
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds fo:) fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus
dh vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA
Jherh vfurk 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
rkjh[k% 19-12-2014
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1619-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe
fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40011@04@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th August, 2015
S.O. 1619.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby published the award (I.D. No. 45/2015) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 11/08/2015.
[F.No. L-40011/04/2015-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 5th August, 2015
Present:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 45/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the
Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri Venkatesan
:
1st Party/Petitioner
Vellore District President (Ex.), BJP
18, Vhyagaraja Salai, Salavanpettai
Vellore-632001
AND
The Chief General Manager :
2nd Party/Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Tamil Nadu Circle
Chennai-600002
Appearance:
For the 1st party/Petitioner
:
M/s A.S. Palanisamy,
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
M/s K.V. Shanmug-
anathan, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/04/2015-IR (DU)
dated 20.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3385
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the Management of BSNL,
Vellore in respect of termination of service of 140
contract workmen/employees is justified or not? If
not, to what relief the employees are entitled?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 45/2015 and issued notices to both sides.
On receipt of notice both sides have entered appearance
through their counsel.
3. The matter had come up for hearing for the first time
on 21.05.2015. It was being posted for filling Claim Statement
and documents by the petitioner repeatedly. When the
matter was called today, neither the petitioner nor his
counsel were present. There was no representation on
behalf of the petitioner also. The petitioner seems to be not
interested in pursuing the case. In the absence of any
material, adjudication of the dispute is not possible.
Therefore, the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 5th August, 2015)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management :
None
Documents Marked
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1620-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkalqysV tujy
vkWQ+ tkiku psUubZ 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 32@2014½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@03@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th August, 2015
S.O. 1620.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 32/2014) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labourt Court,
Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Consulate General of Japan, Chennai
and their Workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 11/08/2015.
[No. L-42012/03/2012-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Friday, the 31st July, 2015
Present
:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No 32/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between
the Management of Consulate General of Japan and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri V. Shankar
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
Counsulate General of Japan :
2nd Party/Respondent
Consulate General of Japan
12/1, Cenotaph Road, 1st Street
Teynampet
Chennai-600018
Appearance:
For the 1st party/Petitioner
:
Sri Balan Haridas,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Management: Sri Anand
Sashidaran, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/03/2012-IR (DU)
dated 01.04.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the demand of the workman Shri V.
Shankar, Gardner for reinstatement into the service
is legal and justified? What relief the concerned
workman is entitled?"
3386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 32/2014 and issued notices to both sides.
Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel
and have filed their claim and counter statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in reply to
the Countrer Statement.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent as
a Gardener in the year 1993. He was a permanent employee
of the Respondent. He was to report for work everyday at
0800 AM and had to work till 0500 PM. His duties were to
maintain the garden of the Respondent. At the time of
joining he was paid salary of Rs. 250/- per month. His last
drawn salary was Rs. 5,669/- per month. The Respondent
collects fees for issuing of Visa to persons who wants to
visit Japan or to take up employment there. The Respondent
was engaged in a systematic activity. The Respondent is
an industry within the meaning of Section-2(i) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner is a workman under
the Respondent as defined under Section-2(s) of the ID
Act. While the petitioner was discharging his work as
Gardner without any complaint, in the year 2005, the
Respondent brought in Contractors to do the work of
gardening. Though the petitioner objected he was forced
to work under the so-called Contractor. Since he was
objecting to the conversion of direct labour to contract
labour the Respondent orally terminated his service in
March 2006. He caused to send a legal notice on 23.06.2006
calling upon the Respondent to reinstate him in service
with full back wages, continuity of service and other
benefits. The Respondent gave a reply admitting that the
petitioner was a direct employee of the Respondent.
However, the Respondent stated that the Government of
Japan has decided to do away with the service of the
gardeners and to outsource the same. The petitioner had
again sent a legal notice requesting the Respondent to
reinstate him in service. The petitioner did not receive any
reply to this notice. The petitioner did not immediately
rush to court as he was making representation requesting
the Respondent to reinstate him in service. The termination
of the petitioner from service is illegal and in violation of
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. An order may be
passed holding that the termination of the petitioner is
illegal and also directing the Respondent to reinstate the
petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service and
other attendant benefits.
4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
The participation of the Respondent in the proceedings
does not mean that the Respondent and Government of
Japan is submitting to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or
that it is abandoning its sovereignty or waiving the
immunity available under the Vienna Conventions on
Diplomatic and Consular Relations. The present
proceedings are violative of Vienna Conventions on
Diplomatic and Consular Relations. Even otherwise the
present proceedings are without jurisdiction as the activity
of the Respondent does not fall within the definition of
industry. Even if it is an industry the proceedings is without
jurisdiction as the appropriate government is the State
Government and not the Central Government. The
Respondent is a consulate carrying on the legal and
sovereign functions of Government of Japan such as issue
of Visas, Issue of Passport to Japanese citizens, etc. The
Respondent is not providing any material services. So it
cannot be treated as an industry. In any case the petitioner
has raised the dispute four years after his services were
terminated on account of his resignation. The claim that he
made representations to the Respondent is false. The
petitioner has received Rs. 77,966.70/- towards termination
benefits. Having enjoyed the same it is not open to him to
claim that he is entitled to reinstatement. The Respondent
does not require a permanent Gardener. So also the
Respondent cannot be forced to reinstate the petitioner.
The claim of the petitioner that the provisions of Section-
9A of the ID Act have not been complied with is untenable.
Section-25F of the ID Act also does not apply to the case
as there was no retrenchment of the petitioner. The
petitioner had voluntarily resigned. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
5. In the rejoinder filed, the petitioner has denied the
allegations in the Counter Statement and has also reiterated
his case in the Claim Statement.
6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 to Ext.W15.
7. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the demand of the petitioner for
reinstatement in the service of the Respondent is
legal and justified?
(ii) What is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
8. The petitioner who has been working under the
Respondent as a Gardener has alleged that he was
terminated from service illegally in March 2006. He seeks
reinstatement in the service of the Respondent.
9. Before considering the case on merits, certain
technical objections raised by the Respondent against
maintainability of the dispute are to be considered.
10. The Respondent is Consulate General of Japan
functioning at Chennai. The petitioner had been working
as Gardener in the premises of the building housing the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3387
consulate. The initial contention that is raised by the
Respondent is that it being a consulate of the Government
of Japan it is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal,
it having got sovereign immunity by virtue of Vienna
Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations. It is
alleged by the Respondent that the present proceedings is
in violation of Diplomatic regions (Vienna Conventions)
Act.
11. The argument that has been advanced on behalf of
the petitioner in answer to this contention is with reference
to Article-33(3) of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna
Conventions) Act. Article-31 of the Act gives immunity to
a diplomatic agent from the criminal jurisdiction of the
receiving State and also immunity from civil and
administrative jurisdictions with some exceptions. Article-
33(1) states that subject to Para-3 of the article a diplomatic
agent shall with respect to services rendered for the
sending State be exempt from social security provisions
which may be imposed in the receiving State. It is on the
basis of this provision the Respondent is claiming that it is
not subject to jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Article-33(2)
states that the exemption provided for in Para-1 shall also
apply to private servants who are in sole employment of a
diplomatic agent on condition (a) that they are not nationals
or permanent resident in the receiving State and (b) that
they are covered by the social security provisions which
may be imposed in the sending State or a third State. Article-
33(3) states that a diplomatic agent who employs persons
to whom the exemption provided in Para-2 does not apply,
shall observe the obligations which the social security
provisions of the receiving State impose upon the
employees. As could be seen Article 33(2) applies to private
servants only. As admitted by the petitioner, he is not a
private servant employed by a diplomatic agent. He is an
employee of the Consulate. His engagement is with respect
to services rendered for the sending state. So the
Respondent is entitled to the exemption under Article 33(1).
12. The next contention raised by the Respondent is
that the present proceedings is without jurisdiction as the
activity of the Respondent does not fall within the definition
of industry under Section-2(j) of the Industrial Disputes
Act. The petitioner has contended in the claim Statement
that the Respondent collects fees for issuing visa to persons
and this is a systematic activity and this comes within the
meaning of Section-2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On
the other hand, it is contended by the Respondent that it is
only carrying out regal and sovereign functions of
Government of Japan such as issue of Visa and issue of
Passports to Japanese citizens, that it is not providing
material services and this cannot by any stretch of
imagination be treated as an industy.
13. It could be seen from the pleadings of the parties
itself that there is no dispute regarding the manner of
activity carried out by the Respondent. Apparently, it
issues visas and issues passports to Japanese citizens if it
is lost, msiplaced, stolen etc. The only question is whether
this activity of the Respondent comes within the meaning
of Industry as defined in Section-2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
14. Both sides have referred different legal
pronouncements in support of their contradictory
contentions, the petitioner that its activity is not an industry
and the Respondent that it is only an industry. The counsel
for the Respoundent has relief upon the decision of the
Apex Court in the Corporation of the city of Nagpur vs. Its
employees reported in AIR 1960 SC 675. In this decision
the Apex Court has considered what is not an industry
while considering the positive aspects of the definition of
Industry and has held that the term cannot conclude the
regal or sovereign functions of State. It was held that regal
functions being inescapable and inalienable, as described
in an Australian decision it could not have been in
contemplation of the legislature to bring in the regal
functions of the State within the definition of industry and
thus confer jurisdiction on industrial courts to decide
dispute in respect thereof. The Apex Court held that for
this reason the regal functions of a State are excluded from
the definition of industry. The counsel has referred to a
decision of the full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in State of Punjab Vs. Kuldip Singh and another
reported in 1982 ILR 2 P&H 544 where referring to the
Nagpur Corporation case and also Bangalore Water Supply
Case the Court has held that regal or sovereign functions
of a State despite their closest resemblance to systematic
activity are clearly to be held beyond the pale of industry
as defined in Section-2(j) of the Act. In the Bangalore Water
Supply case itself also [(AIR 1978 SC 548(1)] it has been
asserted that sovereign functions strictly understood,
qualify for exemption though not the welfare activities or
economic adventures undertaken by Government or
statutory bodies. The counsel for the Respondent has
referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Najeema
Beevi Vs. Public Service Commission reported in ILR 1983 1
Kerala 546 where it was held that Public Service Commission
is not an industry. It was held that the functions of the Public
Service Commissions are inalienable as these are envisaged
by the Constitution itself and the functions are exercised in
order to safeguard constitutional rights of the citizens. The
High Court has stated that the material question to be asked
at such instances is what is the nature of actual function
assumed by the State, whether it is a serivce that the State
could have left to private enterprise, and, if so fulfilled, could
such a dispute be "industrial". If it could not be, it is performing
inalienable functions or sovereign functions, it was held. The
functions of a Public Service Commission was found to be
one that could be performed by the State only and not
inalienable and thus it was found not an industry.
3388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board case already
referred to earlier. In this also it has been held that sovereign
functions of the State qualifies for exemption from the
definition of industry. So the only question is whether the
act of issue of Visa and Passports done by the Respondent
is a sovereign function. The Respondent is an agent of the
Government of Japan. On asking the question whether the
activity of issue of Visas and Passports done by the
Respondent is one that can be performed by private
persons, what is the answer that would be available? Can
the Indian Government entrust the activity of issuing visa
and passports to private persons? Certainly that cannot
be, Just like that the Government of Japan cannot be
expected to delegate the function of issue of Visa and
Passports to private persons. In such case certainly it is a
regal and sovereign function and qualifies for exemption.
No doubt, it has been held in Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage case and has been followed in subsequent
decisions that to make an activity an industry absence of
profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant whether the
venture is public, joint, private or in any other sector. The
true focus is functional and decisive test in the nature of
activity with special emphasis on employer-employee
relationship, it has been emphasized. Even if all these
aspects are available in the activity done by the Respondent
it will not make it an industry because of the exemption
available so far as regal and sovereign functions are
concerned. So the activity of the Respondent in any case
could not be termed as an industry as defined Section in
2(j) of the ID Act.
16. One of the contentions that has been raised on behalf
of the Respondent is that in any case the Central
Government is not an appropriate Government so far as
the dispute is concerned but it is only the State Government
and that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case.
Having found that the activity of the Respondent is a
sovereign function and not an industry this question is
irrelevant. Yet I am proceeding to consider the question in
case the activity of the Respondent could be termed as an
Industry. The answer to the claim of the petitioner that the
Central Government is the appropriate Government in the
matter should be in the negative. Section-2(a) of the
Industrial Disputes Act describes the term appropriate
Government. It is not necessary to quote the entire section
for the purpose. What is relevant is the portion which states
that in relation to any Industrial Dispute concerning any
industry carried on by or under the authority of Central
Government the appropriate Government will be the Central
Government. There is no case for the petitioner that the
activity of the Respondent is carried on by the Central
Government. The counsel for the petitioner maintains that
the activity of the Respondent is one carried out under the
authority of the Central Government and therefore the
Central Government is the appropriate Government in the
matter. Both sides have referred to different legal
pronouncements in this respect also which I will be referring
to in chronological order.
17. The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the
decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Carlsbad Mineral
Water Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. P.K. Sarkar and Others reported in
AIR 1952 Calcutta 6 wherein it was held that the words
"under the authority" means much the same as "on behalf
of". It was a case where the appellant Company had entered
into a contract with the Railway to sell to Railway Stations.
It was found that the business of the Company itself was
for their own personal profit and cannot be described to be
one authorised to carry on Government business. The State
Government was found to be the appropriate Government
in the case. The next decision relied upon by the counsel
for the Respondent is Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union
Vs. State of Bihar And Others reported in AIR 1970 SC 82
where it was held that there being nothing in Section-2(a)
to the contrary, the word "authority" must be construed
according to its ordinary meaning and therefore must mean
a legal power given by one person to another to do an act.
A person is said to be authorised or to have an authority
when he is in such a position that he can act in a certain
manner without incurring liability, to which he would be
exposed but for the authority, or, so as to produce the same
effect as if the person granting the authority had for himself
done the act, it was held. The espoused case in the matter
is Steel Authority of India and Others Vs. National Union
Waterfront Workers and others reported in 2001 6 Supreme
602 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. The
exposition given to the term "under the authority" in the
previous decisions had been widened in the National Union
Waterfront Workers case. Discussing various aspects the
Apex Court has held in the above decision that being
instrumentality of a Central/State Government or being
State within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution
cannot be determinative of the question whether an
industry carried on by a Company/Corporation or an
instrumentality of the Government is by or under the
authority of the Central Government for the purpose of or
within the meaning of the definition of "appropriate
Government". It has been held that where the authority to
carry on any industry for or on behalf of the Central
Government is conferred on the Government Company/
any undertaking by the statute under which it is created no
further question arises. But if it not so, the question that
arises is whether there is any conferment of the authority
on the Government Company/any undertaking by the
Central Government to carry out the industry in question.
This is a question of fact and has to be ascertained on the
facts and in the circumstances of each case, it has been
held. It has been further clarified that such an authority
might be conferred either by a statute or by virtue of
relationship of principal and agent or delegation of power
and this fact has to be ascertained on the facts and in the
circumstances of each case.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3389
18. What is the position in the present case assuming
that the activity carried on by the Respondent is an
industry? The argument by the Counsel for the petitioner
is that it is on the basis of permission or consent given by
the Central Government that the activity is carried on by
the Respondent. The Central Government might have
granted permission to Government of Japan to run the
Consulate. The factum of issue of Visa flows from this. It is
not an authority conferred on the Respondent by the
statute. The activity of the Respondent is not done by
virtue of relation of the principal and agent between the
Government of India and Government of Japan. It is not on
the basis of delegation of power by the Central Government
also. If power is to be delegated the Central Government
should have the power to do the activity that is now being
carried by the Respondent. The Central Government could
not issue Visas on behalf of Government of Japan. It is
something that could be done only by the Government of
Japan and there is no delegation of power, this being the
case. So the Central Government could not be described as
the appropriate Government in the case even if the activity
of the respondent is taken to be an industry.
19. In view of my previous findings. the petitioner will
not be entitled to any relief even if the case is found in his
favour on merits. However, the case is to be exained on
merits for the sake of completion. Before going into merits
there is one more aspect that is to be considered. The
petitioner is said to have been terminated from service in
March, 2006. He seems to have been working on contract
basis at this time. According to him, his direct employment
was put to an end to in the year 2005 when the Contractors
were brought into the arena to do the work of gardening
for the Respondents. The reference has reached the
Tribunal in April, 2014. It is not clear on which date the
dispute was raised by the petitioner before the Asstt.
Labour Commissioner. As seen from the order of reference
the failure report of Asstt. Labour Commissioner is dated
03.01.2012. So it is to be assumed that it was by the end of
2001 that the dispute was raised before the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner. So there was a delay of more than 4 years in
raising the dispute.
20. The petitioner has stated in the claim Statement that
he did not want to rush to Court immediately after his
termination and he had been making representation requesting
the Respondent to reinstate him in service but the Respondent
had failed to give any reply. This case of the petitioner is
denied by the Respondent. the Respondent has stated in the
Counter Statement that more than 4 years after his serivces
were terminated on account of his resignation the dispute is
raised and it is frivolous and vexations.
21. The Respondent has advanced the argument that
because of the delay itself the petitioner is not entitled to
any relief. However, on going though Counter Statement it
could be seen that there is no specific case for the
Respondent that delay in initiating the proceedings
disentitles the petitioner from getting any relief. What is
contended in the Counter Statement is because of the delay
the petitioner is not entitled to any backwages in any
case.
22. The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the
decision Swapna Adhikari Vs. State of Bengal and others
reported in WP 22991/2003 of the High Court of Calcutta
with reference to the delay. However, this dispute was raised
directly before the Tribunal under Section-2(A)2 of the
Act. The decision is one S.2A(2) of the Act and is not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
23. The counsel for the petititoner has referred to the
decisions of the Apex Court in Ajaint Singh Vs. Sirhind
Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society
Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1351 and also the decision in
Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in
2015 4 SCC 458 regarding delay. The dictum laid down by
the Apex Court as found from the above two decisions is
that no limitation is prescribed for raising demand by the
workman and seeking reference underthe Industrial
Disputes Act and provisions of Article-137 of the Limitation
Act are not applicable to any applications made under the
Industrial Disputes Act. If delay is shown to be existing
the Tribunal can appropriately mould the relief by declining
to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised
the demand, it has been held.
24. It is apparent that the petitioner raised the dispute
after 4 years only. He has not given any valid explanation
for the same also. What he has stated in the Claim Statement
is that it was because he was making representations to
the Respondent. However, though he has referred to legal
notices caused to be sent to the Respondent and reply
received he has not produced an of those notices. In his
Proof Affidavit the case of the petitioner is that the delay
was because he had a mentally retarded son. Thus it could
be seen that there is no valid reason coming forth for the
delay. But the petitioner cannot be denied any relief on
account of this delay alone since Limitation Act is not
applicable to the demand raised by the petitioner. The only
thing is that the delay could be taken into account while
moulding the relief, if any.
25. Lastly, what is the case of petitioner on merits? The
petitioner was working as Gardener for the Respondent.
Ext. W1 is the letter of employment showing that he was
employed by the Respondent in the year 1993. Ext. W4 is
the Identity Card issued to him by the Respondent. Ext.
W2 shows his salary details of January, 1993. Ext. W5 is
the salary register for October 2004 to January, 2005 and
Ext. W6 is the Salary Register for the period from
January, 2006 to March, 2006.
3390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26. It is not disputed by the Respondent that the
petitioner was under its employment. The case of the
Respondent is that service of the Petitioner was terminated
on account of his resignation. It is claimed by the
Respondent that the Petitioner has received Rs. 77,166.70
towards termination benefits and he cannot claim
reinstatement on account of this. Ext. W7 shows that the
Petitioner has received the amount which is described as
Gratuity. According to the Petitioner he did not tender any
resignation. There cannot be resignation without giving
one month's notice, it is stated. What the Petitioner has
stated during his cross-examination is that he was told to
work elsewhere for a period of one year when he was paid
the amount.
27. In the Claim Statement. The petitioner has not referred
to any amount received from the Respondent as Gratuity
or otherwise. However, after the Respondent has filed
Counter Statement referring to this he has filed a rejoinder
stating that "the contention that he has resigned and
received Rs. 77.966.70 is without substance". He has
further stated that the amount was paid much earlier to the
termination. He has stated that even after payment of the
amount he continued to work and the same will demonstrate
that the sum does not represent Gratuity. Thus it is admitted
in the rejoinder that he has received the amount though
not as Gratuity.
28. What the Petitioner has stated during his cross-
examination is that he has received the amount in March
2006 and he was told that he should work somewhere else
for a period of one year. Then he stated that he does not
know why he was paid the amount at all. According to him,
he asked the Respondent about the payment but they did
not reveal for what purpose it was paid. The receipt marked
as Ext.W7 which is described as receipt of Gratuity does
not show any date. However, it is apparent from the
admission of the Petitioner that he received the amount in
March 2006. This date coincides with the date that is
claimed by the Petitioner as the month and year of
termination. Ext.W6 shows the payment of salary upto
March 2006. So there is nothing to show that the Petitioner
worked after March 2006, the period during which he
received the amount also. So the amount must have been
received by him as Gratuity itself. Otherwise he would have
been able to describe the amount. It is pertinent to notice
that the petitioner had been maintaining silence without
raising any dispute for more than 4 years after he received
this amount and he was terminated from service. So it is to
be taken that he has received the amount in satisfaction of
his claim with the Respondent after his service was put an
end to, whether by resignation or in some other manner.
Thus it could be seen that in this respect also the
Petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
In view of my discussion above the reference is answered
against the Petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Directed to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 31st July, 2015)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri V. Shankar
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex.W 1
07.01.1993
Later of Employment given
by the Respondent
Ex.W 2
Jan., 1993
Salary details given by the
Respondent
Ex. W 3
08.02.2005
Conduct Certificate
Ex.W 4
01.08.2005
Identity Card
Ex.W 5
Oct. 2004-
Salary Register
Sep. 2005
Ex. W 6
Jan. 2006-
Salary Register
March 2006
Ex. W7
-
Receipt of Gratuity
Ex. W8
-
Rules of Service
Ex. W 9
-
Amendment of Rules
Ex. W 10
22.02.1993
Letter of Salary increment
Ex. W 11
11.09.2010
Petition filed by the
petitioner before Assistant
Commissioner of Labour
Ex. W 12
21.02.2011
Counter filed by the
Respondent
before
Assistant Commissioner of
Labour
Ex. W 13
01.10.2011
Reply filed by the Petitioner
before
Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
Ex. W 14
03.04.2008
Letter regarding P.F.
Ex. W 15
-
Form regarding P.F.
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1621-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj tujy
nwjn'kZu dsanz ,aM vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3391
ljdkj vkS|kSfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ dsl lañ 02/1996½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 11@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yµ42012@232@94&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th August, 2015
S.O. 1621.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby published the award (I.D. Case No. 02/1996) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labourt
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Director General, Doordarshan Kendra
& others and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 11/08/2015.
[No. L-42012/232/94-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj
dsl uañ lhñvkbZñVhñ 02@1996
jSQjSal% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k
Øekad% ,y&42012@232@94 vkbZ vkj ¼Mh-;w-½ ubZ fnYyh]
fnukad 01-03-1991
y{ehukjk;.k iq= Jh lsokjke] fuoklh eq.Mksrk] ok;k&dkyokM]
ftyk&t;iqj] jktLFkku
µizkFkhZ
cuke
01-
funs'kd] nwjlapkj foHkkx] prqFkZ Q~yksj]
th,eVhMh dEikm.M] t;iqjA
02-
fMfotuy baftfu;fjax Vsyhdkse] Vsfydke izkstsDV]
,lµ6] vt; lnu] gok lMd&t;iqj] jktLFkkuA
µvizkFkhZx.k
mifLFkr
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
%
Jh dsnkj yky xqIrk] vkjñ,pñtsñ,lñ
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
%
Jh ,eñ,Qñ cSx]
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls
%
Jh uhjt c=k]
fnukad% 22-07-2015
vf/kfu.kZ;
01- Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk Øekad
,y&42012@232@94 vkbZ vkj ¼Mh-;w-½ ubZ fnYyh] ls fuEu vuqlwph
dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks fnukad 07-04-1994 dks
bl vk'k; dk izkIr gqvk gS fd —Whether the action of the
management of Telecom Deptt. Jaipur in terminating the
services of Shri Laxmi Narayan, w.e.f. 01.03.1991 is justified?
If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?
02- izkFkhZ Jfed y{ehukjk;.k dh vksj ls fnukad 12-04-1996
dks LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k fd izkFkhZ izcaU/ku
}kjk mldh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 12-03-1990 dks nSfud osru Hkksxh
pkSdhnkj ds in ij dh Fkh] rHkh ls og bZekunkjh o esgur ls dk;Z
djrk vk jgk gS] dHkh fdlh izdkj dh f'kdk;r ugha jghA mldh
fnukad 28-02-1991 dks izkFkhZ izcaU/ku }kjk lsok lekfIr dj nh] vkSj
lsok i`Fkddj.k ls iwoZ izkFkhZ us 12 ekg esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z
fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ izcaU/ku }kjk mldh lsok,a lekIr djus ls iwoZ
fu;ekuqlkj ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k uksfVl ds cnys osru dk Hkqxrku
ugha fd;k] u gh NaVuh eqvkotk fn;kA bl rjg ls izcU/ku }kjk
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 (F) dk mYy?kau fd;k gSA
izcU/ku }kjk Jfed dh lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph Hkh ugha
cukbZ] vkSj ofj"Brk dk Hkh /;ku ugha j[kkA izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds
ckn izcU/ku }kjk ubZ fu;qfDr;kW Hkh dh xbZ gSaA izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr
ds le; mlls dbZ dfu"B Jfed dk;Z djrs FksA bl rjg ls vizkFkhZ
}kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 (H) dk mYy?kau fd;k
gSA vizkFkhZx.k ds ;gka dHkh dk;Z dk vHkko ugha jgk] vc Hkh ugha gSA
bl rjg ls izkFkh dks ljIyl Hkh ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k] u gh vU;=
lek;ksftr fd;kA bl rjg izcU/ku dk d`R; vuQs;j yscj izfDVl
esa vkrk gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ls mlds thfodksiktZu ls oafpr gks
x;k gS] tks Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 dk mYya?ku gS] vkSj vUr
esa izkFkZuk dh gS fd Jfed ls lsok i`Fkddj.k vkns'k dks voS| vkSj
vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkdj mls lsok i`Fkddj.k vkns'k fnukad
01-02-1991 ls iqu% lsok esa fy;k tkdj lsok eqfDr fnukad ls gh mls
osru HkÙks o vU; ikfj.kkfed ykHk e; [kpkZ fnyk;k tkosA
03- vizkFkhZ izcaU/ku }kjk LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe dk tokc izLrqr dj
dFku fd;k gS fd VsyhdkWe foHkkx m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA
bl dkj.k vf/kdj.k dks bl ekeys dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA
04- vkxs ;g dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkh dks dqN le; ds fy, fo'ks"k
dk;Z ds fy, ekpZ] 1990 esa j[kk x;k] vkSj LFkkbZ lsok esa ugha fy;kA
dk;Z iw.kZ gksus ij mls ebZ] 1991 esa gVk;k] ftldh lwpuk Jfed dks
nhA Jfed dks pwafd fo'ks"k dk;Z ds fy, j[kk x;k Fkk] vkSj mlls
vo';drk vuqlkj gh dk;Z fy;k tkrk FkkA Jfed }kjk ,d foÙkh;
o"kZ esa fujUrj 240 fnu dh vof/k ds fy, dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA lkFk gh
;g dFku fd;k gS fd Jfed dks dk;Z ij j[kus ls iwoZ ekpZ] 1990 o
dk;Z lekfIr ls iwoZ ebZ] 1991 esa lwfpr fd;k Fkk fd ftl dk;Z ds
fy, mls j[kk x;k Fkk] og vLFkkbZ gS] vkSj dk;Z lekfIr ij mls gVk
fn;k tkosxkA bl rjg ls vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk
25 (F) ds mYy?kau dk iz'u gh ugha gSA pwafd Jfed dks fof'k"B dk;Z
ds fy, j[kk x;k FkkA bl dkj.k ofj"Brk lwph izdkf'kr djus dk
loky gh ugha gksrkA Jfed dks pkSdhnkj ds in ij ugha j[kk FkkA
Jfed ds fo#) nqHkkZouko'k dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh ugha dh gS] vkSj vUr
esa LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA
3392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
05- izkFkhZ Jfed y{ehukjk;.k }kjk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe ds
leFkZu esa Lo;a dh ekSf[kd lk{; rFkk vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh vksj ls
lhñihñ HkkfV;k dh ekSf[kd lk{; fyfic) djokbZ xbZ rFkk izys[kh;
lk{; esa izn'kZ vkjµ1 yxk;r izn'kZ vkj&13 nLrkostkr iznf'kZr
djok, gSaA
06- Jfed ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izcU/kd }kjk mls
fnukad 12-03-1990 ls nSfud osru Hkksxh pkSdhnkj ds fy, j[kk x;k]
ysfdu fnukad 28-02-1991 dks fcuk fdlh dkj.k uksfVl osru fn,
mldh lsok,a lekIr dj nh xbZA Jfed us ,d o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240
fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA vr% Jfed dh lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k voS|
vkSj 'kwU; gS] vkSj Jfed dks lsok esa iqu% fy;k tkdj lsok eqfDr
fnukad ls gh mls osru HkRrs o vU; ikfj.kkfed ykHk e; [kpkZ fnyk;k
tkosA
07- tcfd vizkFkhZ izcU/ku ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ
dks lafonk ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z dh vko';drk vuqlkj vLFkkbZ :i ls
j[kk x;k FkkA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fy, tkus iwoZ gh crk fn;k
x;k Fkk rFkk dk;Z lekIr gksus ij mldh lsok,a Lor% gh lekIr gh xbZ]
vkSj Jfed }kjk ,d o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z ugha
fd;k gSA bl rjg ls vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 (F) dk
mYy?kau ugha gksrk gS] vkSj LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt djus
dk fuosnu fd;k gSA
08- izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe o lk{; esa vizkFkhZ izcU/ku
}kjk fnukad 12-03-1990 ls nSfud osru Hkksxh pkkSdhnkj ds :i esa
j[kk tkuk vkSj fnukad 28-02-1991 dks izcU/ku }kjk mldh lsok
lekIr djuk crkrs gq, dgk gS fd bl vof/k esa Jfed }kjk 240 fnu
ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls dksbZ
fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k x;k] ekSf[kd :i ls gh j[kk x;k Fkk] vkSj mlds
}kjk fnukad 12-03-1990 ls fnukad 29-02-1991 rd dk;Z fd;k]
vkSj mls ekSf[kd vkns'k ls gh gVk fn;k x;kA bl rjg ls Jfed dks
lsok esa fy, tkus vkSj lsok lekIr fd, tkus dk dksbZ izcU/ku us
fyf[kr vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k gSA izfrj{kk esa izcU/ku ds lk{kh
lhñihñ HkkfV;k us Jfed dks ekpZ] 1990 esa nSfud osru ij lafonk ds
vk/kkj ij dqN le; ds fy, fdlh fo'ks"k dk;Z ds fy, j[kuk Lohdkj
fd;k gS] vkSj ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mldk dk;Z iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ Fkk]
vkSj dk;Z lekIr gksus ij Jfed dh lsok,a Lor% lekIr gks xbZ]
ftldh lwpuk Jfed dks iwoZ esa gh nh xbZ FkhA iqu% Jfed dks ebZ]
1991 esa dk;Z ij j[kk x;k] vkSj ;g dk;Z vLFkkbZ FkkA dk;Z lekIr
gksus ij Lo;a gh lsok,a lekIr ekuh tk,xh] bldh lwpuk Jfed dks
nh xbZA bl rjl ls vizkFkhZx.k dh ;g lk{; gS fd Jfed us ekpZ]
1990 ls Qjojh] 1991 rd yxkrkj 240 fnu dk;Z ugha dj dsoy
228 fnu gh dk;Z fd;k gSA bl dkj.k Jfed ds laca/k esa vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 (F) ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA ftjg
esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd tc Jfed dh fnukad 01-03-1991 dks
lsok,a lekIr dh xbZ rks mls dksbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ugha nh xbZ] D;ksafd og
iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ FkkA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd Jfed ds laca/k esa
dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ xbZ] D;ksafd ;g vLFkkbZ Fkk] vkSj ckn esa
Jfed ds dsMj ds laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh fu;qfDr ugha dh xbZA
09- izn'kZ ,eµ3 esa Jfed dks ekpZ] 1990 ls ebZ] 1991 dh
vof/k ds nkSjku 228 fnu dk;Z djuk crk;k gSA blds laca/k esa izn'kZ
vkjµ1 yxk;r izn'kZ vkjµ10 izLrqr fd, gSa] vkSj bl vof/k ds
izek.k i= izn'kZ vkjµ11 yxk;r izn'kZ vkjµ13 izLrqr fd, gSaA bu
lHkh izys[kksa ls Jfed dk ekpZ] 1990 ls ebZ] 1991 rd 228 fnu
dk;Z djuk gh izdV gksrk gSA Jfed us ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd
mls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k] vkSj mls ekSf[kd vk/kkj ij gh gVk;k
x;k] vkSj mlds }kjk 12 ekpZ] 1990 ls 29-02-1991 rd dk;Z fd;k
gSA bl vof/k esa izcU/ku dh vksj ls Hkh Jfed dk muds ;gka dk;Z
djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] ysfdu bl laca/k esa izcU/ku dh vksj ls ;g
dgk x;k gS fd Jfed us dsoy 228 fnu gh dk;Z fd;k gS] tcfd
Jfed dk ;g dguk gS fd mlus 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA
Jfed dh vksj ls bl laca/k esa U;k;ky; ds le{k dksbZ lk{; izLrqr
ugha dh gS fd bl vof/k eas mlds }kjk 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k
gksA
10- esjs fouez er esa Jfed dks gh ;g lkfcr djuk Fkk fd mlus
bl vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS] vkSj mlds }kjk
izekf.kr ugha fd;k x;k gSA tcfd izcU/ku dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ls
;g Li"V gS fd bl vof/k esa Jfed us 240 fnu dk;Z ugha dj dsoy
228 fnu gh dk;Z fd;k gSA lk{kh lhñ ihñ HkkfV;k ds dFkukuqlkj
Jfed dks lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fo'ks"k dk;Z ds fy, gh dqN le; ds
fy, vLFkkbZ rkSj ij j[kk x;k Fkk] vkSj dk;Z lekIr gksus ij mldh
lsok,a vius vki gh lekIr gks xbZ] ftldh lwpuk Jfed dks nh xbZ
FkhA izn'kZ ,eµ1 i= fnukad 31-03-1990 ds }kjk Jfed dks ;g
lwfpr fd;k x;k fd izcU/ku ds ;gka fnukad 30-04-1990 rd gh
dk;Z gS] mlds ckn mls gVk;k tkosxk] vkSj dgha vU;= dk;Z ryk'k
dj ldrs gSA i= izn'kZ ,eµ2 fnukad 01-05-1991 }kjk Hkh Jfed
dks ;g lwfpr fd;k x;k fd mudk dk;Z vLFkkbZ gS] vkSj 30&40 fnu
dh vof/k dk gh 'ks"k gS] dk;Z lekIr gksus ij lHkh vius&vius fy,
dgha vkSj dk;Z ryk'k dj ldrs gSaA bl rjg ls Jfed dks vLFkkbZ rkSj
ij nSfud osru ij dk;Z fo'ks"k ds fy, gh j[kk x;k Fkk] vkSj bl
vof/k esa Hkh Jfed us ,d o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240 ;k mlls vf/kd fnol
dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 2 (oo) (bb) ds vuqlkj fu;kstd vkSj deZdkj ds e/;
lafonk ds lekIr gksus ij mldk uohuhdj.k ugha fd;k gS rFkk dk;Z ds
lekIr gksus ij Jfed dh lsok,a Lor% gh lekIr gks xbZA vr% esjs
fouez er esa ;g NVuh dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrk gSA bl dkj.k vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 (F) ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA
11- vr% izcU/ku }kjk Jfed dk vkxs lsok esa tkjh ugha j[kuk
vkSj mldh fnukad 01-03-1991 ls Lor% lsok,a lekIr ekuk tkrk
mfpr vkSj oS| gSA Jfed fdlh rjg dh lgk;rk izkIr djus dk
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3393
vf/kdkjh ugha gSA mijksDr foospu ds QyLo#i izdj.k esa fuEu
vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS%µ
vf/kfu.kZ;
12- Jfed y{ehukjk;.k iq= Jh lsokjke fuoklh eq.Mksrk]
ok;k&dkyokM] ftyk&t;iqj] jktLFkku dh vksj ls izLrqr LVsVesaV
vkWQ Dyse vLohdkj fd;k tkdj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA vizkFkhZ
izca/ku }kjk izkFkhZ y{ehukjk;.k dks fnukad 01-02-1992 ls lsok esa
ugha j[kdj Lor% lsok lekIr ekuk tkuk mfpr vkSj oS| gSA vr%
Jfed fdlh rjg dh jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
dsnkj yky xqIrk] U;k;k/kh'k
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1622-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj tujy
nwjn'kZu dsUnz 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 05@1994½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-08-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@32@93&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th August, 2015
S.O. 1622.—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. 05/1994) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum Labour Court,
Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Director General, Doordarshan Kendra
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 11.08.2015.
[No. L-42012/32/93-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj
dsl uañ lhvkbZVh 05@1994
jSQjSal% dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k Øekad%
,y&42012@32@93 vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½] ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 28-03-1994
izgykn eh.kk iq= fd'kuk eh.kk] fuoklh larks"kiqjk] rglhy
pkdlw] ftyk&t;iqj] ch&18] chtsih dkWyksuh] Vksad QkVd]
t;iqjA
-----------------izkFkhZ
cuke
Mk;jsDVj] nwjn'kZu dsUnz] >kykuk MwWxjh] t;iqj
----------------vizkFkhZ
mifLFkr
ihVklhu vf/kdkjh] Jh dsnkj yky xqIrk] vkjñ,pñtsñ,lñ
izkFkh dh vksj ls
% Jh vkjñlhñ tSu]
vizkFkh dh vksj ls
% Jh rstizdk'k 'kekZ
fnukad% 30-06-2015
vf/kfu.kZ;
1- Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk Øekad
,y&42012@32@93 vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½ ubZ fnYyh] ls fuEu vuqlwph
dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks fnukad 07-04-1994 dks
bl vk'k; dk izkIr gqvk gS fd&Whether the action of the
Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur in terminating the
services of Shri Prahalad Meena S/o Shri Kishna w.e.f.
01.02.1992 is justified? If not, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?
2- izkFkhZ Jfed izgykn eh.kk dh vksj ls fnukad 06-07-1994 dks
LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k fd mls fnukad
12-04-1989 dks 650@& #i;s izfrekg dh nj ls nwjn'kZu dsUnz esa
?kkl dkVus] lkQ&lQkbZ djus o cxhps dh ns[kHkky djus ds fy,
fu;qDr fd;k x;k] ysfdu mlls izk;% prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dk gh dk;Z
fy;k djrs FksA mDr dk;Z Jfed }kjk dBksj ifjJe] yxu o bZekunkjh
ls fd;k x;k] ysfdu vpkud vizkFkhZ }kjk mls fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk
ds 01 Qjojh] 1992 dks lsok eqDr fd;k x;kA bl ij Jfed }kjk
vizkFkh ls O;fDrxr lEidZ dj fuosnu fd;k] rc vizkFkhZ ds
vf/kdkjh }kjk deZpkjh dks vk'oklu fn;k fd 'kh?kz gh mls dke ij
ys ysxsa] ysfdu dke ij ugha fy;kA bl ij izkFkhZ us 08 twu] 1992 dks
vizkFkhZ ls iathd`r i= }kjk fuosnu dke ij ysus dk fd;k] ysfdu
vizkFkhZ us bldk dksbZ tokc ugha fn;kA bl ij izkFkhZ us ekuuh;
lgk;d Je vk;qDr] Hkkjr ljdkj] t;iqj ds le{k vkS|ksfxd fookn
izLrqr fd;k] ysfdu vizkFkhZx.k dh gB/kfeZrk ds dkj.k dksbZ le>kSrk
ugha gks ldk] ftl ij vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu dsUnzh; ljdkj ds ;gka
izLrqr fd;k] ftUgksaus ekeyk bl vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;kA
3- bl rjg ls vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dh lsok eqfDr vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku dj dh gS] tks
vuqfpr vkSj voS/k gS] D;ksafd vizkFkhZ }kjk lsok eqfDr ls iwoZ mls u rks
dksbZ uksfVl fn;k] u gh foHkkxh; tkap dh vkSj mls lquokbZ dk dksbZ
volj Hkh ugha fn;k rFkk uksfVl ds cnys ,d ekg ds osru dk
Hkqxrku Hkh ugha fd;k gSA bl rjg ls vizkFkhZ }kjk vf/kfu;e ds izkoèkuksa
dh vogsyuk dh xbZ gS] vkSj izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ds i'pkr~ vusd
Jfedksa dks fu;qDr fd;k] ysfdu izkFkhZ dh lsok eqfDr ls iwoZ mUgsa ugha
gVk;k x;k] tks izkFkhZ ls dfu"B FksA izkFkhZ us ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls
3394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vf/kd fujUrj vizkFkhZ ds ;gka dk;Z fd;k gS] vkSj izkFkhZ ls dbZ dfu"B
Jfed vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds ;gka dk;Z dj jgs gSaA vUr esa izkFkZuk dh gS
fd Jfed ds lsok eqfDr vkns'k dks voS/k vkSj vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k
tkdj mls lsok eqfDr vkns'k fnukad 01-02-1992 ls lsok esa ekuk
tkos] vkSj lsok eqfDr fnukad mls gh ls osru HkÙks o vU; ikfj.kkfed
ykHk e; [kpkZ fn;kyk tkosA
4- vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 24-01-1996 dks tokc izLrqr dj
izkjafHkd vkifÙk bl vk'k; dh yh fd vizkFkhZ nwjn'kZu dsUnz] dsUnz
ljdkj dk miØe gS] ftlesa izkFkh us Hkkjr la?k dks i{kdkj ugha
cuk;k gSA lkFk gh izkFkhZ ds i{k esa dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA
izkFkhZ ds gh izkFkuk i= ds vuqlkj mlds }kjk ckx ij j[k&j[kko gsrq
Bsds ij dk;Z fd;k gSA bl gsrq Lo;a mlus vizSy] 89 esa izkFkZuk i=
izLrqr fd;k] tks izn'kZ 1 cry;k gSA
5- vizkFkhZ ds dk;kZy; esa vU; rhu O;fDr;ksa ds }kjk Hkh vkosnu
Bsds ij dk;Z djus gsrq izkIr lHkh vkosnuksa dk rqyukRed fooj.k
rS;kj fd;k] ftlesa izkFkhZ dks Bsds dh nj U;wure ikbZA blh vk/kkj ij
mls dk;Z djus dk Bsdk fn;kA rqyukRed fooj.k izn'kZ&2 gS rFkk ;g
dFku fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks fdlh rjg dh fu;qfDr ugha nh
xbZ gS] cfYd cxhps ds j[k&j[kko gsrq vkdfLed dk;Z Bsds ij fn;k
x;kA vr% izkFkhZ Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS] ftldk vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSa] vkSj vizkFkhZ dk laLFkku
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA
vr% blh vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe [kkfjt djus dk
fuosnu fd;k gSA
6- izkFkhZ us Bsds ij dk;Z djus ds rF; dks tku&cw>dj fNik;k gSA
pwafd izkFkhZ dks Bsds ij fuf'pr dk;Z ds fy, j[kk x;k gSA bl dkj.k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo) (bb) ds rgr izkFkhZ dk
DySe iks"k.kh; ugha gSA izkFkhZ dk ekeyk NVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha
vkrk gS] D;ksafd mls vuqca/k vkSj Bsds ij fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, j[kk
x;k Fkk] ftldk uohuhdj.k ugha gksus ij Bsdk Lor% lekIr gks x;k
gSA vr% LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA
7- izkFkhZ Jfed izgykn eh.kk }kjk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe ds
leFkZu esa Lo;a dh ekSf[kd lk{;] izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ MCY;w&1
yxk;r izn'kZ MCY;w&3 dks iznf'kZr djok;k gSa vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh vksj
ls vkjñ dsñ 'ksydj dh ekSf[kd lk{; fyfic) djokbZ xbZA
8- izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk mls fnukad
12-04-1989 dks 650@& #i;s izfrekg dh nj ls fu;qfDr nh xbZ] vkSj
mlls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Z fy;k tkrk] mlus esgur]
bZekunkjh ls dk;Z fd;k] ysfdu vpkud fnuakd 01-02-1992 dks
lsok eqDr fd;kA lsok eqfDr ls iwoZ mls u rks dksbZ vkjksi i= fn;k] u
gh uksfVl fn;k] u gh mlds fo#) ?kjsyw tkap dh xbZ vkSj mls lquokbZ
dk volj fn, fcuk mldh lsok,a fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds lekIr dh
gSaA bl gsrq izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds vf/kdkjh o deZpkfj;ksa ls
fuosnu fd;k] vkSj mUgksaus Jfed dks iqu% lsok esa fy, tkus dk
vk'oklu fn;kA varr% lsok esa ugha fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk ,d o"kZ esa
240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fujUr fd;k vkSj mldh lsok eqfDr ls igys u
rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl osru fn;k vkSj u gh NVuh ds izko/kkuksa ds
vuqlkj mls izfrdj dh jkf'k vnk dhA izkFkhZ ls dfu"B deZpkfj;ksa dks
vizkFkhZ }kjk ugha gVk;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 1947 ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku dj lsok eqDr fd;k gSA lsok
eqfDr vkns'k dks fujLr dj mls iqu% lsok esa fu;qfDr fd, tkus o bl
vof/k ds vU; ikfj.kkfed ykHk fn, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA
9- blds foijhr vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ
dks fdlh in ij fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd mls fuf'pr dk;Z ,oa
fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, izkFkhZ }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus ij Bsds ij mls
cxhps ds j[k&j[kko ds fy, j[kk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ ds lkFk gh vU; rhu
O;fDr;ksa ds vkosnu Hkh izkIr gq,A izkFkhZ dh rqyukRed :i ls U;wure
nj ikbZ xbZ] bl ij mls Bsds ij dk;Z fn;k x;kA mldh fdlh rjg dh
fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA izkFkhZ us LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe o lk{; esa Bsds ij
j[ks tkus ds rF; dks Nqik;k gSA izkFkhZ ds Bsds dh vof/k vkxs ugha
c<+kbZ xbZA vr% vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (oo) (bb) ds
rgr izkFkhZ dk ekeyk NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS vkSj u gh
vuqca/k dk uohuhdj.k fd;k x;k gSA bl dkj.k Jfed us Bsdk
vof/k lekIr gksus ds i'pkr~ mldk Lor% gh dk;Z djuk can dj
fn;k vkSj LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA
10- izkFkhZ Jfed izgykn eh.kk us viuh lk{; esa LVsVesaV vkWQ
DySe dk leFkZu dj vizkFkhZ }kjk mls fnukad 12-04-1989 ls 650@&
#i;s izfrekg dh nj ls nwjn'kZu dsUnz esa ?kkl dkVus] lQkbZ djus o
cxhps dh ns[kHkky djus ds fy, fu;qDr djuk dgk gS vkSj ;g Hkh
dgk gS fd mls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa gh dk;Z fy;k tkrk FkkA
izn'kZ ,e&1 dks vizkFkhZ }kjk fy[kok;k tkuk crkdj bl ij , ls ch
vius gLrk{kj Lohdkj fd, gSa] ftlds vuqlkj Jfed izgykn eh.kk
us fnukad 12-04-1989 dks funs'kd] nwjn'kZu dsUnz dks izkFkZuk i=
izLrqr dj ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd mlds }kjk jkefuokl ckx] tsMh,
esa nSfud osru ij dke fd;k gS vkSj og 650@& #i;s izfrekg ij
cxhps dk dk;Z Bsds ij djus ds fy, rS;kj gSA ;|fi izkFkhZ us izkFkZuk
i= esa vizkFkhZ ds ;gka Bsds ij dk;Z djus ls bUdkj fd;k gS] ysfdu
izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ ,e&1 ls ;g Li"V gS fd mlus vizkFkhZ ds ;gka Bsds ij
650@& #i;s izfrekg dh nj ls cxhps dh j[k&j[kko ds fy, dk;Z
fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ }kjk mlds i{k esa tkjh fd;k x;k fu;qfDr
vkns'k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ }kjk prqFkZ
Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa fu;qfDr nh xbZ gks] ;g esjs fouez er esa izkFkhZ
dh lk{; ls lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ MCY;w&1
izLrqr dj ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd ls >kykuk Mwaxjh ij ekyh ds dk;Z
ds fy, lsok esa fy;k FkkA blls vizR;{k :i ls ;g vFkZ fudyrk gS
fd mlus vizkFkhZ ds cxhps dh ns[kHkky ds fy, izkFkhZ dh Bsds ij
lsok,a yhA bl izkFkZuk i= esa izkFkhZ us Lo;a dks ekyh ds dk;Z ij lsok
esa ysus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA ekyh dk dk;Z vkSj cxhps dh ns[kHkky
esjs fouez er esa nksuksa gh leku dk;Z gSA izfrj{kk esa lk{kh vkjñdsñ
'ksydj us Hkh izkFkhZ dks Bsds ds vk/kkj ij cxhps dh ns[kHkky djus ds
fy, j[kuk crkdj ;g dgk gS fd Bsds dh vof/k lekIr gksus ds
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3395
i'pkr~ Jfed dk dk;Zdky Lor% gh lekIr gks x;k vkSj blls iwoZ
izkFkhZ us fnukad 12-04-1989 dks izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ ,e&1 izLrqr fd;kA
vU; O;fDr;ksa us Hkh muds ;gka izkFkZuk dh] ysfdu izkFkhZ dh nj U;wure
ik, tkus ij mls Bsds ij dk;Z fn;k] vkSj ftjg esa dgk gS fd rqyukRed
dksVs'ku vk, Fks] ftldk izn'kZ ,e&2 ij fooj.k gS] vkSj Jfed dks
,d efgus dh vof/k ds fy, Bsdk fn;k Fkk] fQj vizSy] 91 ls
flrEcj] 91 rd Bsdk fn;kA
11- bl laca/k esa Jfed dh vksj ls izLrqr fd, x, U;kf;d n`"Vkar
1957 ILLJ 477 (S.C.) Dharangadhra Chemical Works, Ltd.
Vs. State of Saurashtra & others ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd dksbZ O;fDr fu;ksDrk dk deZpkjh
gSA blds fu/kkZj.k ds fy, ;g lwfuf'pr djuk gksxk fd D;k ml
O;fDr ij fu;ksDrk dk fu;a=.k vkSj i;Zos{k.k gSA
12- 2010 ¼126½ FLR 554 (Rajasthan High Court)
Rajasthan State Text Book Board Vs Shri Kajodmal &
another ds ekeys esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ;g
fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd nksuksa gh i{kdkjksa dh lgefr ds fcuk Jfed dks
lafonk ij fu;qDr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
13. 2010 S.C.C. (L&S) 574 Chief Secretary, Haryana &
Another Vs Chetram ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us
;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd tgka fu;ksDrk }kjk lafonk dks lkfcr djus ds
fy, dksbZ lkexzh izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS] vkSj Jfed dh lsok,a lekIr
dh xbZ gSa rks og vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 (F) dk
mYy?kau gSA
14. 2000 (87) FLR 727 (S.C.) Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D.,
Indore Vs Madhukar Purshottam Kolbarkar & another ds
ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS tgka
fu;qfDr vkns'k esa dk;Z dk fuf'pr le; ugha n'kkZ;k gS] vkSj nSfud
osru Hkksxh Jfed dh lsok,a lekIr dh tkrh gSa rc vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 2 (oo) (bb) ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA
15- bl laca/k esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fd, x, U;kf;d
n`"Vkar Services Law Reporter 2002 (4) 672 Nuclear Fuel
Complex, Hyderabad Vs K. Penta Reddy & others ds ekeys
esa ekuuh; vkU/kzizns'k mPp U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd
lafonk ij fof'k"V le; vkSj fof'k"V dk;Z ds fy, j[ks x, Jfed ds
laca/k esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 (F) ds izko/kku
ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA
16- (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 597 Allahabad Bank
Vs Prem Singh ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g
fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd lafonk fy, x, Jfed ds laca/k esa lafonk dh
le; lekfIr ds ckn Lor% mldh lsok,a lekIr gks tkrh gSa] vkSj
mlds ckn og fu;ksDrk dk deZpkjh ugha jgrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (oo) (bb) ds rgr ;g ekeyk
NVuh dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrk gSA
17. 1197 Lab I.C. 2075 (S.C.) Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi
& other Vs State of Bihar & others ds ekeys esa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh
dh fu;qfDr dk;Z dh vko';drk ds vk/kkj ij dh tkrh gS] dksbZ in
/kkfjr ugha djrk gS] vLFkkbZ gS rFkk mldh lsok lekfIr NaVuh dh Js.kh
esa ugha vkrh gSA
18- orZeku ekeys esa Jfed us izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ ,e&1 ij vius
, ls ch gLrk{kj Lohdkj fd, gSa] vkSj lk{; esa 12-04-89 ls nwj n'kZu
dsUæ esa ?kkl dkVus] lkQ&lQkbZ djus o ns[kHkky ds fy, vizkFkhZ
}kjk fu;qDr djuk dgk gSA izn'kZ ,e&1 Jfed }kjk fnukad
12-04-1989 dks gh izLrqr fd;k gS] ftlesa mlds }kjk ;g mYys[k
fd;k gS fd mls ;g irk pyk gS fd ckx ds j[k&j[kko Bsds ij nsuk
pkgrs gSa] vkSj og 650@& #i;s izfrekg esa cxhps dk dk;Z Bsds ij
djus ds fy, rS;kj gSA izfrj{kk esa Hkh mls Bsds ij dk;Z djuk crk;k
x;k gSA vr% ;g ugha yxrk fd vizkFkhZ dk izkFkhZ ds dk;Z ij izR;{k
fu;a=.k vkSj i;Zos{k.k gksA pawfd cxhps dh ns[kHkky vkSj j[k&j[kko
vkdfLed dk;Z gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa esjs fouez er esa izkFkhZ vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e ds rgr Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS] vkSj u
gh izkFkhZ vkSj vizkFkhZ ds e/; fu;ksDrk vkSj deZpkjh ds laca/k gSaA pawfd
izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds ;gka cxhps dh ns[kHkky ds fy, Bsds ij dk;Z fd;k
gSA bl gsrq fnukad 01-04-1991 ls 30-09-1991 rd Hkqxrku Hkh
fd;k gS] vkSj Bsds ij vof/k lekIr gksus ij mldh lsok,a Lor% gh
lekIr gks xbZaA vr% vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dks
n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, esjs fouez er esa izkFkhZ dk ekeyk vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (oo) (bb) ds rgr NVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha
vkrk gSA Jfed dh vksj ls izLrqr fd, x, U;kf;d n`"Vkar orZeku
ekeys ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k dksbZ enn ugha
djrs gSaA vr% vizkFkhZ }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 (f) dk mYya?ku
fd;k gks] ,slk izdV ugha gksrk gSA
19- Jfed ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd Jfed }kjk vizkFkhZ
ds ;gka 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS] ftlds laca/k esa u rks ?kjsyw
tkap dh xbZ gS] vkSj u gh ,d ekg dk osru uksfVl fn;k x;k gSA
tcfd vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd Jfed us muds le{k
,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z gh ugha fd;k gSA
20- bl laca/k esa Jfed dh vksj ls izLrqr fd, x, U;kf;d n`"Vkar
2010 Lab I.C. 1089 Director Fisheries Terminal Division Vs
Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd tgka Jfed dks nSfud osru ij
fy;k x;k] rc mlds fy, 'kkLdh; nLrkost tSls eLVªkSy o vU; dh
igqap cgqr eqf'dy gS] vkSj tc Jfed us ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z
djuk dgk gS] rc fu;ksDrk ij og flf)Hkkj gS fd og lkfcr djs fd
Jfed us ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA mDr ekeys esa
fu;ksDrk ds ikl Jfed ls lsok laca/kh lEiw.kZ nLrkost vius ikl gksrs
gq, Hkh Je U;k;ky; ds funsZ'k ds ckotwn izLrqr ugha fd, vkSj tks
izLrqr fd,] os fo'ks"kkHkk"kh FksA
3396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21- Jfed dh vksj ls izLrqr fd, x, vU; U;kf;d n`"Vkar
2905 (3) WLC 430 Manager, M/s Mittal Siss Ventaring
Company Vs Chetna Ram & Another ds ekeys esa tgka fu;kstu
ds fo#) iathdk] osru iathdk izLrqr ugha dh] rc Je U;k;ky; ds
fu;kstu ds fo#) izfrdwy mi/kkj.k dh] mls ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp
U;k;ky; dh vksj ls ,sls nLrkost izLrqr djus dh dksbZ izkFkZuk ugha
dh xbZ gS u gh vf/kdj.k us vizkFkhZ dks ,sls nLrkost is'k djus ds
fy, funsZf'kr fd;k gSA vr% mDr U;kf;d n`"VkaV orZeku ekeys ds
rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k Jfed dh dksbZ enn ugha
djrs gSaA
22- (2006) 1 S.C.C. 106 R.M. Mellatty Vs Asstt.
Executive Engineer ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us
;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd Jfed us fdlh laLFkku esa ,d o"kZ esa 240
fnu ;k mlls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS] ;g fl) djus dk Hkkj Jfed ij
gh gS] ftls og ekSf[kd vkSj nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr dj rFkk fu;ksDrk
ls nLrkost ryc dj lkfcr dj ldrk gSA
23- J.T. 2002 (2) S.C.C. 238 The Range Forest Officer
Vs S.T. Hadimani ,oa 2004 (8) S.C.C. 195 Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad Shri Niwas ds ekeyksa esa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; us ,slk gh fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gSA lkFk gh ;g
Hkh fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd dsoy 'kiFk i= iLrqr djuk gh i;kZIr ugha
gSA
24- orZeku ekeys esa Jfed us vizkFkhZ ds ;gka fnukad
12-04-1989 ls tuojh] 92 rd dk;Z djuk vkSj fnukad 01-02-
1992 dks mldh lsok,a lekIr djus dk dFku fd;k gS] ysfdu bl
rF; dks lkfcr djus ds fy, Jfed us vius 'kiFk i= ds vykok
vU; dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gSA tcfd vizkFkhZ us Jfed dks
fuf'pr dk;Z vkSj vof/k ds fy, Bsds ij ckx&cxhps ds j[k&j[kko
ds fy, j[kuk dgk gSA Jfed dh vksj ls viuh ekSf[kd lk{; ds
vykok vU; dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gS] vkSj u gh vizkFkhZ ls fdUgha
nLrkostksa dh rHkh ls izkFkZuk dh gSA vr% esjs fouez er esa Jfed ;g
lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gS fd mUgsa viuh ;gka ,d o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240
;k mlls vf/kd fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls
izLrqr fd, x, U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
izLrqr fd, x, U;kf;d n`"Vkar orZeku ekeys esa rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa
ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k dksbZ enn ugha djrs gSaA
25- vr% mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj esjs fouez er esa Jfed dk
;g ekeyk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 26 ¼1½ ds rgr
NVuh dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrk gS] u gh ;g Li"V gks ik;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh
vizkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 01-02-1992 ds vkns'k ls lsok,a lekIr dh gksA
vr% og fdlh rjg dh lgk;rk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
26- mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa fuEu vf/kfu.kZ;
ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS%&
vf/kfu.kZ;
27-
Jfed izgykn eh.kk iq= fd'kuk eh.kk] fuoklh larks"kiqjk]
rglhy & pkdlw] ftyk&t;iqj] ch&18] ch-ts-ih- dkWyksuh] Vksad
QkVd] t;iqj dh vksj ls izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse vLohdkj fd;k
tkdj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSa vizkFkhZ izca/ku }kjk izkFkhZ izgykn eh.kk
dh fnukad 01-02-1992 dks lsokeqDr djuk gh lkfcr ugha gSA vr%
Jfed fdlh rjg dh jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
dsnkj yky xqIrk] U;k;k/kh'k
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1623-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhQksu ftys
bathfu;j] Hkjriqj 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 68@1995½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-08-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@161@94&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th August, 2015
S.O. 1623.—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.
68/1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum Labour Court, Jaipur now as show in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Telecom District Engineer,
Bharatpur and their workman, which was received by the
Central Governent on 11.08.2015.
[No. L-42012/161/94-IR (DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj
dsl ua- lh-vkbZ-Vh- 68@1995
jSQjSal% dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k Øekad
,y&42012@161@94&vkbZ- vkj- ¼Mh;w½ fnukad 16-11-1995
Jh dSyk'k izlkn 'kekZ iq= Jh cqn~/kh yky 'kekZ] eFkqjk njoktk ckgj]
xksyckx jksM] Hkjriqj] jktLFkkuA
µizkFkhZ
cuke
fn Vsyhdke fMfLVªDV bathfu;j] Hkjriqj
µvizkFkhZ
mifLFkr
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh gseUr dqekj tSu] vkj- ,p- ts- ,l-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls%
Jh vkj- lh- tSu
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls%
dksbZ mifLFkr ugha
fnukad vokMZ% 08-07-2014
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3397
vokMZ
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk Øekad
,y&42012@161@94&vkbZñvkjñ¼Mh;w½ fnukad 16-11-1995 fuEu
vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk gSA
"Whether the action of the management of T.D.E.
Bharatpur in terminating the service of Shri Kailash
Prasad Sharma, an unskilled labour w.e.f. 01.09.84 is
legal and Justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?"
2- izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse is'k dj dFku
fd;k fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh HkrhZ tfj;s lk{kkRdkj fnukad 02-08-82 dks
dh x;h] ftlls izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds i= fnukad 26-08-82 ls dk;Z ij
fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ fnukad 01-11-82 ls 31-08-84 rd foi{kh ds
v/khu yxkrkj dk;Zjr jgkA izkFkhZ }kjk ,d o"kZ esa foi{kh ds v/khu
240 fnol ls vf/kd dh lsok iw.kZ dj pqdk Fkk] ijarq foi{kh }kjk
izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k] ,d ekg dk
vfxze uksfVl] uksfVl dh ,ot esa ,d ekg dk vfxze osru vkSj NaVuh
eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q dh
ikyuk ugha dh x;hA izkFkhZ Jfed 1 vizSy 84 ls 18-05-84 rFkk ekg
6@1984 o 7@1984 esa chekj jgk FkkA izkFkhZ ds chekj jgus dh
vof/k Hkh lsok esa x.kuh; gSA foi{kh }kjk nSfud vLFkk;h deZpkjh ds
eSMhdy vodk'k Lohd`r ugha gksrs] ;g dgdj vodk'k ykSVk fn;sA
izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsoklekfIr ds le; fnukad 31-08-84 dks foi{kh
}kjk ,slk dksbZ i= ugha fn;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dks fdl dkj.k ls lsoki`Fkd
fd;k tk jgk gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsok ls gVkus ls iwoZ dksbZ
ofj"Brk lwph ugha cuk;h x;h] tcfd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
ds rgr lsoklekfIr ds 7 fnol iwoZ Jfedksa dh ofj"Brk lwph cuk;k
tkuk vko';d gSA izkFkhZ Jfed nqHkkZouk ls LFkk;h gksus dk gdnkj ugha
cuus nsus ds dkj.k lsok ls gVk;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ fnukad 01-09-84 ls
vuqifLFkr gksrk rks ekg flrEcj 84 esa mlds uke ds vuqifLFkfr
vafdr dh tkrhA izkFkhZ Jfed ds i= fnukad 18-04-88 ij foHkkx
}kjk fnukad 22-04-88 ds i= }kjk Jfed dks lsok ls gVkus dk dkj.k
twfu;j gksuk vafdr gS] tcfd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds ckn u;s Jfedksa
fot; flag] vkseizdk'k dks dk;Z ij fy;k x;k gS] tks vkt Hkh foi{kh
ds ;gka dk;Zjr gSA u;s Jfedksa dks yxkus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ Jfed dks dksbZ
i= ugha Hkstk x;kA izkFkhZ Jfed dks dksbZ pktZ'khV o Li"Vhdj.k ugha
fn;k x;k vkSj u gha mlds fo:) dksbZ tkap dh x;hA izkFkhZ lsok
lekfIr ls csjkstxkj gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr foi{kh dh vuQs;j
yscj izksfDVl gSA vr% izkFkhZ Jfed dks fnukad 01-09-84 ls yxkrkj
lsok esa ekurs gq;s iw.kZ osru HkÙkksa] ykHkksa ,oa ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa
Jfed ds :i esa cgky fd;k tkosaA
3- vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkjafHkd vkifÙk djrs gq;s dFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ
}kjk izLrqr Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k iks"k.kh; ugha gSA foi{kh
laLFkku vkS|ksfxd laLFkku ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fookn 8 o"kZ dh nsjh ls
mBk;k x;k gSA xq.kkoxq.k ij foi{kh dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ ekg vxLr
84 ds ckn Lor% gh fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr jgkA
izkFkhZ dks nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds vk/kkj ij vkdfLed dk;Z
dh miyC/krk ij vkdfLed vk/kkj ij yxk;k x;k FkkA foHkkxh;
fu;ekuqlkj nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed }kjk okLrfod dk;Z ds fnol gh
lsok esa fxus tkrs g®A izkFkhZ }kjk viuh chekjh ds laca/k esa dksbZ izek.k
i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks foi{kh dk;kZy; vfHkys[k vuqlkj
rFkkdfFkr i= fnukad 28-4-88 dHkh ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ Lo;a fcuk
fdlh lwpuk ds lsok ls vuqifLFkr jgk gS] vr% mlds lsoki`FkDdj.k
dk dksbZ iz'u gh ugha mBrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse [kkfjt
fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
4- foi{kh dh vksj ls Jh egs'k izlkn xqIrk lk{; esa ijhf{kr gq;s gSaA
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lo;a izkFkhZ dSyk'k pan 'kekZ lk{; ls ijhf{kr gqvk gSA
vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ftjg dh x;h gSA
5- foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gksus ij izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh
cgl lquh x;hA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA
6- izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ fnukad 01-11-82
ls 31-08-84 rd foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Zjr jgk gSA bl vof/k esa
fnukad 01-04-84 ls 18-05-84 rFkk fnukad 31-05-84 ls 31-07-84
rd chekj jgk] ftlls chekjh laca/kh izek.k i= izn'kZ MCY;w 1 yxk;r
2 rFkk 6 yxk;r 11 ls izekf.kr gSA izkFkhZ ds chekj jgus dh vof/k Hkh
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25ch ds vuqlkj ekus tkus ;ksX; gSA vU;Fkk Hkh
izkFkhZ }kjk ,d CykWd o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh lsok dh gSA izkFkhZ
Jfed dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ foi{kh }kjk 25,Q dh ikyuk ugha
dh x;hA foi{kh ds i= fnukad 28-04-88 }kjk Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dks
twfu;j gksus ds uke ij gVk;k x;k gS] bl rF; dks foi{kh dh lk{; us
Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA vr% foi{kh dk ;g dFku fd izkFkhZ dke NksM+dj
pyk x;k] ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkhZ dks gVk;s tkrs le; vkSñ foñ
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25th o fu;e 77 dh ikyuk ugha dh x;hA foi{kh
ds xokg us ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ls twfu;j loZ
Jh Hkxoku flag iq= Jh ghjk flag] Hkxoku flag iq= Jh eqjkjh] egkjkt
flag] nhipan o vkseizdk'k dks ugha gVk;k x;k vkSj u gh izkFkhZ dks
gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph tkjh dh x;hA foi{kh laLFkku
m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fookn nsjh ls mBk;s tkus dh
vkifÙk dh x;h gS] ;g fcUnq iwoZ esa fuf.kZr gks pqdk gSA dsUnz ljdkj
}kjk nsjh ls fookn mBk;s tkus ds dkj.k fookn esa U;k;fu.kZ;kFkZ vxzsf"kr
ugha djus ij mlds vkns'k fnukad 24-08-94 dks ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk nk;j djus ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kks
ds vuq:i fookn dks U;k;fu.kZ;kFkZ vxzsf"kr fd;k x;k gSA vU;Fkk Hkh
nsjh ds vk/kkj ij jsQjsal dks [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izkFkhZ dh
lsokeqfDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q ,oa 25 th dh ikyuk fd;s fcuk
dh x;h gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Msyh ostst dstqvy yscj
vUMj ih,aMVh fMikVZesaV cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bafM;k ds izdj.k esa
fnukad 27-10-87 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj cukbZ xbZ Ldhe ds
varxZr izkFkhZ ,d o"kZ dj ysus ds dkj.k fu;fer vLFkkbZ etwnj gks
tkrk gS o vkxs fu;ferhdj.k dk ykHk izkIr djrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ
Jfed fiNyk laiw.kZ osru o vU; lHkh ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa cgky
3398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fd;s tkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdks± ds leFkZu
esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s x;s gSa%µ
1- ,lñ chñ flfoy fjV fiVhlu uacj 2813@96 ;wfu;u vkWQ
bafM;k cuke y{ehukjk;.k esa fu.kZ; fnukad 12-02-98
2- vkj ,y McY;w 1995 ¼1½ 704 phQ bathfu;j bjhxs'ku
cuke deys'k o vU;A
3- 2010 ¼124½ ,Q,yvkj 285 jktñ ,xzhdYpj ;wfuoflZVh
cxSjg cuke b.MfLVª;y fVªC;quy o vU;A
4- 2010 II ,y,y ts 277 ¼,lñlhñ½ gjftUnz flag cuke
iatkc LVsV os;jgůlx dkjiksjs'kuA
5- 2011¼130½ ,y ,Q vkj 337 nsosUnz flag cuke eqfuf'kiy
dkmafly lkukSjA
6- Mhch Lis'ky vihy fjV uacj 1551@2012 ;wdks cSad o
vU; cuke ujsUnz dqekj 'kekZ esa fu.kZ; fnukad 09-01-13
7- ,lñchñ flfoy fjV fiVhlu uacj 2484@04 lwjt ey
cuke LVsV vkWQ jktñ o vU; esa fu.kZ; fnukad 21-05-07
8- 1994 II ,y,y ts 689 xkSjh'kadj fo'odekZ cuke bZxy
fLizax b.MLVªht izkñ fyñ o vU;A
9- 2001 II ,y ,y ts 1592 LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk cuke fot;
dqekj o vU;A
10- Mhñ chñ Lis'ky fjV fiVhlu uacj 129@87 enu flag cuke
tt yscj dksVZ esa fu.kZ; fnukad 22-04-87
11- 1999 , vkbZ vkjµ,l lh McY;w 694 ¼,lñlhñ½ lfeLFkk
nqcs cuke flVh cksMZ bVkokA
12- 1991 ¼1½ vkj ,y vkj 577 ukFkZu jsyos U;w nsgyh cuke
tt lhvkbZVhA
7- izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k ds rdksZa dk euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk xgurk
ls voyksdu o v/;;u fd;k x;kA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr
ugha gqvk gSA pwafd mDr jsQjsal jkT; ljdkj }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq izsf"kr
fd;k x;k gSA vr% izdj.k dk xq.kkoxq.k ij esjk fofu'p; fuEu
izdkj ls gSA esjs fouez er esa fu"d"kZ ij igqapus ls iwoZ nksuksa i{kksa dh
vksj ls izLrqr xokgksa ds c;kuksa dh foospuk djuk mfpr gksxkA
8- izkFkhZ dSyk'k izlkn 'kekZ us vius 'kiFk i= ds eq[; ijh{k.k esa
LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks nksgjkrs gq;s dFku fd;k gS fd
og fnukad 01-11-82 ls 31-08-84 rd foi{kh ds v/khu yxkrkj
dk;Zjr jgkA og ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dh lsok iw.kZ dj
pqdk gSA esjh chekjh o fQVus'k ds izek.k i= izn'kZ McY;w 1 o 2 gSA
fnukad 28-04-88 dk foi{kh dk i= ftlesa mls twfu;j gksus ds dkj.k
gVk;k tkuk vafdr gS] izn'kZ McY;w&4 gSA foi{kh dk fnukad
01-12-87 dk i= izn'kZ McY;w&3 gSA foi{kh dk fnukad 16-04-88
dk i= izn'kZ McY;w&5 gS] ftlds }kjk foi{kh us esjk laiw.kZ lsok
fooj.k ekaxk gSA foi{kh }kjk esjh lsok lekfIr ds ckn u;s Jfedksa
fot; flag] vkseizdk'k oxSjg dks dk;Z ij fy;k gS] tks vkt Hkh
foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Zjr gSA ftjg esa izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls
fu;qfDr vkns'k fn;k Fkk] tks U;k;ky; i=koyh esa ugha gSA xokg us
izn'kZ McY;w&4 izkIr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk blds ckn dh fy[kki<+h
ds dkxt dksVZ esa is'k ugha gksuk crk;k gSA chekjh ds dkj.k vodk'k
ij tkus ls iwoZ vodk'k izkFkZuk i= nsuk crk;k gS ysfdu ;g izkFkZuk
i= dksVZ esa is'k ugha djuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA foi{kh laLFkku es lu~
1988 esa Hkh izkFkhZ ls twfu;j Jfed dke ugha dj jgs gks] bl dFku dks
xyr crk;k gSA
9- foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg Jh egs'k dqekj xqIrk us vius
'kiFk i= ds eq[; ijh{k.k esa LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds tokc dks
nksgjkrs gq;s dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a fcuk fdlh lwpuk dks dk;Z ls
vuqifLFkr gks x;k vkSj vxLr 1984 rd dk;Z ij ugha ykSVk] blfy;s
mldk uke flrEcj 1984 ds eLVjksy esa ugha fy[kk x;kA izkFkhZ
Jfed dh lsok;sa bl dk;kZy; }kjk lekIr ugha dh x;hA dStqvy
yscj ds ekeys esa NqfV~V;ksa ds fnuksa dks ugha fxuk tkrk gS] foHkkxh;
fu;ekuqlkj yxkrkj lsok esa dk;Z ij mifLFkr jgus ds fnu gh fxus
tkrs g®A izkFkhZ Lo;a fcuk lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr gqvk gS] vr% lsoklekfIr
o ofj"Brk lwph nsus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrkA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk fookn
8 o"kZ dh nsjh ls mBk;k x;k gSA ftjg esa mDr xokg us vxLr 1984
rd izkFkhZ Jfed ds vuqifLFkr gksus ds dFku dks vlR; crk;k gSA
xokg us izkFkhZ ds 31 vxLr 84 dks mifLFkr gksus ds ckn Hkh 1 flrEcj
dks uke ugha fy[ks tkus ds ckjs esa irk ugha gksuk dFku fd;k gSA lkFk
gh vkxs dgk gS fd Jfed dk uke flrEcj ekg esa 1 rkjh[k dks izkFkhZ
Jfed vuqifLFkr gksxk] ftlls mldk uke ugha fy[k x;kA xokg us
foi{kh laLFkku esa jfookj rFkk vU; vodk'kksa dh x.kuk 240 fnu esa
ugha fxus tkus dk fu;e gksuk crk;k gS] ysfdu ,slk dksbZ fu;e is'k
ugah djuk dgk gSA xokg us izkFkhZ ds nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh gksus ds
dkj.k mls dksbZ uksfVl vkjksi i=] Li"Vhdj.k] uksfVl is] NaVuh eqvkotk
ugha nsuk crk;k gSA izn'kZ McY;w 6 yxk;r 11 ,lMhvks QksUl Hkjriqj
}kjk tkjh djuk crk;k gSA xokg us Jfed Hkxoku flag iq= eqjkjhyky
lcls igys flrEcj 1983 esa nhipan 1984 esa] Hkxoku flag iq= ghjk
flag lcls igys vxLr 84 esa dke ij vk;s FksA izn'kZ McY;w 5
dk;kZy; ds l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh gksuk rFkk bldk Jfed }kjk
Hkstk x;k tokc o vU; dk;Zokgh ds ckjs esa i=koyh ns[kdj gh crk
lduk dFku fd;k gSA xokg us izn'kZ MoY;w 4 ds }kjk Jfed dh lsok
ls gVkus dk tks dkj.k crk;k gS] og lgh gksuk rFkk mlh dkj.k ls
gVk;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA
10- foi{kh }kjk izLrqr tokc esa izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk fookn 8 o"kZ dh
nsjh ls mBk;s tkus ds lacaè esa izkjfEHkd vkifÙk dh x;h gSA bl lacaè
esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk fookn 8 o"kZ dh nsjh ls mBk;s tkus ij izkFkhZ dk
fookn i=kad 40012@161@94 fnukad 24-08-94 }kjk Hkstus ls badkj
fd;k x;k gSA ftlds fo#) izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
esa ;kfpdk nk;j dh tkus ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk dsUnz ljdkj
ds mDr i= fnukad 24-08-94 dks jí fd;k x;k gSA ftlds mijkar
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3399
dsUnz ljdkj }kjk u;s fljs ls mDr jsQjsal vfèfu.kZ; gsrq bl
U;k;kfèdj.k dks izsf"kr fd;k gSA dsUnz ljdkj }kjk bl lewy izfØ;k
dk o.kZu Hkh vius jsQjsal esa fd;k x;k gSA vr% dsUnz ljdkj }kjk
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds mijkar vfèfu.kZ; gsrq izkFkhZ dk
mDr fookn bl U;k;kfèdj.k dks izsf"kr fd;k gSA ftls 8 o"kZ dh nsjh
ugha ekuh tk ldrhA vr% foi{kh dh mDr izkjfEHkd vkifÙk Lohdkj
dh tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA
11- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gSa fd foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ
dh dk;Z ij mifLFkr ds lacaè esa tks izek.k izn'kZ MCY;w 6 yxk;r 11
tkjh fd;s x;s gSa] muesa ls izn'kZ MCY;w 6 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ Jfed
fnukad 01-11-82 ls foi{kh ds vèhu eLVjksy ij dk;Zjr jgk gSA
izkFkhZ }kjk viuh fu;qfDr lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls gksuk crk;k gS]
ysfdu izkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks nLrkost is'k fd;s x;s gSa] muesa fu;qfDr
vkns'k ugha gS] izn'kZ McY;w 6 yxk;r 11 ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS
fd izkFkhZ }kjk 240 fnol ls vfèd dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] ysfdu izkFkhZ
fnukad 01-04-84 ls 18-05-84] 30-05-84 ls 31-07-84 rd chekj
gksus ds dkj.k dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gksuk crk;k gS] blds lacaè esa
izkFkhZ }kjk fpfdRlk izek.k i= izn'kZ MCY;w 1 o MoY;w 2 is'k fd;s
x;s gSaA ysfdu izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk vius 'kiFk i= ,oa Dyse esa ;g
dgha of.kZr ugha fd;k gS fd og fdl chekjh ls xzflr Fkk vkSj viuh
chekjh ds lacaè esa fpfdRld }kjk tkjh iphZ eSMhdy fcyksa dh izfr
vkfn nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s gaSA izkFkhZ }kjk vodk'k ij tkus ls iwoZ
dksbZ izkFkZuk i= foi{k dks fn;k x;k gks] bldh izfr Hkh U;k;kfèdj.k
ds le{k is'k ugha djuk ftjg esa Lohdkj fd;k gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls
izLrqr xokg us izn'kZ MoY;w 4 esa vafdr dkj.k ls gh izkFkhZ Jfed dks
lsok ls gVk;k tkuk rFkk of.kZr rF; lgh gksuk crk;k gSA izn'kZ MCY;w
4 esa ;g Li"V :i ls vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks twfu;j
gksus ds dkj.k ls gVk;k x;k gSA tcfd izkFkhZ dks gVkus ds iwoZ izkFkhZ
Jfed ls twfu;j Jfed Hkh foi{kh laLFkku esa dke dj jgs FksA izkFkhZ
Jfed }kjk ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vfèd dk;Z iw.kZ fd;k x;k gS]
tks mlds chekj jgus dh vofè dks tksM+rs gq;s gksrh gSA ;|fi izkFkhZ
}kjk viuh chekjh ds lacaè esa dsoy fpfdRlk izek.k i= gh is'k
fd;k x;k gS] tcfd fpfdRld iphZ] eSMhdy fcy] vodk'k ij
tkus ls iwoZ vodk'k izkFkZuk i= dh izfr] vodk'k c<+kus gsrq izkFkhZ
Jfed }kjk dksbZ i=kpkj fd;k x;k gks] bl lacaè esa dksbZ Hkh izkFkZuk
i= dh izfr vFkok Mkd jlhn vkfn is'k ugha fd;s gSa] rFkkfi dsoy
ek= eSMhdy izek.k i= dks ekurs gq;s ;g izekf.kr ekuk tkrk gS fd
izkFkhZ Jfed us foxr o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vfèd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ
Jfed }kjk 240 fnol iw.kZ fd;s tkus ds mijkar Hkh foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ
dks lsok ls gVkus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl is] NaVuh eqvkotk ugha
fn;k x;k] tks vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 dh èkjk 25 ,Q
dk mYya?ku gSA tks mfpr ugha gSA vr% vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk vkS|ksfxd
fookn vfèfu;e 1947 dh èkjk 25 ,Q dh ikyuk ugha fd;k tkuk
izdV gksrk gSA
12- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2010¼III½
Mhñ,uñtsñ ¼,lñlhñ½ 1019 lhfu;j lqizhVsaMsaV VsyhxzkQ ¼VªsfQd½
cuke larks"k dqekj rFkk ,lñchñ lhñ McY;wñ] uacj 281@2012 fd'ku
o vU; cuke tt yscj dksVZ la[;k 02 esa fu.kZ; fnukad 08-01-2012
esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfuèkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd bl
rjg ds nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedx.k ftUgksaus 1&2 o"kZ gh y?kq vofè
ds fy;s dk;Z fd;k gks rks mudks lsok esa okfil fy;s tkus dk vkns'k
rFkk cdk;k osru HkÙkksa ds fnyk;s tkus ds vkns'k dks mfpr ugha ekuk
gS] cfYd ,sls ekeyksa esa Jfedx.kksa dks ,deq'r {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k
fn;k tkuk mfpr ekuk gSA fopkj.kh; izdj.k esa Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk
1&2 o"kZ dh y?kq vofè ds fy;s dke fd;k x;k gSA vr% ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds uohure fu"d"kks±
dks eísutj j[krs gq;s izkFkhZ Jfed dks fiNyk rhu ,oa vU; lHkh
ykHk fn;k tkuk rFkk lsok esa iqu% fu;ksftr djuk mfpr ugha le>rk
gw¡A esjs fouez er esa mDr nksukas U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds izdk'k esa izkFkhZ
Jfed dks ipkl gtkj #i;s {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ds :i esa fn;s tkus ls
U;k; ds mís'; dh iwfrZ gks tk;sxhA 2010(III) Mhñ,uñtsñ ¼,lñlhñ½
1019 lhfu;j lqizhVsaMsaV VsyhxzkQ ¼VªsfQd½ cuke larks"k dqekj ds iSjk
la[;k 08 bl ckjs esa egRoiw.kZ fn'kk&funsZ'k iznku djrk gSA blh rjg
,lñchñ lhñMoY;w] uacj 281@2012 fd'ku o vU; cuke tt yscj
dksVZ la[;k 02 esa fu.kZ; fnukad 08-01-2012 ds vfUre nks iSjkxzkQ esa
Hkh bl ckjs esa ekxZn'kZu iznku djrs gSaA fygktk bu uohure U;kf;d
n`"Vkarksa esa iznku fd, x;s fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds eqrkfcd izkFkh Jfed dks
dsoy ipkl gtkj #i;s {kfriwfrZ jkf'k vnk dj nsus ls U;k; ds
mís'; dh iwfrZ gks tk;sxhA
13- izkFkh izfrfufè dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk eSaus
ckjhdh ls v/;ksikar fouezrkiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA izkFkhZ izfrfufè
}kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr dj Jfed dks iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus rFkk
fiNys leLr osru ,oa vU; lHkh ykHk fnyk;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA
bl lacaè esa izkFkhZ izfrfufè }kjk izLrqr n`"Vkarksa ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;k¡
gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls Hkkjh] fHkUurk j[krs gS]
vr% mDr lHkh U;kf;d n`"Vkar izkFkhZ Jfed ds dsl esa ykxw ugha gksrs
gSaA
14- mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr
fd;k tkrk gS%—
vokMZ
^^izkFkhZ Jfed Jh dSyk'k izlkn 'kekZ dh lsokeqfDr fu;kstd
}kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e ds izkoèkuksa dh ikyuk fd;s
fcuk djuk mfpr o oS| ugha gSA pwWfd Jfed dh lsokeqfDr ls
iwoZ foi{kh fu;kstd }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947
ds izkoèkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh x;h gS] vr% Jfed ,deq'r
{kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus dk vfèdkjh gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dks
ipkl gtkj #i;s ,deq'r {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ds :i esa fnyk;s
tkrs gSaA**
15- vokMZ vkt fnukad 08-07-2014 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k
tkdj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk
tkosA
gseUr dqekj tSu] U;k;kèh'k
3400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1624-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947¼1947 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 60@1997½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@444@1994&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th August, 2015
S.O. 1624.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Govenment
hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 60/1997) 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 FCI and their workmen, reveived by
the Central Government on 12/08/2015.
[No. L-20012/444/1994-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMANT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act. 1947
Reference: No. 60/1997
Employer in relation to the management of Bhuringia
Project M/s B.C.C.L.
and Their Workman
Present:
SHRI R.K. SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employer
:- Shre D.K. Verma Advocate
For the workman
:- Shre S. Sharma, Advocate
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated: 27/7/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/444/1994-IR (C-1) dated 21/
02/1997, 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 Claim of the Union that Sh. Mangu
Kumhar and Thirty other (as per list enclosed) were
working at Bhurungia Project since 1985 is correct?
If so, whether these workmen are eligible for
regularization by the management of Bhurungia
Colliery? If so, to what relief are they entitled?"
ANNEXURE
List of workmen
uke
ekfld osru 1250@& tek jkkf'k 62&50
1- ekaxq dqEgkj
9-50@&
dqy tek 32145@&
2- ukxs'oj ikloku
**
**
3- #lku jokuh
**
**
4- >jh jokuh
**
**
5 - ijes'oj
**
**
6- lkèw jokuh
**
**
7- èus'oj jokuh
**
**
8- fxjtk jokuh
**
**
9- ?ku';ke
**
**
10- fd"Vk ckmjh
**
**
11- dkty xksi
**
**
12- 'kadj flag
**
**
13- f'koukFk jokuh
**
**
14- cqèq dqEgkj
**
**
15- fèjt jokuh
**
**
16- VquVqu jokuh
**
**
17- cklnso
**
**
18- cqèu egrks
**
**
19- Hkq[ky jokuh
**
**
20- gjkèu jokuh
**
**
21- Hkwus'oj jokuh
**
**
22- >aVw jokuh
**
**
23- gk: dqEgkj
**
**
24- xqyw dqEgkj
**
**
25- iznhi cuthZ
**
**
26- cafdepan egrks
**
**
27- y{eh dkUr egrks
**
**
28- Hkhek
**
**
29- ckcwyky jokuh
**
**
30- v'kksd
**
**
31- euksgj
**
**
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3401
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 06.02.1997. After receipt of reference, both parties
are noticed, the Sponsoring Union/Workman files their
written statement on 14.07.1997. The management also
files written statement-cum-rejoinder on 31.07.2000.
Both side adduce one witness each on their behalf.
Document of workman marked as W-1 & W-2.
3. The short point to be decided in the reference is
whether mangu kumhar and 30 others are to be regularised
under BCCL in Bhurungia Colliery of Mahuda or not.
4. The workman though submitted that they were
working in the colliery, failed to file any I.D. card gate pass
or appointment letter and except photo copies of certain
document and one certificate, nothing was filed.
5. The management submitted that during conciliation
the Ld conciliation officer did not feel it proper to refer the
dispute only due to interference of the High Court, it is
referred. Fathers name of workman is not before me. The
workmen unable to say in evidence, who engaged them.
He said that they don't have any appointment letter. They
have not produced any I.D. card that they were working in
the colliery.
6. This being the situation without any authenticated
document, like orginal I.D. card or other documents, this
Tribunal unable to hold that the workmen were working in
the colliery. Therefore ordering regularization is not
possible.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that the claim of the Union that Sh. Mangu Kumhar
and Thirty other (as per list enclosed) were working at
Bhurungia Project since 1985 is not correct. Accordingly
regularization is not possible. He is not entitled to get any
relief. Answer of reference is negative.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1625-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj rqdZLFkku ,vj
ykbZUl 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] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
16@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@08@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@11@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th August, 2015
S.O. 1625.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/
2011) 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 M/s.
Turkmenistan Air Lines and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 12/08/2015.
[No. L-11012/11/2011-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 16 of 2011. Reference No. L-11012/11/
2011-IR(CM-I) dated 24.8.2011.
Shri Ravi Kumar, ex-loader son of Shri Om Prakash, village
Baknour, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur.
..........Workman
Versus
1. The General Manager, Tukmenistan Air Lines,
N-1, BMC House Middle Circle Cannaught
Place, New Delhi.
2. Station Manager, Turkmenistan Airlines, A-203,
Ranjit Avenue Ajnala, Amritsar (Punjab)
...Respondents
Appearance :
For the workman:
Workman in person
For the management:
None
Ex-PARTE AWARD
Passed on 31.07.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-11012/11/2011-IR(CM-I) dated
24.8.2011 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the General Manager, The
General Manager, Turkmenistan Air Lines, N-1,
BMC House Middle Circle Cannaught Place, New
Delhi & Station Manager, Turkmenistan Airlines,
A-203, Ranjit Avenue Ajnala road Amritsar in
terminating the services of Shri Ravi Kumar, ex-
loader son of Shri Om Prakash, village Baknour,
Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur Punjab w.e.f.
17.11.2009 is just valid and legal? To what relief
the workman concerned is entitled to?"
3402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The workman filed claim statement stating therein
that he was employed as loader with the management in
April 2000 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2400/- He was
also issued ESI Card w.e.f. 2.10.2006 in respect of
member of the family of the workman. Declaration form
was also filled up and in the month of November 2009,
the workman was drawing salary of Rs. 5260/- per month.
On 17.11.2009 the workman was restrained entry into the
premises of the management for doing the job of a loader
on false and frivolous ground. It is further pleaded that
although the workman has put in more than 240 days of
service, yet no notice of termination or charge sheet was
issued to the workman. No retrenchment compensation
was given to the workman at the time of termination. It is
also pleaded that junior to the workman were retained in
service and even new recruitments have been made by the
management in violation of the provision of the I.D. Act
1947. It is prayed that workman may kindly be ordered to
be reinstated in service with continuity and all other
attendant benefits including back wages and arrear of salary
in the regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of his termination
i.e. 17.11.2009.
3. The management feild written statement.
Preliminary objection has been taken that workman had
earlier filed an application for the same relief before the
Labour Inspector Amritsar and the dues amounting to
Rs. 2981/- vided demand draft No. 700797 dated
23.6.2010 were given to the workman towards the full
and final settlement of his claim and now the present
statement of claim before this court on the same ground
involving the same alleged cause of action is legally not
maintainable and barred under the law, hence the same
deserves to be dismissed. It is also that when the workman
was posted as loader, a passenger had made a complaint
that Rs. 2000/- illegally charged from him for adjusting
his extra baggage and in this illegal activity workman was
involved along with other as informed by the CISF. It is
further pleaded that earlier also many times, workman
indulged in such illegal activities. These acts and omission
on the part of the workman amounts to dereliction of duty
and are gravest of misconduct and injured and malign the
reputation and image of the management in public at
International Airport. It is further pleaded that workman
got no cause of action. It is also pleaded that workman is
habituated to taking liquor while on duty and used to
misbehave and used filthy language which constitute grave
misconduct. He was also in the habit of demanding money
from the old and infirm passenger while providing wheel
chairs. The workman was caught by CISF for taking bribe
of Rs. 2000/- for which the management prepared show-
cause notice but the workman refused to accept and left
the office in order to avoid any disciplinary action. The
management advised Ravi Kumar to report for duty through
his counsel but the intentionally and deliberately failed
to report on duty. The workman left the service on his
own freewill and volition. It is submitted by the
management that the claim of the workman is belated one
and barred by the principles of delay and laches. It is prayed
that there is no merit in the reference and the same may
be declined.
4. Workman filed rejoinder to the written statement
specifically denying the allegation of receiving the DD
for Rs. 2981 as full and final settlement of his dues and
claim. Rather it is pleaded that the above DD was for salary
of 16 days. In rejoinder the workman also specifically
controverted the allegation of the management of
receiving Rs. 2000/- from the passenger and complaint
of CISF.
5. In evidence, the workman placed on record his
affidavit. The workman also placed on record documents
fifteen in numbers as per detail in index.
6. As none appeared for the management despite
opportunities, the management was proceeded ex-parte
and affidavit and documents of the workman taken on
record in evidence.
7. As there was none for the management, therefore,
arguments of the workman were heard. The workman in
his submission stated that he worked with the management
from April 2000 till 17.11.2009 and his services were
illegally terminated without complying with the provisons
of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. No one months notice
or pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation
has been paid to the workman as per the provisions of
law. It is further submitted by the workman that no full
and final settlement ever took place. What to say of
enquiry even no explanation was ever called by the
management. The workman submitted that his termination
it gross violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947 and
the management may be directed to reinstate the workman
with full back wages with all consequential relief.
8. I have gone through the record of the case. In written
statement the management pleaded that workman had
earlier filed an application for the same relief before the
Labour Inspector Amritsar and the dues amounting to
Rs. 2981/- vided demand draft No. 700797 dated
23.6.2010 were given to the workman towards the full
and final settlement of his claim and now the present
statement of claim before this court on the same ground
involving the same alleged cause of action is legally not
maintainable and barred under the law, hence the same
deserves to be dismissed. It is also pleaded that when the
workman was posted as loader, a passenger had made a
complaint that Rs. 2000/- illegally charged from him for
adjusting his extra baggage and in this illegal activity
workman was involved along with other as informed by
CISF. It is further pleaded that earlier also many times,
workman indulged in such illegal acivities. These acts and
omission on the part of the workman amounts to
dereliction of duty and are gravest of misconduct and
injured and malign the reputation and image of the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3403
management in public at International Airport. It is further
pleaded that workman got to cause of action. It is also
pleaded that workman is habituated to taking liquor while
on duty and used to misbehave and used fifty language
which constitute grave misconduct. He was also in the
habit of demanding money from the old and inform
passenger while providing wheel chairs. The workman was
caught by CISF for taking bribe of Rs. 2000/- for which
the management prepared show-cause notice but the
workman refused to accept and left the office in order to
avoid any disciplinary action. All these allegations have
been leveled by the management. Not a single documents
has been filed by the management to substantiate these
allegations. In its written statement, the fact that workman
worked with the management from April 2000 till
17.11.2009 not denied by the management. He was also
not paid any retrenchment compensation and notice or
one month pay in lieu of notice. The claim of the workman
also not rebutted by the management that junior to the
workman were retained in service and new recuritments
have been made which is also violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the I.D. Act. 1947. If the workman committed
misconduct, the management is under obligation to
conduct the enquiry. There is no such record filed by the
management. Rather the workman substantiated his claim
statement by submitting documents. The copy of the draft
of Rs. 2981/- which the workman produced on record
reveals
that
it
is
for
the
16 days salary and nowhere on it written as full and final
settlement of the claim of the workman.
9. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case, it
is well established by the workman that he worked with
the management from April 2000 till 17.11.2009 when
his services were terminated without following the
procedure as prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act
1947. There is nothing on the record to show that the
workman was paid any retrenchment compensation and
one month pay in lieu of notice. No enquiry was also held
by the managment. In view of the above, the termination
of the workman w.e.f 17.11.2009 is setaside. The
management is directed to reinstate the workman with
full back wages along with all consequential benefits
within one month from the date of the publication of the
award. The reference is answered accordingly.
10. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy
be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
31.07.2015
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1626-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 53@2010½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2015
S.O. 1626.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/
53/2010) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of SCCL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 13.08.2015.
[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,
GODAVARIKHANI.
Present:— SRI G.V. KRISHNAIAH,
Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 53 OF 2010
Monday, the 18th day of May, 2015
Between:—
Palle Prabhakar, S/o. Posham, Aged about 41 years,
Occ: Ex. Employee, R/o. H.No. 8-3-147, Vinobanagar,
Godavarikhani, Mandal Ramagundam of Karimnagar Dist.
...Petitioner
And
1. The Chief General Manager,
SCC Ltd., Post Srirampur, District Adilabad.
2. The Managing Director,
SCC Ltd. Kothagudem, Dist. Khammam.
...Respondents
This case coming before me for final hearing in the
presence of Sri S. Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the
petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the
Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over
for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the
following:—
AWARD
1. This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act
challenging the dismissal of the petitioner passed by the
respondents praying for his reinstatement into service with
continuity of service, all attendant benefits and full back
wages.
3404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Petitioner was dismissed from service by the
respondents vide office order dt. 24-10-2007 after holding
domestic enquiry on the following charge.
CHARGE:—
"Clause 25.25 - Habitual late attendance or habitual
absence from duty without sufficient cause."
3. Petitioner challenges his dismissal on the following
grounds:—
(a) The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on
20-07-1999 by the 1st respondent.
(b) The petitioner discharged his duties to the fullest
satisfaction of superiors till his removal from
service and his services are governed by various
standings orders of SC Company. The petitioner
put in seven years of service in the company and
he is entitled to seek protection U/S. 25 H of ID
Act and the petitioner was not reviewed by High
Power Committee to consider under
absenteeism cases.
(c) The petitioner put in 145 days of attendance in
2003, 136 days in 2004, 118 days in 2005 and
only 57 musters in 2006. The petitioner
participated in the enquiry. He stated that his
absence due to ill-health of his father and also
the death of his elder brother.
(d) The enquiry conducted by the respondents in null
and void as it was not conducted properly.
(e) Punishment of dismissal from service is
extremely harsh, highly excessive and shockingly
disproportionate.
Hence, the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
4. In response to this challenge, respondents filed
counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The
respondents company being mining industry is a Central
Government subject and the petitioner ought to have
approached the CGIT, Hyderabad. This petition is not
maintainable before this Court and is liable to be
dismissed.
The petitioner was appointed in the respondents
company as Badli Filler on 25-08-2000 on compassionate
grounds. The petitioner was a chronic absentee and was
issued charge sheet for putting in only 57 musters in the
year 2006. The following attendance particulars of the
petitioner indicate the fact that the petitioner was not
regular to his duties and he had not put in required 190
musters during the period from 2001-2006.
Sl. No.
Year
No. of musters
1.
2001
126
2.
2002
98
3.
2003
145
4.
2004
136
5.
2005
118
6.
2006
57
7.
Aug 2007
55
During the period from January, 2006 to December,
2006, the petitioner had put in only 57 musters. As the
above act amounted to misconduct under Standing Orders
Clause No. 25.25 of the company, the petitioner was
charge sheeted. After considering the documentary
evidence and other evidence on record, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his unbiased report holding that the
petitioner is guilty of misconduct under company standing
orders. The petitioner was issued show-cause notice.
5. The respondents company after considering the past
record of the petitioner and on findings that there were no
extenuating circumstances for taking a lenient view was
constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service. The
respondents company conducted the enquiry proceedings
duly in accordance with the principles of natural justice
and law giving full opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore,
the respondents pray to dismiss the petition without
granting any relief to the petitioner.
6. During the course of hearing, Ex. W-1 to Ex. W-4 and
Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-10 are marked.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on
record.
8. On consideration of respective contentions of the
parties, the following points require to be determined:—
1. "Whther this Tribunal has got jurisdiction?"
2. "Whether the punishment of dismissal of the
petitioner is justified and proportionate?"
9. POINT No: 1
As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reported
in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11 between U. Chinnappa And
Cotton Corporation of India, this Court has got jurisdiction
to entertain the dispute raised by the petitioner. Hence,
the point is accordingly answered in favour of the
petitioner.
10. POINT No: 2
Charge sheet is marked as Ex. M-1 and Explanation of
the petitioner there-to is marked as Ex. M-2. The
explanation under Ex. M-2 reveals that since health of his
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3405
father was not good and due to the demise of his brother,
petitioner absented to this duties. He prayed to excuse
him and assured regular attendance in future. Petitioner
participated in the domestic enquiry and his settement is
on the same line as under Ex. M-2. During cross
examination petitioner admitted that he did not inform
ill-health of his father, death of his brother and his absence
to the respondents. Report of the enquiry officer marked
as Ex. M-6 shows that during the year 2003, petitioner
put-in 145 musters, during 2004 he put-in 136 musters
and during 2005 he put-in 118 musters. During the year
2006 he put-in 57 musters only. As per the enquiry
statement of the petitioner at page No. 5 under Ex. M-6
and his explanation to the charge sheet under Ex. M-2,
petitioner absented to duties due to ill-health of his father
and demise of his brother. He assured that he will attend
to his duties regularly in future.
11. In a decision reported in Division bench Judgment
of Gujarath High Court reported in 1982 LAB. IC. 1031
between: R.M., Parmar Vrs Gujarath Electricity Board,
the following guidelines were laid down in the matter of
inflicting punishment of discharge and dismissal:—
1. In a disciplinary proceeding for an alleged fault of
an employee, punishment is imposed not in order to seek
retribution or to give vent to feelings of wrath.
2. The main purpose of a punishment is to correct the
fault of the employee concerned by making him more
alert in the future and to hold out warning to the other
employees to be careful in the discharge of their duties
so that they do not expose themselves to similar
punishment. And the approach to be made is the approach
parents make towards an erring or misguided child.
3. It is not expedient in the interest of the
administration to visit every employee against whom a
fault is established with the penalty of dismissal and to
get rid of him. It would be counter-productive to do so
for it would be futile to expect to recruit employees who
are so perfect that they would never commit any fault.
4. In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness it
has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is
commensurate with the magnitude of the fault. Surely one
cannot rationally or justly impose the same penalty for
giving a slap as one would impose for homicide.
5. When different categories of penalties can be
imposed in respect of the alleged fault, one of which is
dismissal from service, the disciplinary authority perforce
is required to consult himself for selecting the most
appropriate penalty from out of the range of penalty
available that can be imposed, having regard to the nature,
content and gravity of the default. Unless the disciplinary
authority reaches the conclusion that having regard to the
nature, content and magnitude of the fault committed by
the employee concerned, it would be absolutely unsafe
to retain him in service, the maximum penalty of dismissal
cannot be imposed. If lesser penalty can be imposed
without seriously jeopardizing the interest of the
employees the disciplinary authority cannot impose the
maximum panalty of dismissal from service. His is bound
to ask the inner voice and rational faculty why a lesser
penalty cannot be imposed.
6. It cannot be over looked that by and large it is
because the maximum penalty is imposed and total
ruination stares one in the eyes that the employee
concerned is obliged to approach the court and avail the
costly time-consuming machinery to challenge in
desperation the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
If a lesser penalty was imposed, he might not have been
obliged to take recourse to costly legal proceedings which
result in loss of public time and also result in considerable
hardship and misery to the employee concerned.
7. When the disciplinary proceedings end in favour of
the employee, the employer has often to pay back wages
say for about 5 years without being able to take work from
the employee concerned. On the other hand, the employee
concerned would have had to suffer economic misery and
mental torture for all these years. Even the misery of being
obliged to remain idle without work would constitute an
unbearable burden. And when the curtain drops every one
is left with a bitter taste in the mouth. All because the
extreme penalty of dismissal or removal is imposed
instead of a lighter one.
8. Every harsh order of removal from service creates
bitterness and arouses feeling of antagonism in the
collective mind of the workers and gives raise to a feeling
of class conflict. It does more harm than good to the
employer as also to the society.
9. Taking of a petty article by a worker in a moment of
weakness when he yields to a temptation does not call for
an extreme penalty of dismissal from service. More
particularly, when he does not hold a sensitive post of
trust (pilferage by a cashier or by a store keeper from the
stores in his charge, for instances, may be viewed with
seriousness). A worker brought up and living in an
atmosphere of poverty and want when faced with
temptation, ought not to, but may yield to it in a moment
of weakness. It cannot be approved, but it can certainly be
understood particularly in an age when even the rich
commit economic offences to get richer and do so by
and large with impunity (and even tax evasion or possession
of black money is not considered to be dishonorable by
and large). A penalty of removal from service is therefore
not called for when a poor worker yields to a momentary
temptation and commits an offence which often passed
under the name of kleptomania when committed by the
rich.
12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that a Badli Filler, petitioner was appointed in
the respondents company as Badli Filler on 25-8-2000
on compassionate grounds and till the year 2005, he put-
in best attendance. Due to domestic problems already put-
3406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
forth by the petitioner to the respondents in his
explanation to the charge sheet and during enquiry, he
could not attend to his duties during the year 2006 for
100 musters and put-in 57 musters. Hence, he contended
that extreme punishment of dismissal is not justified. On
the other hand it is argued on behalf of the learned counsel
for the respondents that the petitioner was a chronic
absentee, he had put-in only 57 musters in the year 2006,
that even after counseling and undertaking marked as
Ex.M-3, he did not attend to duties during the year 2006
and as such he was dismissed from service.
13.
Admittedly petitioner joined in the year 2000
and till 2005, he had put-in good attendance as shown in
the charge sheet marked as Ex. M-2 and enquiry report
marked as Ex. M-6. He may not have been able to attend
to his duties during 2006 due to personal problems
explained by the petitioner in his reply to charge sheet
and during enquiry. Therefore, in view of my above
discussion and documentary evidence on record, I hold
that this is a fit case where this Court can exercise
discretion U/Sec. 11 of ID Act and the petitioner deserves
to be reinstated into service as afresh Badli Filler to meet
the ends of justice.
14.
In the result, the order of dismissal dt. 24-10-
2007 marked as Ex. M-8 is set aside and respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as ''Afresh
Badli Filler'' subject to physical fitness for the post. The
petitioner is not entitled to any back wages, continuity of
service or any other attendant benefits.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by
me in open Court, on this the 18th day of May, 2015.
G.V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman:-
For Management:-
-Nil-
-Nil-
EXHIBITS
For workman:—
Ex.W-1
Dt.
02-09-2010
Demand notice
Ex.W-2
Dt.
23-01-2008
Dismissal order issued by
Director (PA&W),
Kothagudem
Ex.W-3
Dt.
24-10-2007
Dismissal order issued by
General Manager,
Srirampur area.
Ex.W-4
Dt.
20-07-1999
Office order, appointment
order x. copy
For Management:-
Ex.M-1
Dt.
26-03-2007
Charge sheet
Ex.M-2
Dt.
03-04-2007
Explanation to charge
sheet
Ex.M-3
Dt.
19-04-2007
Undertaking submitted by
the
petitioner
after
counseling regarding
improvement
of
attendance
Ex.M-4
Dt.
06-07=2007
Enquiry notice
Ex.M-5
Dt.
18-07-2007
Record
of
enquiry
proceedings
Ex.M-6
Dt.
19-07-2007
Enquiry report
Ex.M-7
Dt.
25-07-2007
Show cause notice
Ex.M-8
Dt.
24-10-2007
Dismissal order
Ex.M-9
Dt.
25-03-2003
Charge sheet (previous)
Ex.M-10
Dt.
22-09-2004
Letter issued to the
petitioner
by
the
respondent regarding
copy of punishment
reducing
the
SPRA
(increments)
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1627-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2015
S.O. 1627.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Indus.
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/11/
2011) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 13.08.2015.
[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3407
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
GODAVARIKHANI.
Present-
SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH,
Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.
Industrial Dispute No. 11 of 2011
Monday, the 13th day of April, 2015
Between:—
Buddi Srinivas, S/o Late Bheemaiah, Aged about 23 years,
Occ: ExBadli Filler, E.C. No. 2373336, RK-1A Incline,
R/o H. No. 9-273, Arunakka Nagar,
PO Srirampur, Dist. Adilabad.
--Petitioner.
AND
1. The Colliery Manager,
SCC Ltd., RK-1A Incline, PO. Mandamarri, District
Adilabad.
2. The General Manager,
SCC Ltd., Mandamarri Area, PO. Mandamarri,
District Adilabad.
3. The Chairman & Managing Director,
SCC Ltd., PO: Kothagudem, Dist. Khammam.
--Respondents.
This case coming before me for final hearing in the
presence of Shri N. Kishan Rao, Advocate for the petitioner
and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the
Respondents, and having been heard and having stood
over for consideration till this day, The Tribunal Delivered
the following:—
A W A R D
1. This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act
challenging the dismissal of the petitioner passed by the
respondents praying for his reinstatement into service with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2. Petitioner was dismissed from service by the
respondent vide office order dt. 12.10.2009 after holding
domestic enquiry on the following charge.
CHARGE
"For your habitual absence from duty without
sufficient cause and put in only (40) Actual Musters
during the year 2007".
3. Petitioner challenges his dismissal on the following
grounds:—
(a) The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on
20.11.2006 under dependent employment scheme.
(b) The petitioner has undergone basic training
satisfactorily till February, 2007 and he was posted
to work under the control of the 1st respondent.
The respondents have engaged the petitioner
for coal filling as Badli Coal Filer against the
absentee vacancies of regular Coal Fillers from
May 2007.
(c) The atmosphere and water did not suit the
petitioner. Due to the strenuous coal filling work
in the underground mine, the petitioner suffered
from severe ill health from July 2007 and not
attended regularly.
(d) The petitioner submitted his satisfactory
explanation explaining the reasons for not
attending coal filling underground duty regularly.
(e) The respondents conduted a farce of enquiry and
the petitioner participated in the enquiry. Domestic
enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly.
The findings of the enquiry officer are highly
perverse and biased.
(f) Punishment of dismissal from service is extremely
harsh, highly excessive and shockingly
disproportionate.
Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
4. In response to this challenge, respondents filed
counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The
respondents company being mining industry is a Central
Government subject and the petitioner ought to have
approached the CGIT, Hyderabad. This petition is not
maintainable before this Court and is liable to be dismissed.
The petitioner being a chronic absentee from the date
of appointment itself had put in only 40 musters in the year
2007. Therefore the petitioner was charge sheeted under
clause 25.25 of company's standing orders. After
considering the documentry evidence and other evidence
on record, the enquiry officer submitted his unbaiased report
holding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct under
company standing orders. The petitioner was issued show
cause notice.
5. The respondents' company after considering the past
record of the petitioner and on findings that there were no
extenuating circumstances for taking a lenient view was
constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service. The
respndents company oconducted the enquiry proceedings
duly in accordance to the principles of natural justice and
law giving full opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the
respondents pray to dismiss the petition without granting
any relief to the petitioner.
6. Counsel for the petitioner filed Memo U/Sec. 11-A of
ID Act, stating that he is not challenging the validity of
domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents and
praying this Trubunal to decide the quantum of relief on
3408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the basis of the material available on record.
7. Respondents filed written arguments.
8. Dduring the course of hearing. Ex.M-1 to Ex. M-9
are marked on behalf of the respondents.
9. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on
record.
10. On consideration of respective contentions of the
parties the following points required to be determined:-
1. "Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction?"
2. "Whether the punishment of dismissal of the
petitioner is Justified and propertionate?"
11. Point No: 1
As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reported
in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11 between U. Chinnappa And
Cotton Corporation of India, this Court has got jurisdiction
to entertain the dispute raised by the petitioner. Hence, the
point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner.
12. Point No: 2
The petitioner did not give any reply to the charges
leveled against him. As per the charge sheet marked as Ex.
M-1, he was absent for 260 days during the year 2007. As
per the enquiry statement of the petitioner at page No.8,
under Ex.M-3 the petitioner asbented to duties due to
personal problems. He assured that he will be more careful
and will not remain absent without prior sanction of leave
in future.
13. In a decision reported in Division Bench Judgment
of Gujarat High Court reported in 1982 Lab IC 1031
between: R.M. Parmar VRS., Gujarat Electricity Board,
the following guide lines were laid down in the matter of
inflicting punishment of discharge and dismissal:—
1. In a discriplinary proceeding for an alleged fault
of an employee, punishement is imposed not in
order to seek retribution or to give vent to feelings
of wrath.
2. The main purpose of a punishment is to correct
the fault of the employee concerned by making
him more alert in the future and to hold out warning
to the other employees to be careful in the
discharge of their duties so that they do not
expose themselves to similar punishment. And
the approach to be made is the approach parents
make to wards san erring or misguided child.
3. It is not expedient in the interest of the
administration to visit every employee against
whom a fault is established with the penalty of
dismissal and to get rid of him. It would be
counter-productive to do so for it would be futile
to expect to recruit employees who are so
perfect that they would never commit any fault.
4. In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness
it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is
commensurate with the magnitude of the fault
Surely, one cannot rationally or justly impose the
same penalty for giving a slap as one would
impose for homicide.
5. When different categories of penalties can be
imposed in respect of the alleged fault, one of
which is dismissal from service, the disciplinary
authority perforce is required to consult himself
for selecting the most appropriate penlty from out
of the range of pentalty available that can be
imposed, having regard to the nature, content and
gravity of the default. Unless the disciplinary
authority reaches the conclusion that having
regard to the nature, content and magnitude of
the fault committed by the employee concerned,
it would be absolutely unsafe to retain him in
service, the maximum penalty of dismissal cannot
be imposed. If a lesser penalty can be imposed
without seriously jeopardizing the interest of the
employees the disciplinary authority cannot
impose the maximum pensalty of dismissal from
service. He is bound to ask the inner voice and
rational faculty why a lesser penalty cannot be
imposed.
6. It cannot be over looked that by and large it is
because the maximum penalty is imposed and total
ruination stares one in the eyes that the employee
concerned is obliged to approach the court and
avail the costly time-consuming machinery to
challenge in desperation the order passed by the
disciplinary authority. If a lesser penalty was
imposed, he might not have been obliged to take
recourse to costly legal proceedings which result
in loss of public time and also result in considerable
hardship and misery to the employee concerned.
7. When the disciplinary proceedings and in favour
of the employee, the employer has often to pay
back wages say for about 5 years withbout being
able to take work from the employee concerned.
On the other hand, the employee concerned would
have had to suffer economic misery and mental
torture for all these years. Even the misery of being
obliged to remain idle without work would
constitute an unbearable burden. And when the
curtain drops every one is left with a bitter taste
in the mouth. All because the extreme penalty of
dismissal or removal is imposed instead of a
lighter one.
8. Every harsh order of removal from service
creates bitterness and arouses feeling of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3409
antagonism in the collective mind of the workers
and gives raise to a feeling of class conflict. It
does more harm that good to the employer as
also to the society.
9. Taking of a petty article by a worker in a moment
of weakness when he yields to a temptation does
not call for a extreme penalty of dismissal from
service. More particularly, when he does not hold
a sensitive post of trust (pilferage by a cashier
or by a store keeper from the stores in his
charge, for instances, may be viewed with
seriousness). A worker brought up and living in
an atmosphere of poverty and want when faced
with temptation, ought not to, but may yield to it
in a moment of weakness. It cannot be approved,
but it can certainly be understood particularly in
an age when even the rich commit economic
offences to get richer and do so by and large with
impunity (and even tax evasion of possession of
black money is not considered to be
dishonorable by and large). A penalty of removal
from service is therefore not called for when a
poor worker Yields to a momentary temptation
and commits an offence which often passed
under the name of kleptomania when committed
by the rich.
14. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that as Badli Filler, petitioner was
shown coal filling work in the absentee vacancies
of regular coal fillers and he was not given work
on all the days of a month during the charge
sheeted period. He further contended that the
petitioner joined in the year 2006 and he was
not able to adjust to the strenuous underground
work of coal filling duty in the short span of time.
On the other hand it is argued on behalf of the
learned counsel for the respondents that the
petitioner was a chronic absentee, he had put-in
only 40 musters in the year 2007 that even after
counseling he did not attend to duties during the
year 2008 and as such he was dismissed from
service.
Admittedly petitioner joined in the year 2006
and he may not have been able to adjust to the
strenuous work of coal filling and he had put in
less than (3) years of service only and in view of
the facts circumstances of the case discussed
supra, I hold that it is a fit case where this Court
can exercise discretion U/Ses. 11 of ID Act and
the petitioner deserves to be reinstated into
service as afresh Badli Filler to meet the ends
of justice.
15. In the result, the order of dismissal dt.
12.10.2008 marked as Ex. M-9 is set aside and
the respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner into service as "Afresh Badli Filler"
and he shall be subjected to medical test for the
post. The petitioner is not entitled to any back
wages, continuity of service and any other
attendant benefits.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by
me in open Court, on this the 13th day of April, 2015.
G.V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman:-
For Management:-
-Nil-
-Nil-
EXHIBITS
For workman:-
-Nil-
For Management:-
Ex. M-1
Dt.
07.01.2008
Charge sheet, O/copy
Ex. M-2
Dt.
24.01.2008
Enquiry memo
Ex. M-3
Dt.
30.01.2008
Enquiry proceedings
Ex. M-4
Dt.
30.01.2008
Undertaking letter given
by the petitioner after
undergoing counseling
Ex. M-5
Dt.
13.02.2008
Enquiry report.
Ex. M-6
Dt.
08.03.2008
Letter issued to the
petitioner by Dy. GM, RK-
1A Incline asking him to
attend counseling on
12.3.2008
Ex. M-7
Dt.
21.04.2008
Show cause notice
Ex. M-8
Dt.
08.08.2008
Postal Ack, to show cause
notice
Ex. M-9
Dt.
12.10.2008
Dismissal order
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1628-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k] esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uñ 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 130@2013½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&22011@15@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
3410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2015
S.O. 1628.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the (Award Ref. No.130/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, New Delhi as shwon in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Food
Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 13/08/2015.
[No. L-22011/15/2013 - IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. No. 130/2013
Sh. Srinath Yadav,
Labour mate and FSD/FCI Roza Depot,
FCI Mazdoor Association, U.P Region, Saray Taki.
Vs.
1. Managing Director,
Food Corporation of India, 16-20, 12 Khamba
Road, New Delhi-110001.
2 Area Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
287, Train Bahadur Ganj,
Shahjahanpur (PU) ,
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide
notification No.L-22011/15/2013-IR(CM-II)] dated
10.12.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the demand of FCI Mazdoor Association
UP region through his representative Shri Srinath
Yadav dated 30.08.2013 against the Management of
Area Manager, FCI, Shahjahanpur (UP) and MD, FCI
HQ, New Delhi for regularization of services 453
Direct Payment System (DPS) workers (as per the
list enclosed) in FCI Roza Depot, Shahjahanpur
(UP), is legal and justified? It not to what relief the
said workers are entitled to and from which date?
On 30.12.2013 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 130/2013 and claimants
were called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen
days from date of service of notice. Which was required
to be accompanied with relevant documents and list of
witnesses.
After service of notice workmen/claimants filed claim
statement on 23.01.2014. Through it workmen stated that
on the basis order of Secretary, Hon'ble High Court,
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as circular 8.12.2011
issued by department that labours of 11 notified deposed
of FCI which having no documents. In these
circumstances aforesaid 453 workmen be treated engaged
workmen in DPS system and provided them benefits of
Notification dated 23.04.2010 issued by Govt. of India.
They also prayed, they be regularized so that they may
not face full long struggle for their survival.
Against Statement of Claim Management filed Written
Statement on 20.03.2014 Wherein management prayed as
follows:—
Clause of the claim are wrong, false and hence denied in
view of the FCI order No. IR-30 (40)/2011/NZ/1965 dated
13.09.2011. It has been decided to induct workers at FSD
Roza on NWBP basis.
To that effect induction process based on NWNP is on
progress. There are no direction as regards the induction
of Labour on DPS System basis.
In view of the submissions herein above made it is
therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to dismiss the claim of the
claimants with exemplary cost being devoid of any merits,
in the interest of justice.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the
present case may also be granted in favour of the O.P. and
against the claimants.
In reply to written statement workmen filed rejoinder on
02.05.14. Through which they reaffirmed the contents of
their claim statement.
On the basis of pleadings following issues have been
framed by me on 27.05.2014.
1. Whether the demand of FCI Mazdoor Association
UP region through his representative Shri Srinath Yadav
dated 30.08.2013 against the Management of Area Manager,
FCI, Shahjahanpur (UP) and MD, FCI HQ, New Delhi for
regularization of services of 453 Direct Payment System
(DPS) workers (as per the list enclosed) in FCI Roza Depot,
Shahjahanpur (U.P.), is legal and justified?
2. To what relief the workman is entitled?
Workmen in support of his case filed his affidavit on
29.5.2014.
Workman tendered his affidavit on 20.6.2014. His
statement of tendering of affidavit is as follows:—
I tender in evidence my affidavit at point 'A'. I rely upon
my documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/9.
Workman was partly cross-examined on 30.07.2014
and his part Cross-examination is as follows:—
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3411
Original documents are with me of which Photostats
copies has been filed in my evidence.
Documents WW1/4 is photocopy of a certified copy.
No I-card after 1994 have been filed by me nor with me.
It is incorrect to suggest that documents filed by me in
the evidence are forged and fabricated.
It is correct that after notification dated 23.4.2010 by
Govt. of India Contract Labour System has been abolished
by FCI etc.
It is wrong to suggest that I am not authorized by the other
workers not authorized by the other workers to depose on
their behalf.
It is correct that FCI has issued notification/circular dated
27.10.2011 there by providing broad guidelines for
regulating for regulating the service condition of 'No Work
No Pay' system workers.
Vol. stated such notification is not within my knowledge.
Workman was further cross-examined on 2.9.2014 and
his further cross-examined as follows:—
Original documents copy of which annexed to affidavit
are not with me today. These were brought on last date
and the same are exhibited as WW1/4.
The exhibit WW1/4 was certified by AGM, FCI Roza,
Shahjahanpur U.P. on 16.12.1994 and by Regional Labour
Commissioner, Lucknow 22.11.2006.
It is incorrect to suggest that Ex. WW1/4 is a false, forged
and fabricated documents. It is correct that all the I card
filed by me alongwith my affidavit are of the date 16.12.1994
and it is further correct to suggest that the list Ex. WW1/4
was also verified by the AGM of FCI on 16.12.1994.
It is wrong to suggest that Ex. WW1/4 is not verified by
AGM, FCI.
I do not remember the exact name of AGM who was posted
with FCI Roza at the relevant period that is 1994 but his
name might be Khandwa.
It is incorrect to suggest that there is no direction from any
forum or court regarding the claimant in the present matter
absorption under DPS system.
It is incorrect to suggest that aforesaid scheme was not
available to workman in management situated at Roza,
Dist. Shahjahanpur.
I have worked with the FSD ROZA Depot for the past three
years preceding to notification dated 23.4.2010.
I cannot produce any paper to show that I worked in FSD
Roza Depot after 1994 to till date.
It is wrong that I have never worked with the management
at FSD Roza Depot.
It is correct that system of 'No Work and No Pay' was
applied by management but I challanged that system on
Hon'ble High Court; High Court directed to CLC to decide
it copy of aforesaid order is on record Ex. WW1/16.
It is wrong to suggest that there is no stay upon the 'No
Work No Pay' system of the management.
It is correct that there is no counter signature of the
contractor on identity cards filed by me in evidence.
It is also correct that other particulars of I-card are also
unfilled.
It is incorrect to suggest that prior to notification dated
23.04.2010 there were only 136 workers with FCI Roza Depot.
It is correct that my name as well as name of other workmen
does not find place in mustrol. It is wrong to suggest that
at no point of time in FSD Roza Depot only 225 workers
worked at a time and not beyond 225 workers.
It is also wrong to suggest that as per the guidelines of
RLC Dehradun only 225 workers can be employed by the
FCI. It is correct that Ex. WW1/1 is not signed by all other
claimants in the present matter.
It is wrong to suggest that I am not authorized to file,
institute the present claim before this Hon'ble Court.
It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the present claim on
the basis of false, forged & fabricated documents.
It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the present claim in
order to harass the management.
It is wrong to suggest that the present claim has not been
properly espoused in any meeting of the competent Union.
It is wrong to suggest that the union is not at all an
authorized union to file present claim. It is wrong to suggest
that there exist no relationship of employer and employee
between the parties. It is incorrect to suggest that I have
no locus standi to file this present case. It is wrong to
suggest that I am deposing falsely. Cross of WW1
concluded and I fixed 9.10.14 for remaining evidence of
workmen on 9.10.2014. Workmen evidence has been closed.
Hence, I fixed 24.11.14 for management evidence.
Management in support of his case filed affidavit of MW1
Sh. Prabhat Chandra.
Management witness Sh. Prabhat Chandra was tendered
his affidavit on 30.1.2015 and he was partly cross-
examined on same day.
His statement of tendering of affidavit and part cross-
Examination are as follows:—
I tender my affidavit in evidence which is Exh. MW1/A.
Which bears my Sig. At point A&B. I reply on the
documents which are Exh. MW1/1 to MW1/3.
3412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
XXXXXXX:—Sh. G.K. Mishra, Lt. A/R for the claimants/
workmen.
Circular dated 12.08.2011 is circular contents of it are
conditionally accepted. His cross was continued for
6.4.2015.
On 6.4.2015 MW 1 remain present for Cross-examination
but he was not Cross-examined by Ld. A/R for the workmen.
Hence his Cross-Examination is marked nil.
Thereafter Ld. A/R for the management on the instruction
of management closed the management evidence.
After which I fixed 1.5.2015 for arguments.
On 1.5.2015 workman filed written arguments. Wherein
he mentioned as follows:—
1. Indian Food Corporation Head Quarter, New Delhi on
5.12.1994 issued circular No. IR(L)/4(15)/94. Through,
which Indian Food Corporation of Management and union
compromise to place on condition that Labour mate in Roza
Depot took work. Through labours on D.P.S. service.
Sh. Hari Lal Shankar (Asst. Manager certified. List of 453
labours and departmental Identity Card were issued on
16.12.1994 Division Labour Commissioner (K), Lucknow
on 22.11.2006 also certified the aforesaid list of 453 workmen
which has been filed in this Tribunal.
2. Govt. of India through, its notification dated 23.06.2010
imposed full ban of 11 depot of U.P. But Roza Depot violated
the provisions of Notification as department of Roza Depot
on 11.05.2010 issued tender to Sh. Vikas Aggarwal who
used to took work from workman then workman filed writ-
petition No. L-19208/2012 in Hon'ble High Court of
Allahabad. High Court of Allahabad directed Asstt. Labour
Commissioner (Central) Dehradun, to decided within 8
weeks to day-to-day basis to ensure that provisions of
Notification which being followed.
3. Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Dehradun, referred to
Central Government on the ground that he has no
jurisdiction to implement DPS system.
4. That FCI, Mazdoor FCI, Association U.P. region filed
Writ-Petition No. 59218/2011, Hon'ble High Court direct to
Chief Labour Commisioner (Central) N.D. to decided the
real workmen within 4 months.
5. Through, letter of Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central) N.D. management of FCI took work from 453
Labour continously. Through, Gazette Notification dated
3.9.2012 condition of no work no payment was imposed
on which workmen did not agree and challenged the
notification of Hon'ble High Court through Writ-Petitiion
No. 12926/2012. In this Writ-Petition in Hon'ble High
Court of Allahabad ordered that this matter shall also be
decided Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) N.D.
6. On 30.8.2013 workmen moved an application before
Divisional Labour Commissioner, Dehradun on which
Divisionsl Labour Commissioner Dehradun, passed an
order of 9.10.2013 treating be people as workmen and
send copy of detailed report on 15.10.13 to Secretary,
Ministry of Labour and Employment Govt. of India, New
Delhi.
7. After persuing of aforesaid report Secretary,
Ministry of Labour and Employment Govt.of India,
ordered to P.O., Karkardooma Court, Delhi to pass an
Award within 3 months.
8. Hon'ble Court on 18.2.15 express his opinion that
case will be decided on the basis of factual evidence on
record. Hence on 6.4.2015 evidence on behalf workmen
has been closed. Moreover whatever questions to be put
to management witnesses on behalf of workmen which
are already on record.
Prayer
It is therefore prayed that on the basis on record
already filed by member of F.C.I Mazdoor Association,
U.P. Reginal Mohalla, Saraitaki, Post Jhunsi, Janpad,
Allahabad, be treated workmen of Roza Depot,
Shahajahanpur, U.P. are actual workmen and award be
passed in their favour. So, that thay may get benefit of
notification dated 23.4.2010 of Govt. of Workman and
they may get their salary etc. from due date. Management
in support of his case filed written arguments.
Wherein management mentioned as follows:—
(a) That the Petitioner has filed the present claim in
respect of 453 labour against the Respondent
thereby stating that he is the authorized
representative of all the claimants as mentioned
in the annexure attached with the petition. He
has further stated in the claim that all the 453
workers were working with the Respondent and
vide notification dated the 23.04.2010 the
contract Labour System has been abolished by
the FCI. Hence requested this Hon'ble Court to
decide under DPS system all the 453 workers as
worker of FCI and grant them all the benefits of
FCI. Further requested to regularize them as
workers of FCI.
(b) That the notice of the present case were duly
served upon the Respondents and it has duly filed
its Written Statement/Reply to the claim of the
claimants thereby taking various preliminary
objections in the written statement and further
requested the court to reject the claim of the
claimants with exemplary costs devoid of any
merits.
(c) That rejoinder to the written statement/reply has
been duly filed by the claimant thereby denying
the contention as raised under the written
statement/reply and reaffirmed the claim filed by
claimants.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3413
(d) That after completion of pleadings both the
parties were directed by the court to lead their
respective evidence in support of their respective
claim.
(e) That in support of his case the claimant filed his
own evidence by way affidavit and he was duly
Cross-examined by the counsel of the respondent.
However during Cross-examination he was
completely shaken and he admitted the claim of
the respondent entirely.
(f) That in support of his claim and contentions the
respondent produced Prabhat Chandra Singh Area
Manager, Shahjahanpur, FCI as MW/1 and he duly
filed his evidence by way of affidavit and he was
also not at II been Cross-Examined by the
counsel of Respondent despite opportunity was
duly given by the court twice. Hence, the
Testimony of the Respondent unrebutted and
unchallenged.
(g) That thereafter the matter was fixed for final
arguments and hence the Respondent is filling
the written arguments.
GROUNDS OF DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM
(a) Matter pertaining to identification of those
labours who have worked at FSD Roza is
subjudice under writ petition No.-34027/2013,
34408/2013,34517/2013,4366/2013,4521/
2013,4513/2013,45 20/2013,4511/2013,4510/
2013,4514/2013,4523/2013,4509/2013,4515/
2013, ,4519/2013,4522/2013,4512/2013 and
1571/2015. Besides, this same issue of
identification of labour has been decided by Dy.
CLC Kanpur vide order dated 12.05.2015 in case
no.K:14(29) /2014/E.1(copy enclosed). Which
is being challenged by FCI before High Court,
Allahabad.
(b) Because no documentary evidence has been filed
by the claimants in support of their claim that
they were working with the respondent at any
point. It is pertinent to mention here that the
documents as filed by the claimants are forged
and fabricated documents.
(c) Because except the Petitioner no other person/
claimant has come under witness box for his cross-
examination. No individual affidavit in support
of the claim has ever been filed by all the
claimants/workers mentioned in the list, despite
the directions of tribunal. Further Srinath Yadav
is not at all authorized person to depose on behalf
of the 453 claimants. No authority letter on
behalf of 453 claimants has been filed by the
said Srinath Yadav in support of his claim. Hence,
it is clear that the present claim has been filed
by unauthorized person having no authority to
file the present claim.
(d) Because the claimant has miserably failed to
prove that they are under employment of the
Respondent at any point of time. However it is
submitted that the Respondent has clearly proved
that the claimant workmen had never been in the
employment of the Respondent/FCI in any
capacity at any post what so ever in nature. There
no master and servant relationship between the
Respondents and the claimants labours. When
there exists no relationship of employed then
the question of regularization of their services
by respondents does not arise at all. Hence the
claim is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
(e) Because admittedly that the Respondent has
clearly proved that after the issue of notification
dated 23.04.2010 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour New Delhi regarding
prohibition of employment of Contractor Labour
so many unions are claiming that the labour
employed by the ex-contractor labour are their
members and they should be regularized in the
employment of Food Corporation of India
various other has filled cases before the labour
authorities.
(f) Because the Respondent has clearly proved that
the claim has been filed on the basis of forged
and fabricated documents. The claim of the
claimant is misleading and frivolous as it
contains many factual error such as they have
never worked as DPS labour in any of the depot
in FCI Shahjahanpur nor there is any court
directions for their absorption under DPS
system. Hence the claim is liable to be dismissed
with exemplary costs. There is no direction from
any forum or court regarding the absorption of
these workers under DPS. There claims as
mentioned in the claim statement is bogus nad
misleading. Moreover, DPS system has never
been prevalent at FSD Roza.
(g) Because the Respondent has clearly proved that
the present claim is also not maintainable in view
of the Notification dated 23.04.2010 which
prohibits employment of contract labour. There
is no direction arising from the notification dated
23.04.2010 to take the ex contractor labour in
the employment of Food Corporation of India,
therefore there is no right of any claimant of any
type. As such the claim is liable to be dismissed
with exemplary costs.
(h) Because the Respondent has clearly proved that
the claim of the claimant is also not maintainable
as the claimant is having no locus standi to file
the present claim and he is not at all authorized
3414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to file the present claim. Hence the same is
liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
(i) Because the Respondent has clearly proved that
the present claim of the claimant is not
maintainable as per the FCI order No-IR-30 (40)/
2011/NZ/1965 dated 13/09/2011. It has been
decided to induct workers at FSD ROZA on NWNP
basis. To that effect a list of labour who has
owrked at FSD ROZA during three years
preceding from the date of notification has been
drawn on the basis of available records. However
the name of any of the claimant is not mentioned
in the said list. The copy of the list is attached
herewith AS Exhibit DW 1/3 (COLLY). Even the
said process is also stayed by FCI headquarters
vide letter dated Exhibited. There are no direction
as regards the induction of labour on DPS System
basis. Hence the claim of the claim of the claimant
is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
(J) Because admittedly the witness produced by the
Respondent in support of it claim was not at all
been cross examined by the counsel of the
claimants. Hence the Testimony of the Respondent
remain unrebutted, unchallenged. Hence the
defence of the Respondent has totally been
accepted by the Petitioner. Hence his claim of the
claimants is liable to be dismissed with heavy
costs.
(K) Because in support of its claim the claimant has
not filed even a single documents for the current
period the alleged documents, although the
Respondent challenged the sanctity of the same,
also pertains to the period of 1994 itself which
itself creates the doubt regarding the sanctity of
the claim of the Petitioner.
(1) Because the claimants have admitted the list of
the workers filed by the Respondent in support
of its evidence.
In view of the submission hereinabove it is therefore
most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to dismiss the present claim of the claimants with
exemplary cost, in the interest of justice.
Ld.A/R's for the parties have not orally argued but filed
written arguments. In the light of contentions and counter
contentions mentioned in written arguments. I perused
the question of determination mentioned in the reference,
contents of claim statement, written statement and
rejoinder, issues framed by me on the basis of reference
and pleadings of parties and relevant provisions of law of
burder of proof of those issues as well as evidence
adduced by parties to prove its case through discharging
their burden of proof to prove the issue as well as other
contents of written arguments. Perusal of reference dated
10.12.13 shows that questions for determination
mentioned in it and sent for adjudication to this Tribunal
are as follows:—
"Whether the demand of FCI Mazdoor Association
UP region through his representative Shri Srinath
Yadav dated 30.08.2013 against the Management of
Area Manager, FCI, Shahjahanpur (UP) and MD, FCI
HQ, New Delhi for regularization of services of 453
Direct Payment System (DPS) workers (as per the list
enclosed) in FCI Roza Depot, Shahjahanpur (UP), is
legal and justified? If not to what relief the said
workers are entitled to and from which date?"
On the basis of which as well as on basis of pleading of
parties following issues have been framed by me on
27.5.2014:—
1. "Whether the demand of FCI Mazdoor Association
UP region through his representative Shri Srinath
Yadav dated 30.08.2013 against the Management of
Area Manager, FCI, Shahjahanpur (UP) and MD, FCI
HQ, New Delhi for regularization of services of 453
Direct Payment System (DPS) workers (as per the list
enclosed) in FCI Roza Depot, Shahjahanpur (UP), is
legal and justified?
2. To what relief the workman is entitled?
According to contents of aforesaid Issues burden of
proof to prove Issue No. 1 & 2 lies on workmen union.
Only WW1 Shrinath Yadav, Mate/President F.C.I. Mazdoor
Association, U.P. Region has been examined to provo his
affidavit in evidence on behalf of claimant. Which is neither
corroborated by other oral evidence, nor any documentary
evidence.
Moreover, when WW1 was cross-examined by Ld. A/R
for the management. He could not give rational answers to
questions put to him. Which were put to him to challenge
his veracity. He admitted many questions in his cross-
examination. Which have already been mentioned in earlier
part of award. So, his evidence is short of that evidence
which is required to prove the Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2.
Moreover, his evidence is not reliable and credible in
the circumstances of the instant case. While management
in rebuttal produced MW1, Sh. Prabhat Chandra, who
tendered his detailed affidavit alongwith relevant
documents on 30.1.2015.
It is relevant to mention here that when he was cross-
examined on 30.01.2015 by Ld. A/r for workman only
one question was put to him. In reply of which he stated
that circular dated 12.08.2011 is circular, contents of it
are contionally accepted.
His cross-examination was continued for 6.4.2015.
On 6.4.2015 MW1 Sh. Prabhat Chandra came and
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3415
remain present for cross-examination but he was not
cross-examined by Ld. A/R for workmen. Hence his cross-
examination has been marked nil.
So, testimony MW1 Sh. Prabhat Chandra, is
uncontroverted and unrebutted which cannot be discarded.
It is well know principle of law that case is decided on the
basis of evidence adduced by parties to discharge their
burden of proof prove to issues and not on the basis of
pleadings only.
In the instant case burden of proof to prove Issue No.
1 and 2 was on workmen union who utterly failed to prove
hence Issue No. 1 is liable to be decided against workmen
union and if favour of management. Which is accodingly
decided.
Issue No. 2 relates relief which is not required to be
decided because Issue No. 1 has already been decided
against workmen union.
Reference is decided against workmen union and in
favour of management. Claim petition is accordingly
dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated 7/7/2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1629-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhñ,eñihñMhñvkbZñ,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 90@95½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@396@1994&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th August, 2015
S.O. 1629.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central
Government heareby publishes the (Award Ref. No.90/
95) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of CMPDIL, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 13/08/2015.
[No. L-22012/396/1994-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/90/95
General Secretary,
SKMS (AITUC) Union,
Singrauli,
PO Jayant Colliery,
Distt. Sidhi (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Regional Director,
CMPDIL, RI-VI,
Singrauli, PO Jayanti Colliery,
CWS Colony,
...Management
Distt. Sidhi
AWARD
Passed on 22nd day of June, 2015
1. As per letter dated 25.5.95 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
22012/396/94-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the Regional Director,
CMPDIL RI-VI, Singrauli in superceeding Shri Seo
Prakash Sharma and Shri Rameshwarlal General
Mazdoor Cat-I by promoting/recategorising persons
junior to them as Clerk Grade III w.e.f. 19.1.90 is
legal and justified? To what relief these two workers
are entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. The award was passed by my predecessor on
17-9-2000 in favour of the workman. Said award is set
aside by Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur bench
as per judgment in Writ Petition No. 1530/2006 and
matter is remanded for fresh decision after hearing the
parties. In pursuance of remand of matter, notices were
issued to parties. The interveners Shri Gorachand
Choudhary and Ghansham Kanak have been impleaded.
Application for impleading Shri A.K. Mishra is rejected
as claimed not related with dispute.
3. Statement of claim is separately filed by Ist party
workmen at Page 4 to 5 & 6 to 7. Case of Union as per
statement of claim is that Shri Rameshwarlal was member
of Union and posted as General Mazdoor Category-I
working in Drilling Camp, Singrouli on 8-8-87, he was
working as General Mazdoor. He was entrusted job of
Assistant store Keeper. As such he was performing duties
of Asstt. Store Keeper. Shri Sheo Prakash Sharma joined
CMPDIL on 5-10-87 as General Mazdoor Category-I. He
was entrusted work of clerk. That Shri A.K. Mishra,
G.S. Kanak and G.C. Choudhary joined their services on
7-11-87 as General Mazdoor with IInd party. They were
junior to above said workman. It is alleged that Shri G.C.
Choudhry is son-in-law of Shri P.K. Sarkar Sr. Personnel
Officer and Shri A.K. Mishra is relative of Shri R.N.
Mishra, Chairman-cum-Managing Director at the time of
regularization as semi clerk, Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S. Kanak
and G.C. Choudhary were shown favour ad workman was
denied promotion. Above said workmen junior to him were
3416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
promoted vide office order dated 19-1-90. That Mr.
Sharma and Rameshwarlal were possessing qualifications
and eligibility for the post. The promotion was illegally
and arbitrarily denied to them. The juniors Shri A.K.
Mishra, G.S. Kanak and G.C. Choudhary were re-
designated as clerk Grade II without considering Ist party
workmen Shri S.P. Sharma and Rameshwarlal. Both
workmen and Union submitted representations but was
of no avail. Injustice was caused to both of them in the
matter of promotion. It is submitted that Shri S.P. Sharma
and Rameshwarlal are entitled to be treated at par with 3
others as they were seniors. Rameshwarlal was regularised
as per order dated 19-1-89 whereas so many juniors were
regularised w.e.f. 5-1-89. That Shri S.P. Sharma is also
denied promotion when juniors to him were promoted.
He was illegally denied promotion. Union has prayed that
both S.P. Sharma and Rameshwarwal be allowed promotion
w.e.f. 19-1-90 considering their seniority.
4. Management filed Written Statement at Pages 11 to
15 opposing claim of Union. Case of IInd party
management is that CMPDIL is a company registered under
the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at
Ranchi (Bihar) It is subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. the aim
of CMPDIL is mine planning, exploration, National/
International consultancy. CMPDIL carries out detailed
exploration by setting camps for drilling and other related
works. It is contented that as part of the functioning,
CMPDIL undertook project work at Meera Nagar, PO
Merta Road, Nagpur, Rajasthan. Said project was under
the S & T Project for underground gasification carried
during November 87 to November 88. That said project
was separate establishment and temporary project. In
order to execute said project, management of CMPDIL
engaged casual workman for operation of project.
Workman engaged for purpose of operation of said project
had no claim for employment once the operation of
project came to end in November 1988.
5. It is further contented that workman Rameshwarlal
and Shri S.P. Sharma were engaged vide letter dated 7-11-
87 and 25-10-87 respectively. That dispute being there is
no claim of employment of workman engaged at Meera
Nagar after its completion. Management was not bound
to offer them employment. However decision was taken
to offer employment of casual workman at Meera Nagar
to those casual labours who completed 240 days
continuous service. Accordingly workman was given
appointment to the post of General Mazdoor Category I
as per letter dated 3-10-88. In pursuance of it, workman
Rameshwarlal and Shri S.P. Sharma reported to work on
7-11-88 & 18-10-88 respectively. Their services were
regularised as per order dated 17-9-89. In 1988 with a
view to study details of manpower, the Committee was
constituted vide order dated 12-8-88. the Committee was
constituted for re-categorisation of casuals being paid
category I wages and identification of casuals engaged
against sanctioned posts and regular nature of job. Said
Committee did not recommend the Ist party workmen for
their regularisation on post of Clerk Grade-III. That Shri
S.P. Sharma and Rameshwarlal cannot claim post of clerk
Grade III as a matter of right. They were not given said
post as their cases were not recommended by Screening
Committee. Action of the management in not giving
appointment of clerk Grade III is proper and legal.
6. IInd party contented that Shri S.P. Sharma and
Rameshwarlal were engaged as casual project. Said
project came to end in November 1988. On completion
of said project, the employees temporarily engaged were
terminated. Management have engaged workman as clerk.
It is submitted that Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S. Kanak and G.C.
Choudhary were regularised as Category I mazdoor from
7-11-87. Shri S.P. Sharma reported on duty. It is alleged
that Shri G.S. Kanak and G.C. Choudhary are relative of
the officers of the management is immaterial. The
allegations are made with ulterior motive. It is denied that
they were favoured by management for regularisation of
the post of clerk. It is submitted that Shri A.K. Mishra,
G.S. Kanak and G.C. Choudhary were senior to workman.
their cases were not recommended by the Screening
Committee. That Shri S.P. Sharma and Rameshwarlal are
not entitled for promotion/re-categorisation on the post
of Clerk Grade III from 19-1-90. It is reiterated that
considering seniority of Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S. Kanak and
G.C. Choudhary and recommendation by Screening
Committee, they were allowed categorization to clerk
Grade III from 19-1-90 till the claim of the workman
cannot be accepted.
7. Ist party Union submitted rejoinder at Pages 16 to
18 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim. That
workman Rameshwarlal and Shri S.P. Sharma were absorbed
in CMPDIL Singrauli. They had join duty on 8-8-87,
8-10-87. The fact remains that they were regularised in
service from the date of joining service at Meera Nagar
Project from 8-8-87, 5-10-87. Their services were
treated as continued from the above dates. Management
deliberately suppressed said facts in his statement of
claim. The contentions of management regarding
Screening Committee, Union submits no Screening
Committee was constituted. That so called committee
arbitrarily, malafidely without fixing any criteria for re-
categorisation, Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S. Kanak and G.C.
Choudhary were regularised from 7-11-87. They do not
possess special qualifications. They were junior to Shri
Rameshwarlal and Shri S.P. Sharma and were fully
qualified and eligible being senior to those employees.
There are no reason for not recommending the names of
Ist party workman for categorization to the post of Clerk
Grade III. That Shri Rameshwarlal and Shri S.P. Sharma
were regularised from the date they joined at Meera Nagar.
It is denied that they were junior to Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S.
Kanak and G.C. Choudhary. The contentions of
management in that regard are false.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3417
8. After adducing evidence by parties, witnesses of both
the sides were cross-examined, my predecessor passed
award dated 17-7-2000. The promotion order of Shri A.K.
Mishra, G.S. Kanak and G.C. Choudhary w.e.f. 19-1-90
was set-aside. Management was directed to consider case
of superceeded workman Shri S.P. Sharma and
Rameshwarlal for their re-categorisation as Clerk Grade-
III. After remand of the matter, as per judgment in W.P.
No. 1530/2006 dated 6-3-13, the intervener Shri
Gorachand Choudhary and Ghansham Kanak were
impleaded as party. The application for impleading Shri
A.K. Mishra as party was rejected as per order dated
3-2-2014 considering his contentions that he had not
challenged the award passed by this Tribunal, he is not
concerned with the relief sought in the dispute. The
interveners Gorachand Choudhary and Ghansham Kanak
submitted their Written Statement on 16-12-13 and
26-12-13. Though separate Written Statement is filed by
interveners, their contentions are identical.
9. Both Gorachand Choudhary and Ghamsham Tiwari
claims to be senior to workman. That they were appointed
as per order dated 7-11-87. Their services were regularised
as per order dated 5-1-89 w.e.f. 7-11-87. In 1984, with a view
to study details of manpower, the Committee was
constituted as per order dated 12-8-88 for re-categorisation
of casuals being paid on wages and identification of casual
engaged against sanctioned post and regular nature of
job. The Screening Committee had not recommended
workman Shri S.P. Sharma and Rameshwarlal. On
recommendation of Screeing committee and interview held
by the committee, both interveners were found fit for
promotion as per the criteria framed by the Committee.
The intervener No. 1, 2 were promoted as Clerk Grade III
from 19-1-90. Shri A.K. Mishra was also promoted
alongwith them. That both interveners were allowed
upgradation as clerk Grade II, LDC. They were also given
National seniority from 22-12-90. Vide order dated 26-
8-99, management issued circular considering their
service for more than 8 years, they were upgraded to the
next higher grade w.e.f. 1-1-99. They were promoted to
the post of LDC/SLU as per said order. That interveners
have faced departmental exam, typing test and interview
for their promotion that after 23 years of their service,
their promotions were cancelled by the management as
per award dated 17-7-2000 passed by this Tribunal. Both
interveners reiterates that workman were not
recommended by Screening Committee. Both workmen
were not senior to them. The management regularised theri
services vide order dated 19-9-89 considering their
appointments dated 8-8-87 and 5-10-87 was mistake of
the management. That Shri S.P. Sharma and Rameshwarlal
were absorbed subsequently after termination of their
services. It is submitted that their promotion was not
challenged by Union as per the terms of reference. The
promotion of both the interveners was legal. That Shri
Shiv Prasad Sharma and Rameshwarlal claim promotion
on the ground of parity. The point of eligibility and
qualification of the workman is matter of record. The
interveners were promoted after adopting proper process
of promotion conducting interveners following the
guidelines framed by the management. the interveners
submits that Shri Rameshwarlal died. The claim of
workman is for promotion, it is for management to grant
promotion to the workman. The cancellation of their
promotion is not legal.
10. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
Regional Director, CMPDIL
RI-VI,
Singrauli
in
superceeding Shri Seo
Prakash Sharma and Shri
Rameshwarlal
General
Mazdoor Cat-I by promoting
persons junior to them as
clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 19-1-90
is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
11. Before dealing with Point No. 1, it would be
appropriate to deal with the argument advanced by the
parties. That award dated 17-7-00 passed by this Tribunal
was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1530/2006. Said Writ
Petition was dismissed in SLP 4405/04. Review Petition No.
2029/2004 whether the award passed by the Tribunal has
become final. While deciding Writ petition No. 6362/00, the
facts were suppressed about those judgments and the order
of remand passed in Writ Petition No. 1530/06 is from per-
incurium and matter cannot be decided as per directions in
the order of remand.
12. Learned counsel for management Shri A.K. Shashi
as well as Shri D.P. Rao for Ist party workman emphasized
that in view of dismissal of writ petition No. 1530/06 by
Chhattisgarh High Court and SLP No. 4405/04 by Apex
Court, the order of remand passed in Writ petition 6362/
00 suppressing the material facts from said court is not
legal. Without going into detailed reasons in the dismissal
of Writ petition 1530/06 by Chhattisgarh High Court and
SLP No. 4405/04, it is to be noted that interveners were
issued showcause notice for cancellation of their
promotions in view of award dated 17-7-00. The
interveners were not party to this reference. Their
promotions were cancelled after issuing showcause
notice. The copies of showcause notice are produced by
Shri A.K. Shashi in bunch submitted with his notes of
3418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
argument. The terms of reference was relating to the
superseding Ist party workmen Shri S.P. Sharma and
Rameshwarlal. The legality of the promotions of the
interveners was not included in the terms of reference.
However as per award dated 17-7-00, the promotions of
interveners and Shri A.K. Mishra were cancelled and
directions were issued to management to consider the
case to superseded workman Shri S.P. Sharma and Shri
Rameshwarlal for recategorisation. In Writ petition No.
1530/06 & SLP No. 4405/04, the interveners and Shri
A.K. Mishra were not parties. The Writ petition 1530/06
was filed by Shri Gorachand Choudhary feeling aggrieved
by cancellation of promotion. In Writ Petition filed
before Chhattisgarh High Court and SLP, the cancellation
of promotion of interveners and Shri A.K. Mishra was
involved for consideration. While remanding the matters
as per judgment in Writ petition 1530/06, his Lordship
dealing with impugned award dated 17-7-00, promotion
of petitioner Gorachand dated 19-1-90 was cancelled
without notice to the interveners. Therefore the matter
was remanded. I do not find any substance in the argument
advanced by learned counsel for Ist party and management
that the order of remand as per judgment dated 6-3-13
suffers from suppression of material facts as the
grievance of cancellation of promotion of Shri Gorachand
Choudhary, A.K. Mishra and Ghansham Kanak was not
under consideration in the Writ Petition 1530/06 and SLP
No. 4405/04. For above reasons, I am bound to follow
the directions issued by his Lordship while remanding
back the matter as per judgment in Writ petition
1530/06.
13. Turning to the claim of workman, affidavit of
evidence were filed by Shri S.P., Sharma and Rameshwar
lal contending that they were senior to Shri A.K. Mishra,
G.S. Kanak and G.C. Choudhary, that Shri S.P. Sharma was
regularised from 5-10-87 from the date of joining at
Meeranagar project. He was regularised as per order dated
19-9-89. He was entrusted with clerical work. He
possessed qualification for holding the post of semi clerk,
Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S. Kanak and G.C. Choudhary joined
service on 7-11-87 as Category Mazdoor General
Mazdoor. His services were regularised as General
Mazdoor as per order dated 8-1-89. At the time of
regularization of Category-I General Mazdoor with a view
to extend favour to Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S. Kanak and G.C.
Choudhary. He was denied regularization. Shri S.P. Sharma
in his cross-examination says CMPDIL is carrying work
related to exploration of coal deposits. In the year 87-
88, he was working as casual labour at Meera Nagar camp.
Thereafter he was working at Singrauli, he produced
apointment letter at Exhibit M-1, the appointment letter
at Singrauli is produced at Exhibit M-3. M-4 is joining
report. As per order Exhibit M-6, he was regularised.
Management
has
constituted
committee
for
categorization of casual workers. The committee was
consisting of 3 members. Shri S.P. Sharma was not called
for interview, he had complained about it. The committee
members were not relative of Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S. Kanak
and G.C. Choudhary. he denied that he was regularised form
18-8-88. He has not received order for working as clerk.
he denied that Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S., Kanak and G.C.
Choudhary were senior to him.
14. Cross-examination of Shri Choudhary shows that
two member of Screening committee have retired.
Meeting of the committee was held on 17-11-88. Only
employees working regularly in camp were called for
interview. Shri Choudhary witness of the management in
his cross-examination says no policy was framed by the
management in the matter of regularization of casual
employees. Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S. Kanak and G.C.
Choudhary who were regularised were permanent
employees in the camp. Cross-examination of Shri
Rameshwarlal is identical to the cross-examination of Shri
S.P. Sharma. His evidence is about regularization of his
service from 5-10-87 is not shattered. The documents
Exhibit W-7 order dated 3-10-88 shows on completion
of 240 days service at Meera Nagar camp were absorbed.
They were directed to join duty within 10 days.
15. The evidence of management's witness Shri R.L.
Pandey supporting contention of management, states that
Rameshwarlal and Shri S.P. Sharma were engaged in the
Meera camp were regularised. His evidence in cross-
examination shows he was working since July 99 at Ranchi
Hqr. As per record, both workman were working at Meera
Nagar Project from 8-8-87, 5-10-87. The witness
admitted Exhibit W-7, W-11. Management has not
produced policy related to re-categorisation. The witness
was unable to tell that the employees were interviewed
by the Screening Committee for re-categorisation.
Witness was unable to tell that workman were not
interviewed by the Screening Committee. That Shri A.K.
Mishra, G.S. Kanak and G.C. Choudhary were allowed
clerk Grade III from 19-1-90.
16. The evidence of interveners is filed by affidavit
contending that Shri Ghansham Kanak was appointed as
per order dated 7-11-87. Shri Corachand Choudhary was
appointed from 7-11-87. Shri A.K. Mishra has been
elevated as Welfare Officer and he has not participated
in present reference therefore the legality of his
promotion need not be decided in the present matter.
17. Shri G.S. Kanak in his cross-examination says after
award was passed in 17-7-2000, management did not
impleaded. He admits he and G.S. Choudhary were called
before selection committee after the award. He was
allowed post of Clerk Grade III. Management allowed
benefit of SLU. He had received knowledge from
management that the award passed by this Tribunal was
challenged before Hon'ble High Court and SLP filed in
Apex Court. Shri Gorachand Choudhary in his cross-
examination says that award passed by this tribunal was
challenged in High Court Writ Petition and filling SLP in
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3419
Apex Court. He claims ignorance about the same. He is
allowed benefit of Clerk Grade III from May 2001. Shri
Ghansham Kanak was also given said benefit from May
2001. The evidence of both the interveners in almost
identical. The document exhibit M-1, M-4, 5 produced
by management relates to recruitment of Welfare office
has no bearing to controversy between parties. As stated
earlier, notice Exhibit M-2 was issued by management on
12-3-01. There is clear reference that as per award passed
by this Tribunal, why their promotions should not be
cancelled.
18. The evidence of Dhirendra Kumar Sinha on affidavit
supporting contentions of management is on the point
Shri S.P. Sharma filed Writ petition No. 6634/07. That
intervener Shri G.S. Kanak filed petition No. 5800/03
before Jharkhand High Court was dismissed withdrawn.
From evidence of the management's witness, documents
Exhibit M-1 to M-6 are admitted in evidence. In his cross-
examination, management's witness says he has not given
evidence in the matter prior to the award was passed. The
representation submitted by Intervener Nos. 1, 2 were
replied. Management's witness in his cross-examination
says Shri A.K. Mishra was working as Category-I General
Mazdoor prior to 19-1-90. The evidence discussed above
is clear that Ist party workmen were working from
8-8-87, 5-10-87. Their services were regularised from
above dates as per order dated 9-9-89 is not shattered.
Both the workmen were not called for interview by
Screening Committee. The services of interveners were
regularised as per order dated 5-1-89 Exhibit M-9 w.e.f.
17-11-87. Thus the interveners were quite junior to
workman, they were not called for interview by Screening
Committee. As per evidence of management's witness,
the management had not followed policy in the matter of
categorization of casual workers. What policy was
considered by screening committee at the time of
categorization of casual employees is not produced. It is
clear that both workmen Shir S.P. Sharma and
Rameshwarlal is discriminated. Therefore I record my
finding on Point No. 1 in Negative.
19. Point No. 2-in view of my finding in Point No. 1,
Ist party workmen Shri S.P. Sharma and Rameshwarlal
were discriminated. The rule of parity should have been
followed. However in present case, my predecessor
passed the award setting aside promotions of Shri A.K.
Mishra, G.S. Kanak and G.C. Choudhary is beyond the
terms of reference. For sale of clarity, I reproduce the
terms of reference below—
"Whether the action of the Regional Director, CMPDIL
RI-VI, Singrauli in superceeding Shri Seo Prakash Sharma
and Shri Rameshwarlal General Mazdoor Cat-I by
promoting/recategorising persons junior to them as clerk
Grade III w.e.f. 19-1-90 is legal and justified?
The promotion of Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S. Kanak and
G.C. Choudhary is not included in the terms of reference.
20. Learned coursel for workman Shri D.P. Rao pointed
out my attention to the documents Exhibit W-1 cancelling
promotions of Shri G.S. Kanak and G.C. Choudhary as per
order dated 25-5-01. The show cause notice was given.
Document Exhibit W-2 shows that Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S.
Kanak and G.C. Chourdhary were allowed post of clerk
Grade III vide order dated 5-12-01. Vide Exhibit W-3
workmen were informed by management that there is no
direction in award passed by this Tribunal to promote them
from 1990 to the post of clear Grade III. By cancellation
of the promotions of interveners and Shri A.K. Mishra,
their subsequent promotions to the higher post were also
automatically cancelled.
21. Learned counsel for workman Shri D.P. Rao in his
notes of arguments emphasized that the Tribunal cannot
extend scope of reference. Reliance is placed on ratio
held in
Case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd.
and their workmen and others reported in 1967-1-LLJ-
423. Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with scope
and ambit of dispute held that Tribunal cannot widen the
scope of the enquiry beyond the terms of reference.
Ratio held in case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat versus
the Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. and another reported in 1979
LAB.I.C.827, Mukand Ltd versus Mukand Staff and
Officers Association reported in 2004(2) JLJR SC-311
supports argument advanced by Shri D.P. Rao on behalf
of workman. Shri D.P. Rao further submits that the SLP
dismissed neither amount to res judicata. Above argument
are supported from ratio held in case of UP Road Transport
Corporation versus Omaditya Verma reported in 2005
AIR SCW 2097.
In case of Tridip Kumar Dingal and others versus State
of West Bengal and others reported in 2009(1) SCC 768.
Their Lordship held the selection of those candidates
would not be set aside without affording them opportunity
of hearing.
In present case, promotion of Shri A.K. Mishra and
interveners was set-aside without notice to them. The
evidence adduced by parties clearly shows that services
of workman including deceased Rameshwarlal were
regularised prior to the interveners, they were not called
for interview. Management has not framed any policy in
the matter of categorization of casual labours. The award
dated 17-7-00 was passed by my predecessor beyond the
terms of reference. The said award was confirmed by
Hon'ble High Court in Writ petition 1530/06 and SLP.
was dismissed. However I shall mention here that
cancellation of promotion of the internevers and Shri A.K.
Mishra was not involved for consideration.
22. Shri D.P. Rao also relies on ratio held in
Case of Trimurthulu K. and others versus M.V.N.
Murthy and others reported in 1998-II-LLJ363. Their
Lordship held casual employees can claim benefit of
seniority only from the date on which they were appointed
on regular basis and casual service would not be counted
towards seniority.
As the services of workman were regularised earlier
to the services of intervener and Shri A.K. Mishra, the
ratio does not advance the claim of intervener and their
services were subsequently regularised.
3420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23. Shri D.P. Rao, Learned counsel for workman also
placed reliance on ration held in
Case of V.K. Dubey and others versus union of India
and Others reported in 1997-II-LL-J-997, in case of C.A.
Hames, Carpenter Grade I, Dry Dock, Cochin Port Trust
and Another versus Assistant Secretary, Cochin Port Trust
and Others reported in 1996-II LLJ 839, in case of
Joyachan M. Sebastian and Director General and others
reported in 1997-LL-J-677, in case of Bir Singh Kadian
and state of Haryana reported in 1996-II-LLJ-172.
The ratio held in all those cases has no direct bearing
to the controversy between parties in view of services of
both the workmen were regularised earlier to the
interveners and Shri A.K. Mishra. Considering ratio held
in 2004(2) JLJR SC-311, 1979 LAB.I.C.827, the Triunal
cannot decide the matter beyond the terms of reference.
The legality of the promotions of both the interveners
and Shri A.K. Mishra not included in the terms of reference
cannot be decided. The evidence adduced by both
workmen are clear that their services were regularised
earlier to both interveners and Shri A.K. Mishra. Both
workmen were not called for interview before Screening
Committee. They were denied promotion. Employees
junior to him both intervener and Shri A.K. Mishra were
promoted. Management had not declared policy in the
matter of categorization of casual employees. In absence
of such policy, the screening Committee has
recommended both interveners and Shri A.K. Mishra
cannot be said legal. To be precise, both the workmen
were discriminated by the management, there were denied
promotion of clerk Grade III which was allowed to the
junior employees, interveners and Shri A.K. Mishra.
Following principles of natural justice, the workmen
deserves to be given benefit which was allowed to the
employees junior to them. The Ist party are entitled
deemed promotion from 19-1-90. Accordingly I answer
Issue No.2.
24. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the Regional Director, CMPDIL
RI-VI, Singrauli in superceeding Shri Seo Prakash
Sharma and Shri Rameshwarlal General Mazdoor
Cat-I by promoting/recategorising persons junior
to them as clerk Grade III w.e.f. 19-1-90 is not legal
and proper.
(2) IInd party management is directed to give benefit
of deemed promotion to workmen Shri S.P. Sharma
and Rameshwarlal from 19-1-90, the date
promotions as Clerk Grade III were given to the
junior employees Shri A.K. Mishra, G.S.Kanak and
G.C. Choudhary.
Pay of both workmen be fixed and difference of amount
be paid from the date of reference i.e. 25-5-95 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.
25. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1630-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkyLojj feYl]
floxUMs 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 117@2014½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@142@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015
S.O. 1630.—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.
117/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
Cum-Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the Management of the M/s Kaleeswarar
Mills, Sivagangai and their workman, which was received
by the Central Goverment on 13/08/2015.
[No. L-42012/142/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 29th July, 2015
PRESENT: K.P. RASANNA KUMARI
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 117/2014
(in the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
1947), between the Management of Kalleswarar Mills and
their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri K. Mayamuthu
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
M/s. Kaleeswarar Mills
"B" Unit
P.O. Bag No. 1, Kalayarkovil
Sivagangai District-630551
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3421
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s. S. Ravi & T.
Ramkumar, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent : M/s. T.S. Gopalan &
Co. Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/142/2014-IR
(DU) dated 17.11.2014 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the dismissal of service of Sri K.
Mayamuthu w.e.f. 21.07.2012 by the management
of Kaleeswarar Mills "B" Unit, Kalayarkovil is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the petitioner is
entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 117/2014 and issued notices to
both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through
their counsel and filed claim and counter statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer
to the Counter Statement.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner had joined the service of the Respondent
on 01.06.1986. He had been continuously working
without any blemish till his dismissal from service on
21.07.2012. While in service, on 22.06.2011, a Show
Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that
the petitioner had unauthorizedly absened from work from
02.06.2011. The allegations in the Show Cause Notice
were vague and did not contain any details to enable the
petitioner to ascertain the allegations made against him
and to submit his explanation effectively. However, on
06.07.2011 the petitioner had submitted explanation
denying the allegations. Without accepting the explanation
the Management initiated domestic enquiry and appointed
an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer had conducted
enquiry fully in favour of the Respondent Managment.
The petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend
his case in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The Management had not produced any
documentary or oral evidence to substantiate the
allegations. The Enquiry Officer has given a finding to
the effect that the charge against the petitioner is proved.
Based on the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority
imposed punished of dismissal from service on the
petitioner. The authority did not consider the explanation
submitted by the petitioner before issuing order of
dismissal of the petitioner from service on 19.07.2012.
The dispute is raised accordingly, The order of dismissal
is without any justification. An award may be passed
holding that the order of dismissal issued to the petitioner
is unjustified and also directing the Respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages,
continuity of service and attendant benefits.
4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
Habitual absence without leave is one of the acts of
misconduct enuerated in the Standing Orders of the
Respondent. Habitual absence on the part of a skilled
workman like the petitioner would cause serious dislocation
of work or even loss of production. The petitioner was a
chronic absentee and had been absent without leave on
several days in the years from 2005 to 2010. Even in 2011
disciplinary action was initiated against him for
unauthorized absence. From 02.06.2011 the petitioner
continuously remained absent without leave. So Show
Cause Notice was issued to him on 29.06.2011 calling upon
him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be
initiated against him. The explanation given by the petitioner
was that he was continuously ill, that he was not able to
physically carry out the work load fixed by the settlement,
that he was incurring heavy expenses towards medical
treatment and that he was not in a position to continue in
employment and he should be considered for voluntary
retirement. Thus his explanation itself justifies the action
of the Respondent which ultimately resulted in his removal
from service w.e.f. 21.07.2012. The petitioner was
continuously absent without leave from 02.06.2011 to
21.07.2012. If the petitioner had shown any willingness to
resume work the Respondent would have considered him
for punishment short of termination of employment. The
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5. In the rejoinder filed, the petitioner has reiterated
his case in the Claim Statement and also denied the
allegations made in the Counter Statement.
6. Even though in the Claim Statement the petitioner
has contended that the domestic enquiry was conducted
in violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner
had not insisted to have this decided as a Preliminary Issue.
That such a contention was raised was not brought to the
notice of the Tribunal also. It is accordingly documents
were marked and the matter had been aruged in the absence
of any oral evidence on either side. However, on going
through the written submission given by the counsel for
the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner, I find that the
issue is raised. It is stated in the written submission that
the enquiry was not conudcted in fair and proper manner.
However, on going through the enquiry proceedings. I
find that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry
proceedings. The Management had produced the muster
roll and two other documents before the Enquiry Officer
and these were marked. However, the issue seems to have
been decided largely based on the admission of the
petitioner that he was not well and his wife was also having
3422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
illness during the period in question and this was the
reason for his absence. The Enquiry Officer has assumed
it to be the admission on the part of the petitioner
regarding the charge of unauthorized absence and has
entered a finding mainly on this basis. The petitioner did
not propose to lead evidence on his side. It is accordingly
the enquiry was concluded. On going through the enquiry
proceedings it cannot be stated that it is case where the
enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner.
Probably there must have been latches on the part of the
Enquiry Officer in the sense that it was not conducted in
a manner which is supposed to be done. However, the fact
is that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to put
forth his case before the Enquiry Officer. So in any case
enquiry could not be said to be unfair, improper and against
principles of natural justice.
7. The evidence in the case consists of Ext.W1 to
Ext.W4 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M9. No. oral evidence was
adduced on either side.
8. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the dismissal of the petitioner from
service w.e.f. 21.07.2012 by the Respondent is
legal and justified?
(ii) What is any is the relief to which the petitioner
is entitled?
The Points
9. Ext.W1 is the Show Cause Notice issued to the
petitioner on 29.06.2011 for his absence from
02.06.2011. In Ext. W2, the reply the petitioner has stated
that he was having his lungs checked up, that there is no
ESI facility under the Management to apply for medical
Leave, that he came to know after check up that his health
is not alright, that he should be given ESI facility or his
request for voluntary retirement, which is already made,
should be granted. This explanation was not accepted and
a domestic enquiry was initiated against the petitioner.
Neither the petitioner nor the Respondent had produced
the Charge Memo. It is not clear if explanation of the
petitioner was sought after the charge memo. If any,
issued.
10. In the enquiry proceedings held on 19.08.2011 the
petitioner had admitted to have received a Show Cause
Notice. The petitioner was asked if he was accepting the
charges against him. He has replied that he had not
attended duty as mentioned in the notice and he is
accepting the same. On further enquiry, he has stated to
the Enquiry Officer that he is not well, he is having pain
in chest and heart, that his wife also is not well and had
undergone a surgery for tumour of the chest and is having
kidney problem also. The petitioner has explained that he
did not attend work during the period in question for all
these reasons. In the enquiry report the Enquiry Officer
has stated that the petitioner has not submitted any
documents to prove the illness of himself and his wife. It
was observed that he admitted to have been absent from
work. Accordingly, he had found the charge to be proved.
Ext. M5 is the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner
proposing punishment of dismissal from service and calling
for his explanation. In the reply marked as Ext. M6 the
petitioner had repeated his contention of illness. Ext.W4 is
the order of dismissal of the petitioner.
11. It could be seen from the Counter Statement that
Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his
absence from 02.06.2011 till the date of the notice i.e.
29.06.2011. The Enquiry Officer has found him guilty of
unauthorized for the period from 02.06.2011 to 29.06.2011.
However, the basis for imposition of punishment by the
disciplinary authority is not the report of the Enquiry
Officer alone. It could be seen from Ext.M5 the Show
Cause Notice proposing punishment, that the petitioner
was described as a habitual absentee. The Respondent
has stated in the Counter Statement that the petitioner
had been absent without leave for several days on all the
years 2005 to 2010. In Ext.W5 the Disciplinary Authority
has stated that the past records of the petitioner were
perused and it is evident that he was habitually absent
from duly. The basis of the punishment is the absence in
the previous years given in the Show Cause Notice. The
details of the alleged disciplinary proceedings initiated
against him for those absence also are given in the Show
Cause Notice. It could be seen that the Disciplinary
Authroity was carried away by the past record said to
have been perused by it. What is stated is that the
petitioner had not corrected himself in spite of
opportunities having been given. The punishment seems
to have been made on the basis that the petitioner has
failed to correct himself.
12. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the
petitioner that this action of the Management in taking
into account the records of past of the petitioner, if any
was not justified when they are not brought as a charge
against the petitioner and his explanation regarding these
were not sought in the disciplinary proceedings. From the
Show Cause Notice what is to be seen is that the petitioner
is being punished for his aberration in the past service.
However, this was not warranted in the absence of
opportunity having been given to him. The counsel for the
petitioner has referred to a similar circumstance in the
case in Sur Enamel and Stamping works Ltd Vs. the
Workman/respondents reported in AIR 1963 SC 1914 in
this respect. It was a case where charge was one not but
dismissal was for some other reason. The Apex Court has
observed that this itself would be sufficient ground for
setting asid the order of dismissal. There was no
justification in the Management digging at the past records
of the petitioner at the post enquiry stage without giving
opportunity to him to explain the same.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3423
13. The charge for which the petitioner has undergone
enquiry is absence of 27 days for the period from 02.06.2011
to 29.06.2011. He has of course admitted in the enquiry
proceedings that he was absent for the period. However,
all along in his explanation to the Show Cause Notice and
also in the enquiry proceedings, he has tried to assert that
he had valid reason for absenting himself during the period.
The case of the Management is only that the petitioner
was unauthorizedly absent during the period in question.
It is not alleged that the absence was the result of willful
and deliberate act on the part of the petitioner. True, the
petitoern has not produced any documentary evidence in
support his illness. However, in so far as there was no case
of willful and deliberate absence on the part of the petitioner,
the explanation has to be accepted. The counsel for the
Respondent has been stating that the petitioner had been
asking for voluntary retirement from service on the ground
of illness which itself according to him would show that
the petitioner was not willing to work. I am not able to
agree with this proposition of the counsel. His request for
voluntary retirement only means that he was willing to
avail voluntary retirement from service if there was any
acheme for the same and he was eligible for the same. The
Respondent has written to the petitioner stating that there
is no such scheme available. Such being the case it could
not be assumed that the petitioner was not willing to work.
14. For the absence of 27 days for which the petitioner
has faced enquiry, certainly, he was not liable to the penal
punishment of dismissal from service. It is not in proportion
to the gravity of the misconduct, in any case. In the decision
in Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and
others Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhury and others reported
in 2009 15 SCC 620, the Apex Court has found the
punishment of removal from service for unauthorized
absence of six months grossly disproportionate. In the
present case, the absence is only for 27 days. The
punishment imposed is too harsh to commensurate with
the charge. The petitioner is therefore entitled to be
reinstated in service, but without back wages in the
circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, an awared is passed is follows:
(i) The Responent is directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service within a month of the
publication of the award.
(ii) The petitioner will not be entitled to backwages,
but will be entitled to continuity of service and all
other attendant benefits.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on
this day the 29th July, (2115)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management :
None
Documents marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
04.08.2011
Enqiury notice issued to
the petitioner
Ext.W2
10.08.2011
Reply given by the
petitioner
(with
translation)
Ext.W3
24.08.2011
Second Show Cause
Notice issued to the
petitioner
Ext.W4
19.07.2012
Order of dismissal issued
to the petitioner.
On the Management’s side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
29.06.2011
Show Cause Notice issued
to the petitioner
Ext.W2
06.07.2011
Reply to petitioner to the
Show Cause Notice
Ext.W3
19.08.2011
Proceedings of enquiry
Ext.W4
20.08.2011
Findings of the Enquiry
Officer
Ext.W5
24.08.2011
Second Show Cause
Notice
proposing
punishment of dismissal
from service and calling for
his explanation
Ext.W6
01.09.2011
Reply of the petitioner to
the
notice
dated
24.08.2011
Ext.W7
06.09.2011
Respondent's reply to the
letter of petitioner dated
01.09.2011
Ext.W8
27.02.2012
Petitioner's letter seeking
voluntary retirement
Ext.W9
08.03.2012
Respondent's reply to
petitioner's letter of
27.02.2012
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1631-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVy cSad vkWQ
3424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV [jsQ- ds'k u- 08¼C½ vkWQ 2004] dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@54@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015
S.O. 1631.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. Case No.
08 (C) of 2004] of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Bank of India and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
14/08/2015.
[No. L-12011/54/2004-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No.-08 (C) of 2004
Between the management of Central Bank of India, Zonal
Office, Maurya Lok Complex, B-Block, Patna and their
workman represented by the Dy. General Secretary, Bihar
Provincial Central Bank of India. Employees Association,
C/o-Central Bank of India, Moradpur, Patna.
For the management:- Sri Ghamshyam Chandra Das
(Manager, Law)
For the workman:- Sri B. Prasad, General Secretary,
Bank
Employees Federation, Bihar.
Present:- Sri Bipin Dutta Pathak, Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, 22nd July, 2015.
By the adjudication order no;L-12011/54/2004-IR
(B-II) dated- 28.06.2004 the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2-K) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred
to as 'the Act'), the following dispute between the
management of Central Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Maurya Lok Complex, B. Block, Patna and their workman
Sri Sunil Kumar, represented by the Dy. General Secretary,
Bihar Provincial Central Bank of India Employees
Association, Patna for adjudication to this tribunal:-
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna in terminating
the services of Shri Sunil Kumar working at
Jamalput Branch of the Bank is justified and legal?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. In this case award has already been passed on 5th
May, 2005 by the then predecessor presiding officer of
this tribunal. An award has answered in favour of the
worker. The workers evidence is rather ex-parte and
sufficient enough to establish his claim. Various Exts
coupled with oral testimony of W.W.-1 amply prove that
the worker's services were utilized by the Branch as casual
labourer in leave vacancies of permanent Safai Karamchari
and / or sub-staff in a regular way. His claim for absorption
in view of clause 3.1 of Ext.-W/6 appears to be well
founded. The bank definitely resorted to unfair labour
practice by denying his claim apart from violating the
terms of settlement incorporated in Ext.-W/6. I am of
considered view and hence, hold as such that the worker
has un-hesitatingly established his claim and he is entitled
to absorption as a sub-staff in Central Bank of India.
3. The management moved before the Hon'ble Patna
High Court in C.W.J.C. No.11134 of 2005 and matter has
been remitted back to this tribunal with a direction that
the tribunal will be obliged to rehear the matter on behalf
of the management and the workman on the question of
finding regarding termination of services of the workman
and whether he is entitled to reinstatement on the materials
available or not.
4. Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Chandra Das (Manager, Law)
on behalf of the management and Mr. B. Prasad on behalf
of the workman.
Written submission has been filed on behalf of the
management stating therein Industrial dispute was raised
over alleged denial of regularization and wrongful
termination from service of Sunil Kumar.
In written argument it has been stated that there was no
relationship of employer-employee between the bank and
the alleged workman. The manager who claimed to have
employed the concerned workman had no authority to
employ. As per record of the bank the concerned workman
used to supply water on day to day basis contract between
01.08.1998 and 30.06.1989 and 01.01.1992 to
14.10.1992 and he was paid cost of water @ Rs. 10/- per
day and @ Rs. 15/- per day respectively. Thereafter he never
supplied water. Claim made by the workman was wrong.
In fact workman used to supply off and on water on
payment and in no single year he ever supplied water for
240 days or more Workman failed to proof with certainty
that he ever worked as workman in the Bank for 240 days
or more in a single calendar year against any leave Vacancy.
Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna, gave
award in favour of the concerned workman that he has
established his claim and is entitled for absorption under
the scheme of the Bank and directed to Bank to take up
his case of absorption and appoint him as sub-staff subject
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3425
to eligibility criteria. The award was challenged before
Hon'ble High Court, Patna in C.W.J.C. No.11134 of 2005
and matter was remanded back before this tribunal.
It has further been stated that there was no relationship
of employer and employee relationship. The workman had
been engaged intermittently orally on day to day basis on
daily contract supply of water on payment. The workman
has not discharged his onus by not producing any evidence
to show that he worked continuously for more than 240
days in a year immediately before alleged terminatiion.
Workman has claimed regularizatiojn of service which is
beyond the scope and ambit of concerned reference.
6. On the other hand argument on behalf of the
workman is that award was rightly passed but in place of
regularization word absorption has been written. While
there should be order of reinstatement because
termination from service of the workman Sri Sunil Kumar
was found not legal and proper.
FINDINGS
7. Ther terms of reference is "Whether the action of
the management of Central Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Patna in terminating the services of Shri Sunil Kumar
working at Jamalpur Branch of the Bank is justified and
legal? If not, what relied the workman is entitled to?"
8. On behalf of the workman single witness Sri Sunil
Kumar has been examined who has stated that he worked
in Central Bank, Jamalpur from 01.01.1988 to
30.06.1989 continuously and later on he worked from
01.01.1991 to 05.08.2007. His work was to take out
ledger and keep it on counter, take out token cash book
etc. He worked from 10. A.M. to 6 P.M. and seldum after
late hour. Initially he was paid Rs. 10/- per day which was
enhanced to Rs. 35/- per day. He was working like
permanent peom. He was working according to order of
the Branch Manager. Payment was made through voucher
from 01.01.1988 to 30.06.1989 he worked continuously
for about 270 days.
To regularise of service of the workman who worked
for 240 days. There was settlement at apex level. He
submitted his representation for his regularization which
is Ext. W/1. He was removed from service from
06.08.2002. No notice or compensation was paid to him.
He claimed for reinstatement with back wages.
09.
In cross-examination he has stated that he was
appointed by Branch Manager. Appointment letter was
not given to him. Attendence was not made in attendance
register. He was not paid monthly salary like of other
workers. He received Ext. W/4, W/4-1, W/4-2 through union
leader. He had filed two voucher marked as Ext. W/5. He
was appointed by Branch Manager namely Rampreet
Prasad Singh. He studies of class IXth. He has not
submitted qualification certificate because it was not
demanded.
10. No witness has been produced on behalf of the
management.
11. Ext. W, W-1, W-2 is the representation filed by
Sri Sunil Kumar for his regularization, given to Regional
Manager, Patna which is dated-18.12.1993, 17.05.1994,
31-12-1994 repectively.
Ext.-W/1 is School Transferred Certificate by which it
appears that Sunil Kumar was reading in class-IXth.
Ext. W/2 is the letter sent by Branch Manager to Regional
office, Gaya in which it has been stated that representation
of Sunil Kumar is true and correct. He was working at casual
labour in various department of the Branch in leave vacancy
of permanent of sub staff and also exigency of the
administration by the then Branch Manager. Which was
sent to Regional Office, Gaya.
Ext. W/3 is the letter sent by Deepak Kumar Das, Senior
Manager to Regional Office, Gaya in respect of
respresentation of Sunil Kumar for payment after working
morethan 240 days in a year. Ext. W/3 confirmed that Sunil
Kumar worked as casual labour is leave vacancies/
permanent Safai Karamchari/sub-staff and also in exigency
of the administration of the then Branch Manager.
There was no objection of Bank considering for
appointment as Safai Karamchari. There is also month wise
statement of service taken from Sunil Kumar from August
1988 to June 1989 and August 1991 to Oct-1992. From which
it appears that Sunil Kumar worked from August 1988 to
June 1989 for 271 days and from August 1991 to Oct 1992
for 257 days.
Ext.-W/4 is the letter of Branch Manager sent to Regional
Office, Gaya in which it has been stated that Sri R.P. Singh
then Branch Manager had allowed Sri Sunil Kumar to work
as casual worker in the Branch w.e.f. 01.08.1988. He
allowed payment and signed on the vouchers. After transfer
of Sri R.P. Singh, Branch Manager next encumbents Sri
S.N. Prasad and Sri Gopal Prasad also utilized his service.
He has empleted 240 days in a year.
Ext.-W/4-1 was sent to Senior Manager, Jamalpur by
which details of month wise service taken was asked for.
Ext.-W/5 the payment voucher.
Ext-W/6 is the circular of Central Bank of India in
which it has been stated that "Temporary employee who
have put in 240 days of temporary service in any continuous
period of 12 months after 01.01.982 upto 31.12.1990 will be
considered for absorption in the immediate available
vacancies without any test and interview. (ii) "Qualification
and age norms will not be insisted for them. Such candidates
would not be entitled to arrears of wages and back dated
weightage in seniority.
12.
No document has been Extd. on behalf of the
management.
3426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
Written statement has been filed on behalf of
the management on 11.06.2015 stating therein that dispute
was raised over alleged denial of regularization and
wrongful termination from service of Sri Sunil Kumar.
There is no relationship of employer-employee between
the Bank and the alleged workman. The Manager who
claimed to have employed the concerned workman has
no authority to employee. The concerned workman used
to supply water on day to day basis contract between
01.08.1988 to 30.06.1989 and 01.01.1992 to
14.10.1992. Workman was not in employment of the bank
much less against any leave vacancy.
He used to supply off and on water on payment and in
no single year he ever supplied water for 240 days or more.
He failed to prove that he ever worked as workman in the
bank for 240 days or more in a single calendar year against
any leave vacancy.
It is pertinent to note that earlier award was passed stating
therein that management have not advanced any sort of
evidence either oral or documentary. They have course
cross-examined W.W.-1, but nothing positive have come in
their favour. Learned then Presiding officer of the tribunal
had passed an award that the workers services were utilized
by the branch as casual labourer in leave vacancies of
permanent Safai Karamchari and / or Sub-staff in regular
way. His claim for absorbtion in view of clause-3.1 of Ext.-W/
6 appears to be well founded. The Bank definitely resorted
to unfair labour practice. It was also allowed that he is entitled
to absorption as a Sub-staff in Central Bank of India. The
management moved to Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No.-
11134 of 2005 and Hon'ble High Court had passed order
"discussion and the evidence have been dealt with by the
tribunal but unless a clear categorical fiding with regard to
the illegal termination is also recorded, there was no
occassion for the Industrial Tribunal to give a direction for
absorbtion of the workman and denial of back wages.............
if the tribunal failed to understand that by giving a direction
for absorption he was not allowing the benefit of
reinstatement due to illegal termination, then the tribunal
committed on error in this regard because the tribunal was
bounded to give a clear and categorical direction on this
count. The word reinstatement and absorption/
regularization' are two different aspects and one does not
precede the other but flows from the reinstatement."
14. Writ petition was allowed, matter was remanded
back with a direction that tribunal will be obliged to rehear
the mater both on behalf of the management and the
workman on the question of finding regarding termination
of services of the workman and whether he is entitled to
reinstatement on the materials available or not.
15. The terms of reference is "Whether the action of
the management of Central Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Patna in termination the services of Shri Sunil Kumar
working at Jamalpur Branch of the bank is justified and
legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
16. In the written statement the workman has stated
that he was orally appointed by the management of Central
Bank of India to discharge the duties of a peon from
01.08.1988 at Jamalpur Branch of the Bank. After
appointment, he discharged his duties from 10 A.M. to
6 P.M. for which he was paid wages @ Rs. 10/- per day
initially which was raised to @ Rs. 15/- per day and finally
@ Rs. 35/- per day. He was allowed to work at Jamalpur
Branch from 01.08.1988 to 30.06.1989 uninterruptedly. He
was again allowed to work from 01.01.1991 to 05.08.2002
continuously. The scheme was formulated by the
management in the year 1990-91. As per the scheme it was
envisaged to regularize the services of the workman who
had worked for 240 days in one calendar year. The branch
office Jamalpur forwarded the case of the workman to the
administrative office of the Bank on different occasion for
regularizing his services as a peon. But no positive step
was taken by the management. Workman went to perform
his duties at Jamalpur branch of the bank on 06.08.2002 but
he was stopped form working and was informed that his
services stood terminated. Management have not filed any
written statement denying this facts. On 09.09.2004 Regional
Manager authorised one Sri Kamlesh Prasad to represent
the management. In which it has been stated that Sunil
Kumar used to supply water in Jamalpur Branch and
payment was paid on the same day. Statement of day year
wise of supply of water has been stated in this application.
Ext.-W,W-2, W-3 is representations of the workman. Ext-
W, Ext-W/1 is transferred certificate. Ext-W/2 is letter sent
by branch manager to Regional Officer Gaya. In which it
has been stated that service of Sri Sunil Kumar was utilized
at this branch as casual labour in various department of
the branch in leave vacancies of permanent Sub-staff
member and also exigencies of the administration by the
then Branch Manager and officiating branch manager. This
is the letter sent by branch manager. Which proves
contention of Sunil Kumar that he was working as casual
labour in various department of the branch in lealve vacancy
and Sub-staff as well as and also in exegencies of the
administration. Ext-W/3 is also letter dt-23.06.1998 sent
by senior branch manager Regional Office, Gaya. In which
it has been stated that services was taken from Sunil Kumar
and it was confirmed that Sri Sunil Kumar worked as casual
labour in leave Vacancies, Safai Karamchari and/or Sub-
staff and also in exigencies of the administration. It has
been stated that senior branch manager has no objection
if bank consider his appointment as Safai Karamchari.
Which also proves case of the workman. As per statement
attached with this letter during period from August 1988
to June 1989 Sunil Kumar worked for 271 days and from
August 1991 to Oct. 1992 he worked for 257 days.
17. Again branch manager on 08.10.1993 sent letter
to Regional Office, Gaya stating there as first Sri R.P.
Singh then branch manager had allowed Sri Sunil Kumar
to work as causal worker with effect from 01.08.1988.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3427
Sri R.P. Singh branch manager or Sri G. Jha, Asst. (M)
allowed payment and signed on the vouchers. After transfer
of Sri R.P. singh, Branch Manager, Next incumbents Sri
S.N. Prasad and Sri Gopal Prasad also utilised his services
whose break up has been given. There 01.08.1988 to
31.12.1988 total working was 148 days and 01.01.1992
to 14.10.1992 total working was 227 days.
Next Ext.-W/4 sent to Mr. D.K. Das, Senior
Manager. From Ext-W/6 is it appears that temporary
employee who have completed 240 days of temporary
services in any continuous period of 12 months after
01.01.1982 up to 31.12.1990 will be considered for
absorption in immediate available vacancy without any test
or interview. Qualification and age norms will be not be
insisted for them. Such candidates will be considered for
appointment first before initially any recruitment process.
Such candidates would not be entitled to arrears of wages
and back dated weightage in seniority. Sunil Kumar had
worked from August 1988 to June 1989 for 270 days as
such he has completed 240 days and became a protected
employee. Further he worked from 1991 to Oct. 1992
for
more
than
257 days. Management documents itself prove the case
of the workman.
18. The decision has been reported in 2015-II-LLJ-
335 (SC) in the matter of absorption-regularisation. In
this case CGIT had directed absorption, set aside by single
bench. Division bench affirming order held that
appointment letters stipulated appointments as temporary
and to be terminated since workman accept terms of
appointment, claim for regularization or automatic
absorption cannot be raised. The Hon'ble S.C. held that
CGIT rightly over-ridden compromise and passed award
in favour of workmen. Awards in relation to absorption of
workmen as permanent workmen in corporation got
statutory force. Award of CGIT was restored. Corporation
was directed to absorb workmen in permanent posts and
consequential benefit to be paid if workmen attained
superannuation.
19. In view of the above finding of the apex court
argument of the management cannot succeed. Termination
of the workman was not under condition of the section-
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Workman
became protected workman since he has completed 240
days in a year.
20. In that view of the matter discussed above
termination of the service of Sri Sunil Kumar working at
Jamalpur Branch of the Bank is not justified and legal.
Since termination of his service is not justified, legal. So
Sri Sunil Kumar is entitled to reinstatement on the
materials available on the record.
21. Hence, award is answered that the action of the
management of Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna
in terminating the services of Sri Sunil Kumar working at
Jamalpur Branch of the Bank is not justified and legal. He
is entitled to reinstatement from the date-06.08.2002
when he was terminated from services. He is also entitled
to get all consequential benefits including back wages for
which he is entitled to.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1632-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVy cSad vkWQ
bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV [vkbZ Mh ds'k uañ 02 ¼C½ vkWQ 2011] dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015
S.O. 1632.—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.
02 (C) of 2011] of the Industrial 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 14/08/
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 2011
Between the management of Zonal Manager, UCO
Bank, Fourth Floor, Block 'A', Maurya Lok Complex, Dak
Bunglow Road, Patna-800 001 and Their workman Sri
Arya Nath Singh, S/o. Late Uttam Singh, Vill. + P.O.
Takkipur, P.S. Maharajganj, Distt. Siwan.
For the workman:—Shri B. Prasad, State Secretary,
UCO Bank Employees Association.
For the management:— Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha,
Branch Manager, ADB, Ghogha, Bhagalpur.
Present:—
Bipil Dutta Pathak
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated 20th July, 2015.
This case has been filed on behalf of the workman Sri
Arya Nath Singh, Head Cashier, UCO Bank, Municipal
3428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Chowk, Chapra, branch against his dismissal from the
service of the Bank by the management of UCO Bank,
Zonal Office, Maurya Lok Complex, Block 'A', Fourth
Floor, Patna-800 001, u/s-2A (1) & (2) of the Industrial
Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010.
The statement of claim of workman, it has been stated
that Industrial Dispute had been raised on behalf of the
workman on 15.02.2010 and conciliation proceedings ended
in failure on 02.02.2011.
Application has been filed for adjudication of the
following dispute:—
"Whether the action of the Management of UCO
Bank, Zonal Office, Patna in imposing the
punishment of Dismissal from Bank's Service
without Notice on Sri Arya Nath Singh, Head
Cashier, Chapra Branch is legal and justified? If not,
what relief (S) the workman is entitled to?"
The facts of the case is that workman was appointed in
the bank as Godown Keeper on 15.12.1975 on
compassionate ground in place of his elder brother. He
has been selected for the post of Head Cashier Category
'E'. While working at Chapra Branch, some internal
auditors inspected the branch and reproted alleged
shortage of cash on the opening day of 7th June 2006.
Fact remains that there were some withdrawal slips, which
has not been taken into consideration. There was no
shortage of cash at the closing time of cash on 7th June,
2006. The workman was issued a charge shewet dated
26.07.2006 duly signed by the Chief Officer in the
capacity of Disciplinary Authority. Domestic enquiry was
hold, enquiry officer and presenting officer were duly
appointed.
Enquiry officer did not hold the enquiry fairly and
property. Enquiry officer Suo-moto marked papers
submitted by the management as Exts and did not take any
step for proving the genuineness of the documents and
arbitrarily marked those documents as Exts. Enquiry
officer concluded the enquiry in a day on 19.09.2007.
Enquiry officer completely ignored the rules of evidence.
Findings of enquiry officer are not based on reasoning
material facts.
The cash of the bank was kept under Joint custody
during the night of 06.06.2006 and one of the Joint
custodian was Asstt. Manager of UCO Bank Chapra
Branch. Workman was forced to admit the guilt.
Assistant Manager was punished by the Disciplinary
Authority on the identical charges for lowering down his
two annual increments but he was exonerated by the
Appellate Authority. Workman was imposed the
punishment of dismissal from the services of the Bank
without any notice. The workman was not paid full salary
and allowances as subsistence allowance as per his service
condition during the period of his suspension.
The order for imposition of the punishment of
dismissal from the service of the bank was passed by the
appellate authority in the capacity of Zonal Manager. The
workman was never made aware that the Zonal Manager
was his Disciplinary Authority. The workman preferred
appeal against the order of dismissal and without proper
application of his mind appellate authority upheld the order
of dismissal passed by the learned disciplinary authority.
The roder of dismissal is based on the perverse findings
of the enquiry officer. Workman was aware that the Chief
Officer was the Disciplinary Authority and Assistant
General Manager was the Appellate Authority. As such
the order of dismissal passed by the Zonal Manager is
void abinitio. There was discrimination in awarding the
punishment of dismissal on the workman and exonerating
the other fellow officer who faced the identical charges.
It has been stated that the workman is innocent. Prayer
has been made that order of dismissal dated 11.01.2008
along with order of Appellate Authority. dated 31.10.2008
be set aside and workman be reinstated with all
consequential benefits and management is directed to pay
a sum of Rs. 20000/- to the workman for contesting the
dispute.
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the
management stating therein that order of punishment has
been passed by the competent authority by following due
process of law and providing full opportunity of hearing to
the workman Sri Arya Nath Singh. He committed some
irregularities for that charge sheet dated 26.07.2006 was
issued. Which are as follows:—
(i) That during the course of regular inspection of
Chapra Branch, the Inspecting Officer, while checking the
opening cash balance on 07.06.2006, found the cash
shortage to the tune of Rs. 78979.14. It is noted that Shri
A.N, Singh was the Joint Custodian of cash keys on those
days. The shortage of cash was noted by the Inspecting
Officer in the Cashier's Summary dated 07.06.2006,
which was counter signed by Shri Singh. On the same day
Shri Singh made good loss by depositing the amount in
cash of Rs. 78979.14, which was kept in Sundry Creditors,
under his signature as depositor.
(ii) that on 07.06.2006. M/s. Sahara Indian presented
a cheque No. 072181 bearing dated 07.06.2006 for
withdrawal of cash of Rs. 3,00 lacs. Shri Singh then paid
a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs and gave them a counterfoil of
deposit slip for Rs. 1.00 lac under his signature with Bank
Seal. But he did not account for the same in their account
on 07.06.2006, as the entry did neither take place in cash
receipt Book nor in the Cashier's Summary as late receipt
on that very date. To cover the misdeed, he put an entry of
Rs. 1.00 lac in the cash scroll on 08.06.2006 which was
later found superfluous as no money was deposited in the
account of M/s. Sahara India on 08.06.2006. His action
had brought disrepute to the Back.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3429
Charge sheet served to Sri Arya Nath Singh, which was
received by him on 22.09.2006 but he did not submit his
reply/written statement of defence. As such it was decided
to conduct a domestic enquiry. R.C. Gupta, Senior Manager,
P.I. Area Branch, Patna was appointed as the enquiry officer
and Sri D.C. Das, Assistant Chief Officer, Regional Office,
Patna was appointed as presenting officer. Subsequently
the involvement of some more officials surfaced and as
such Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Patna was
appointed common Disciplinary Authority by Chairman
and Managing Director on 20.04.2007 and newly appointed
Disciplinary Authority vide notification dated 28.07.2007
appointed Sri Birendra Singh, Dy. Chief Officer, Regional
Office, Patna and Sri Kameshwar Prasad, Asst. Chief Officer,
Regional Office, Patna as the Presenting Officer. In enquiry
written brief was submitted by Presenting Officer and
Defence Representative. Enquiry Officer submitted his
report dated 22.09.2007 holding allegation No. (1) & (ii) as
proved and the corresponding charge is proved.
Disciplinary Authority examined the charge sheet issued
to Sri Arya Nath Singh, his reply the enquiry proceedings
etc and the arguments of the Presenting Officer and Defence
Representative and concurred with the findings of Enquiry
Officer. A copy of the proposed punishment was also
communicated to Sri Arya Nath Singh who was proved
opportunity of personal heharing which he could not
attend. Personal hearing was held on 11.01.2008 and
awarded the punishment dismissal from bank service with
notice. Sri Arya Nath Singh preferred an appeal dated
08.02.2008, a personal hearing was given to him along with
defence representative. Appellate Authority did not find
any reasons to interfair with the punishment award by
Disciplinary Authority.
The Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Patna
was appointed as common Disciplinary Authority by the
Chairman and Managing Director of the bank vide order
dated 23.04.2007 in accordance with clause 13 of the
memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002.
Sri Arya Nath Singh himself vide his letter dated
07.06.2006 addressed to the Manager, UCO Bank, Charpa
accepted the responsibility of shortage of cash.
4. Rejoinder on behalf of the workman to the written
statement cum rejoinder of the management dated
13.06.2011 has been filed.
5. One witness has been examined on behalf of the
management namely Balaram Basak who is Chief Manager,
UCO Bank, Shivpur Branch Hawarh. This witness has
stated that he is acquainted with Sri Arya Nath Singh. Who
was then Head cashier at Chapra Branch of UCO Bank.
Assistant General Manager had authorised to inquire into
the matter of defaulcation against the Arya Nath Singh.
He inquired and submitted the report which has been
marked as Ext.-M.
On 07.06.2006 investment officer Mr. D. Zaina
inspected the cash of the branch and he found shortage of
Rs. 78979.14Ps was shortage in the balance of
06.07.2006. Which was stated in cash summary. Mr. Arya
Nath Singh accepted the facts in writing and as deposited
the cash in the branch which was deposited in sundry credit
and shortage of cash was adjusted. This witness has
perused the documents before investigation. This witness
has proved Ext./M1. Ext./M1 which is details of cashes
summary and actual cash and cash short. This has been
marked as with objection. He has also proved Ext./M2
which is letter of Shri Arya Nath Singh it appears that Arya
Nath Singh has asked permission for deposting the cash.
This document has been marked with objection. Incross-
examination he has stated that on 09.06.2006 he had gone
to Chapra for enquiry. He has stated that Ext.-W was not
given to him by defence. Ext.-W is the letter given to
Brnach Manger by Arya Nath Singh in which it has been
stated that he was compelled to write a letter about cash
shortage and he was compelled to accept his guilt. He has
stated that at the time of closing the cash tallied. He found
some cheque and withdrawal slip. In charge of cash was
Arya Nath Singh and Shambhu Saran Singh, Assistant
Manager. It is the responsibility of both the person to
maintain the cash properly. The day on which the shortage
of cash was found. Cash talled at the time of closing. He
has found some cheque and withdrawal slip along with
cash. This witness has further stated that he had written
that cash was compensated by withdrawing by sundry letter.
He as stated that for debiting the amount from account of
sundry letter signature is required but he had not seen
signature of Arya Nath Singh on sundry letter, that amount
be withdrawn from sundry letter account to compensate
the cash and on withdrawal from sundry letter entry is
made in token book.
That witness has further stated that he has inspected
token book, but there was no entry for withdrawal amount
from sundry letter account. Further he has stated that in
cash manual of UCO Bank, it has been stated that on
shortage of cash concerned employee compensates the
shortage. Further he has stated that after his investigation
there was enquiry in the case.
6. 21 documents has been marked as Exhibited on
behalf of the management. Which will be delt letter on
with the findings.
7. One witness namely Arya Nath Singh was examined
on behalf of the workman. Arya Nath Singh has stated that
he was posted at Head Cashier at Chapra Branch of UCO
Bank. On 07.06.2006 inspecting officer has checked his
cash. Manager had got done late payment of some
withdrawal of cheque. In cash verification cash short was
found because manager had got done late payment of
withdrawal and cheque. When cash short was found then
amount was taken from person, by him and manager to
whom late payment was made. On 07.06.2006 at the time
3430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of cash closure, there was no shortage. He given a letter
to the Branch Manager in the matter which has been
marked as Ext.-W. This witness has denied to that cheque
to Sahara India of the amount Rs. 3.00 lacs and he has
made payment of Rs. 2.00 lacs. He has stated that all
charges against him is wrong.
In cross-examination this witness has stated that he
joined UCO Bank on 15.12.1975 and worked there till 2006.
Bank has dismissed him. Bank has given him show cause
notice and charge sheet but later on he says that show
cause notice was not given to him. He has participated in
the enquiry, but no opportunity was given to him to place
his facts.
He was present on cash closure on 06.06.2006. He has
denied that there was shortage of cash in opening balance
on 07.06.2006. He has proved ledger extract dated-
07.06.2006. Which has been marked as Ext.-M/3.
In reply to the question put by the management that
opening balance on 07.06.2006 will be closing balance of
06.06.2006. This witness has stated that there is no mention
in the charge sheet that at the time of checking only one
withdrawal of Rs. 1000/- of cheque and Rs. 1000/- was found.
He has further stated that payment was made of the cheque
of the amount Rs. 3.00 lacs of Sahara India. He had denied
he had paid only 2.00 lacs to Sahara India. He had further
denied on 07.06.2006 he had given receipt of deposit of
Rs. 1.00 lac in account of Sahara India on 07.06.2006.
He has further denied that he had made entry in cash scroll
of Rs. 1.00 lac on 08.06.2006.
Further he has stated that on 07.06.2006 Branch
Manager was on leave and Assistant Branch Manager,
Shambhu Saran Singh was incharge.
8. One document has been marked as Ext.-W.
9. Written argument has been filed on behalf of the
workman stating therein that two charges were against the
workman Sri Arya Nath Singh:—
(i) A cash shortage of Rs. 78,979.14 Ps was found by
the inspecting officer while checking the opening
cash balance on 07.06.2006. The shortage of
cash was noted by the inspecting officer in the
cashier's summary dated- 07.06.2006 which was
also counter signed by you. On the same day, the
loss was made good by depositing the amount in
cash which was kept in sundry creditor's A/C.
(ii) On 07.06.2006 M/s. Sahara India presented a
cheque bearing No. 072181 dated- 07.06.2006
for withdrawal of cash of Rs. 3.00 Lacs, out of a
sum of Rs. 3.00 Lacs only a sum of Rs. 2.00
Lacs was paid and a sum of Rs. 1.00 Lac was
retained and a counter foil for deposit of the
same was given to them. To cover the misdeed
an entry of Rs. 1.00 Lac was made in cash scroll
on 08.06.2006 which was found later on
superfluous as no money was deposited in the
account of M/s Sahara India on 08.06.2006.
It has been further stated that Shambhu Saran Singh,
Assistant Manager was one of the joint custodian of the
cash. There was no application for grant of advance from
Sri A.N. Singh for debiting sundry debtor's account. Cash
was not found short at 3.00 P.M. on 07.06.2006. As per
cash manual shortage to be made good. Co-accused
Shambhu Saran Singh was not imposed any punishment.
10. Written argument of management, need not to be
considered.
FINDINGS
11.
As per Ext.-M/4 charge sheet against the
workman was no.:- (i) That during the course of regular
inspection at your branch, the inspecting officer, while
checking the opening cash balance on 07.06.2006, found
the cash shortage to the tune of Rs. 78,979.14Ps. It is
noted that you were the joint custodian of cash keys on
those days. The shortage of cash was noted by the
inspecting officer in the cashier summary dated
07.06.2006, which was also countersigned by you. On
the same day, you made good loss by depositing the
amount in cash of Rs. 78,979.14 Ps, which was kept in
sundry creditors, under your signature as depositor.
(ii) That on 07.06.2006, M/s Sahara India presented
a cheque bearing no. 072181 dated- 07.06.2006
for withdrawal of cash of Rs. 3.00 lacs. You then
paid a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs and gave them a
counterfoil of deposit slip for Rs. 1.00 lac under
your signature with bank seal. But you did not
account for the same in their account on
07.06.2006, as the entry did neither take place
in cash receipt book nor in the cashier's summary
as late receipt on that very date.To cover the
misdeed, you put an entry of Rs. 1.00 lac in the
cash scroll on 08.06.2006 which was later on
found superfluous as no money was deposited
in the account of M/s. Sahara India on
08.06.2006. Your such action has brought
disrepute to the bank.
12.
In respect of charge No. (i) management witness
was the investigation officer who has proved Ext.-M. From
Ext.-M it appears that last entry in the key register was
28.06.2004. Cash was counted in the presence of both the
key holders, Mr. S.S. Singh, Assistant Manager and Mr.
Arya Nath Singh, Head Cashier. On going through the
cashier's summary, there was no initial/signature of the
manager under the column verified which goes to indicate
that there was no practice of cash checking by the branch
head on a regular interval. Mr. A.N. Singh made a
representation to the manager of the branch, sought
permission to make good of the shortage. He also admitted
his fault. Amount was paid in cash, which has been kept in
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3431
sundry creditors. This witness has stated that inpecting
officer was Mr. D. Jena but D. Jena was not examined in
the case. In cross-examination he has stated that Ext. M/1
was not given to him at the time of investigation. Further
he has stated that the day shortage in cash was found, the
case tallied at the time of closure. So there may by some
error and it has been stated that Mr. Arya Nath Singh had
deposited the amount and cash was adjusted. It has not
been stated that cash was utilised by Sri Arya Nath Singh.
Further he has stated that for debiting the amount from
account of sundry letter, signature is essential but this
witness have not seen signature of Sri Arya Nath Singh.
For withdrawal from sundry letter entry is made in token
book but there was no entry in token book so entire charge
appears to be matter of misconception. Ext.-M/1 is the
statement of actual cash but actual cash summary have
not been stated. Ext.-M/2 is the letter of Arya Nath Singh
who accepted his guilt and sought permission for
depositing the amount but management had to succeed
on his own leg. Ext.-M/3 is dated 07.06.2006 details in cash
in hand. From Ext.-M/5 it appears that Shambhu Saran
Singh, Assistant Manager and Mr. Arya Nath Singh, Head
Cashier both were alleged accountable in the matter. Ext.-
M/6 the details of domestic enquiry which need to be
considered at present because order is being passed on
the merit of the case.
13.
It appears that management have not taken
interest in contesting the case neither Mr. Jena was not
examined nor complainant was examined. What happened
to Mr. S.S. Singh who was co-responsible in matter has
not been explained. The cash talled on the same day when
it was found short. The charge No. (i) could not be proved
and established by the management.
14.
About the charge No.-(ii) neither any witness
from Sahara India has been examined nor management
witness has stated any words against charge No.-(ii). So
it appears that management was not interested to prove
the charge No.-(ii).
15.
Hence it appears that both the charges have not
been proved and established by the management. In the
circumstances management completely failed to succeed
and prove the charge levelled against the Sri Arya Nath
Singh. In the result, it is hold that action of the management
in imposing the punishment of dismissal from bank's service
without notice on Sri Arya Nath Singh, Head Cashier,
Chapra branch is not legal and justified. Hence punishment
awarded by disciplinary authority vide order dated-
11.01.2008 which was dismissal from bank service without
notice is hereby set-aside and it is hold that it is not legal
and justified and Arya Nath Singh be reinstated with all
consequential benefits of which he is entitled to be
reinstated from the date his dismissal.
Dicated & Corrected by me.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1633-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª
ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
dksYgkiqj ds iapkV ¼jsQ+ vkbZ- Vh-½ uañ 8 vkWQ 2007½dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@36@2007& vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015
S.O. 1633.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. (IT) No. 8
of 2007) of the Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kolhapur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Bank of
Maharashtra and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 14.08.2015.
[No. L-12011/36/2007-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
MAHARASHTRA, KOLHAPUR
REFERENCE (IT) NO. 8 OF 2007
Adjudication between:
The Asstt. General Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
LIC Building, 'Jeevan Tara',
Powai Naka, Satara.
..........First Party
And
The Secretary,
Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari Sangh,
185, Shaniwar Peth, Near Police Gate,
Pune.
................Second Party
Coram
:
Shri K.R. Pethkar, Presiding Officer
Appearance
:
Both parties absent.
AWARD
(Date: 10th April, 2014)
The Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi, by his order dated 10.09.2007 in exercise
of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby
refers the said dispute between the above named parties
for adjudication to this Tribunal over the following demand
of the 2nd Party.
3432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
"Whethere the action of the management of Bank
of Maharashtra, Satara to close the certain branches
by forming nodal cell and mechanisation of rural
branches without discussion with the union is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?"
1. The 2nd party has put forth his Statement of Claim at
Ex. U-1 as follows:—
The Bank of Maharashtra is a Nationalised bank having
its head office at Lokmangal, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune
411005 and Asstt. General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra,
LIC Building, Jeevan Tara, Powai Naka, Satara is a second
party to the dispute. The Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari
Sangh, Pune is the trade union registered under Trade
Unions Act.
2. The Second Party states that the service conditions
of the bank employees are governed by Desai and Shastri
Award, various Bipartite Settlements and Agreements taken
place from time to time.
3. The Second Party states that after VRS 2000 so many
staff accepted voluntary retirement hence bank was facing
acute shortage of staff. To overcome this problem, bank
has started Rural Branch Mechanisation Programme project.
For this purpose bank has selected nearby branches and
prepared a cluster of Satara Region 7 nodal centers were
formed i.e. (1) Satara city (2) Powai Naka, Satara, (3) Umbraj,
(4) Karad, (5) Pusegaon, (6) Koregaon, (7) Wai.
The bank has selected computer operators for Nodal
Centers after taking their test and qualifying the test by
them, bank has appointed computer operators to these
nodal cells.
4. The Second Party states that the Bank has closed all
nodal centers except Satara city and working of all branches
was convered at Satara city Nodal Cell.
5. The Second Party states that in the light of the above
we can confidently infer that the action of the management
to close the Nodal Centers unilaterally is a violation of
Settlement made before ACL Pune and violation of Sec. 29
of the I.D. Act. Hence it is prayed that reference be allowed
and management be instructed to discuss with the union
before taking any such decision. The management should
explain the status of Umbraj Nodal Centre as well as other
Nodal Centres and the action be initiated against the
management for violation of Settlement before Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Pune and Sec. 29 of I.D. Act.
6. The Ist Party objected this reference by filing
Written Statement Ex. C-3. The averment in the Statement
of Claim of the Second Party are totally denied by the
Fist Party. It is stated that the issue of posting of computer
operators at these Centres was discussed with the
recognised majority union. Accordingly settlment for
posting of computer operators Nodal Centres was arrived
at with recognised majority union on 31/03/2003 and with
the disputant union i.e. Bank of Maharashtra. Workers
Organisation on 23.05.2003. The instant dispute pertains
to Umbraj Nodal Centre.
7. The First Party states that in the present dispute, the
disputants have cotended that the bank has closed all Nodal
Centres in Satara Region except Satara City Nodal Centre.
It is also stated that the management of the Bank should
have discussed the issue with them before closure of Nodal
Centres, to enable them to make their suggestions for
avoiding such closure and for amicable settlement of issue
of posting of employees posted at such nodal centres.
8. In this regard it is stated that the bank had decided to
mechanise/computerize all rural branches under BIBAS
project and hence had decided to discontinue Nodal
Centres. After discussion with disputant union the bank
had arrived at settlement with the disputants on 14.03.2006
as regards closure of nodal centres and treatment to be
given to employees/computer operators posted in such
nodal cells. Accordingly the bank had initiated necessary
steps for closure of nodal centres and computer operators
pasted in such nodal centres were transferred to the place
of their choce after obtaining options from them. As a
consequence of closure of nodal centres there has been
no retrenchment of staff in any category and staff were
given posting as per their choice. It is prayed that the
reference be rejected.
9. Considering the rival pleadings of the parties my
learned predecessor framed the following issues at Ex. O-8
and I record my findings against them for the reasons given
below:—
Issues
Findings
(i)
Does the Second Party sangh
In the Negative
proves that the action of the First
Party-management of Bank of
Maharashtra, Satara to close the
certain branches by forming
nodal cell and mechanization of
rural
branches
without
discussion with the union is legal
and justified?
(ii) Does the Second Party prove
In the Negative
entitled for the reliefs claimed?
(iii) What award?
As per order
below
REASONS
10. The conciliation proceeding papers are on record.
After framing the issues none present for Second Party
Union. Several opportunities were given. Hence evidence
of Union is closed and kept for evidence of First Party
bank. The First Party bank remained absent. The bank has
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3433
also not let any evidence. Hence evidence of First Party
is closed and kept for argument/order.
11. Thereafter the First Party bank present with Shri
Umesh Shinde. He has filed pursis at Ex. C-5 stating that
Second Party Union does not have any grievance in respect
of demands made in the reference. Therefore he prayed
that the present reference may please be disposed of for
want of prosecution on behalf of Second Party Union.
12. My Learned Presdecessor has filed order on
14/10/2008 that Shri Umesh Shinde present on behalf of
First Party bank. None present for Karmachari Sangh,
although called out repeatedly. Reference to proceed and
kept for further hearing.
13. After careful perusal all the documents on record as
well as pleadings of the parties, it appears to me that, to
prove Statement of Claim, the Second Party has not filed
its affidavit nor reiterated the facts contained in its statement
of claim in its affidavit. Moreover, there is nothing to
disbelieve the contention of the First Party which is fully
supported by filing pursis at Ex C-5. Absolutely, the Second
Party has not appeared in reference nor produced any
document on record nor adduced any evidence. Therefore,
I have no alternative but to accept the case of First Party is
to be true.
14. From the above discussion it is seen that on several
occasions, the Second Party union remained absent in the
court and not proved its case, therefore, an adverse
inference can be drawn against the Second Party. In such
circumstances only the question before me is to see whether
the action of First Party bank to close the certain branches
by forming nodal cell and mechanization of rural branches
without discussion with the union is legal and justified or
not?
15. Taking into consideration the orders passed by my
Learned Presdecessor on several dates as well as
documents on record, I have no hesitation to hold that,
the Second Party union is not entitled to get any relief as
sought in the Statement of Claim.
Hence, I answers Issue No. 1 and 2 in the Negative and
proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The reference is hereby answered in the negative.
(ii) No orders to cost.
(iii) Five copies of this Award be sent to the Desk
Officer, Ministry of Labour, Government of
India, New Delhi for publication and necessary
action.
Kolhapur,
K.R. PETHKAR, Presiding Officer
Dated: 10th April, 2014
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1634-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj dsujk cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 63@2013a½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 14-8-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[ la- ,y&12011@49@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015
S.O. 1634.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 63/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
No. 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14/08/2015.
[No. L-12011/49/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND
DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT
NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,
DELHI
ID No. 63/2013
Shri Ishwar Singh Chhokar,
Canara Bank Workers Organization,
BO: Shakti Nagar, Canara Bank,
Delhi.
Workman
Versus
The Deputy General Manager
Canara Bank, Ansal Tower,
8th Floor, 38 Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
...Management
AWARD
A reference was received by this Tribunal under section
10(2)(a) read with clause 1(d) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 from the appropriate Government to answer
the following:
"Whether the action of the management of Canara
Bank in imposing the punishment of stoppage of
one increment without cumulative effect vide order
dated 12.04.2008 upon Shri Ishwar Singh Chhokar.
Special Assistant, is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?
3434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Chokker pleading
that he was working as Special Assistant at Shakti Nagar
branch since 18.11.2006. He was connected with trade union
operating in the establishment of the management, but due
to serveral reasons during the course of time downsized
the union activities. Since his transfer to Shakti Nagar
branch, the Senior Manager, Shri S.K. Panda alongwith
others were deliberately targeting the claimant under a
properly hatched conspiracy by the rival union leaders in
connivance with other officials of the branch. Shri R.K.
Arora, the General Manager was also informed about the
conspiracy as well as the harassment caused to him.
3. The claimant requested for a change of seat as he
did not want to work with Shri Joginder Singh, who was in
the habit of not doing his duty, using abusive language and
also physically manhandling staff. He faced insubordination
and misbehaviour at the hands of Shri Joginder Singh. The
Senior Manager, Shri Panda colluded with the others in
order to frame him in serious charges.
4. On 05.03.2007, while distributing the wedding card of
his daughter at the branch, he heard Joginder Singh
abusing him. When confronted, Shri Joginder hit the
claimant with a stick and injured his two fingers. Later on,
Shri Joginder was asked to leave the branch at around
noon. On 06.03.2007, the claimant requested that he be
allowed to mark his attendance on 05.03.2007. It was initially
allowed by the Senior Manager, but had not authenticated
it. The Chief Manager also refused to authenticate it, hence
he struck off his signature in the presence of the Manager.
Hence, he was charge sheeted for refusal of work and for
having tampered bank records. The Enquiry Officer was
based against him. During the enquiry proceedings, he was
not given reasonable opportunity to defend the charges.
The enquiry was not counducted in a fair and proper manner
and is ultra-vires, illegal, unconstitutional, malafide with
ulterior motive. Order dated 12.04.2008 imposing
punishment of 'Bringing down to a lower stage in scale
of pay by one stage for a period of one year without
cumulative effect' has been passed by the Disciplinary
Authority without application of mind.
5. Demurral was made by the management pleading
that the dispute has not been properly espoused and is
also barred on the grounds of delay and latches. The
claimant was posted as Special Assistant at Shakti Nagar
branch from 18.11.2006 to 23.03.2013. On 05.03.2007,
when the claimant was allotted work, he informed the
Senior Manager that he was proceeding on leave. On the
said date, at about 11.30 a.m. a quarrel broke out between
the claimant and Shri Joginder Singh, sub-staff, which
affected the normal functioning of the bank. An
investigation was ordered and it was observed that the
claimant refused to work on the allotted seat, picked up a
quarrel with Shri Joginder Singh in the branch premises
and also tampered with bank's record by signing the
attendance register, cutting/striking the leave mark by the
Senior Manager in the register. Based on the report of
the Investigating Offical, explanation of the claimant were
called, which was not found satisfactory. Hence charge
sheet dated 12.10.2007 was served on him. Departmental
enquiry was constituted against him and based on findings
of the Enquiry Officer, punishment of 'brought down to a
lower stage in scale of pay by one stage for a period of
one year without cumulative effect' was imposed upon
him by the Disciplinary Authority. Management pleads
that the enquiry was held in a just and fair manner and
punishment was imposed in accordance with provisions
of Canara Bank Service Code and keeping in mind the
gravity of charges leveled against the claimant. Prayer has
been made that the claim may be brushed aside.
6. On persual of pleadings, following issues were
settled:
(1) Whether dispute has not acquired status of an
industrial dispute for want espousal by a union
or by considerable number of workmen in the
establishemt of the management?
(2) Whether delay of above five years in raising the
dispute frustrates the claim?
(3) Whether enqury conducted by the management
is just, fair and proper?
(4) As in terms of reference
Issue Nos. 1 and 3 were treated as preliminary issues.
The claimant examined himself in support of his claim
on the preliminary issue. Management filed affidavit of
Shri M.M. Sharma as evidence and the case was listed for
testimony of the management witness. In the meanwhile,
Shri chhoker moved an application on 15.12.2014 for
withdrawal of his case on health grounds as well as him
impending retirement on 31.12.2014.
7. Since the workman himself is interested in
withdrawing his case, no fruitful purpose will be served
by continuing the present proceedings. As such, this
Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No
Dispute/Claim' award. Let this award be sent to the
appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of
the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, for publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Dated: July 30, 2015.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015
dkñvkñ 1635-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 02@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 14-8-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@203@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MSLd vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3435
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015
S.O. 1635.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02/2004)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14/08/2015.
[No. L-12012/203/2013-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 02 of 2004
Parties: Employers in relation to the management
of Bank of India
AND
Their workmen.
Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray
....Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
:
Mr. R.N. Majumder, Ld. Counsel.
Management
On behalf of the
:
Mr. M.S. Dutta, Ld. Counsel.
Workmen
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Banking.
Dated: 3rd August, 2015
AWARD
By Order No.L-12012/203/2003-1R(B-II) dated
30.01.2003 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour
in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India in dismissing Shri Subal Das, Ex-Sweeper from
service is legal and justified? lf not, what relief Shri
Subal Das is entitled to?'
2. The case of the workman, in short, is as follows:
The concerned workman was a permanent sub-staff
Sweeper of the Bank of India, Nabapally Branch. He also
used to perform the job of Cash Peon in addition to his
duties. It is alleged that without serving any notice the
management Bank imposed punishment of dismissal on
the allegation that he committed theft on 29.06.1999 by
removing one bundle consisting of ten packets of Rs. 500
denomination currency notes amounting to Rupees five
lac from the currency chest situated on the ground floor
of Nabapally Branch of the Bank. It is alleged that the
workman was not given reasonable opportunity to defend
himself and that he was denied to cross-examine the
prosecution witness and that the principles of natural
justice was violated in holding the domestic enquiry. It is
further alleged that the domestic enquiry on the basis of
which management imposed punishment of dismissal, was
not legal, valid and proper. Accordingly, it is prayed that
the order of dismissal passed by the management may be
set aside.
3. The management has opposed the case of the
workman by filing written statement contending inter-allia
that while performing job in Currency Chest at Nabapally
Branch of Bank of India, the workman taking advantage of
temporary absence of Currency Chest Officer on 29.06.1999,
committed theft by removing one bundle consisting of
Rs. 500 denomination notes amounting to Rupees five lac
from the currency chest. Subsequently he admitted the
said incident and led the recovery of entire money. The
workman also made confessional statements on 02.07.1999
and also on 05.07.1999. Thereafter enquiry was held by the
Enquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The enquiry was held on different dates and the concerned
workman was present on every date along with his defence
representative. During enquiry on 22.09.1999, the concerned
workman admitted the charge leveled against him.
Ultimately on 16.11.1999, the Enquiry Officer submitted his
report where the charge was found to have been
substantiated. The Disciplinary Authority accordingly
issued show-cause punishment notice. Ultimately order of
dismissal of the workman was passed. Against the said
order of dismissal, the workman preferred an appeal before
the Appellate Authority but he lost the appeal. Ultimately
industrial dispute was raised by the workman. Hence this
reference. It is contended that the enquiry was held in
accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders
and bipartite settlement of the Bank and that fair
opportunities were given to the workman to defend his
case. Natural justice was also extended to him at every
stage of domestic enquiry. The management has, thus,
prayed that the instant reference may be answered in the
affirmative.
4. The concerned workman has examined himself in order
to prove his case. He has not produced any document in
support of his case.
5. On the other hand, management in support of its
case, has examined two witnesses and proved documents
marked Exts. M-01 to M-05 (Ext. M-04 includes ME-01
to ME-10).
6. In this case the first issue of the reference to be
decided is whether the dismissal of Shri Subal Das
(ex-Sweeper) from service is legal and justified.
3436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2015/SRAVANA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Admittedly the management dismissed the said workman
from service after holding domestic enquiry against him.
It is the contention of the workman that the domestic
enquiry was not proper and valid as natural justice was
not extend to him during such enquiry and that he was not
given opportunity to cross-examine the witness and
thereby denied the opportunity to defend his case. It is
also alleged that the findings of the enquiry was not based
on evidence. The management has opposed the above
contentions of the workman.
7. In view of such contention and counter contention
of the parties, it is the duty of the Tribunal to ascertain as
to whether or not the domestic enquiry held against the
workman was valid and proper.
8. From the order dated 2.03.2015 it is evident that after
hearing both sides and after considering the evidence on
record this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the
report of the Enquiry Officer is legal, valid and proper as
the same was prepared after observing all the rules and
formalities of the enquiry.
9. It is submitted on behalf of the workman that the
statements of Tarit Kumar Das and Pranab Kumar Goswami
which were recorded before holding the domestic enquiry,
go to show that money in question was recovered from the
2nd drawer of Tarat Kumar Das and as such the said
statements cast a cloud of doubt about genuineness of
the confessional statement of the workman.
10. It is also submitted that the workman has made
scapegoat by the management in order to save the officers
concerned who were actually involved in the crime.
In this connection the Ld. Counsel has pointed out the
statements of the said persons, namely, Tarit Kumar Das
and Pranab Kumar Goswami (Ext. M-04).
11. Perused the statements of the said two officers of
the Bank/management with reference to the confessional
statements of the delinquent workman made on
02.07.1999 and 05.07.1999.
It appears that the confessional statements of the
workman corroborate the said two statements of the bank
officers. The confessional statements go to show that the
workman at first kept eight (8) bundles of currency notes
on the top of the Almirah and before leaving the Bank he
kept the same in the 2nd drawer of the counting table.
Subsequently, when Shri Das went to that table for
recounting, he noticed the said 8 bundles currency notes
in that drawer. The evidence on record does not go to show
that the said recounting table was exclusively used by Shri
Das and nobody were/are allowed to use that table.
Moreover, it appears from the statements of Pranab
Kumar Goswami and other persons (Ext. M-04) that the
concerned workman led the recovery of the remaining
rupees one lac which he kept concealed in the house of
his relative.
12. In this case on the basis of the confessional
statements and the statements of other persons, charge
was framed against the workman and that charge of theft
was admitted by the workman. Considering the above facts
and circumstances Enquiry Officer found the workman
guilty of the charge and submitted report to that effect, it
was never alleged from the side of the workman that the
said confessional statements were obtained under
coercion and threat and that he never led any recovery of
rupees one lac.
Moreover, no question of victimization or unfair labour
practice or management having bias against the workman
can arise once it is held that the findings of misconduct
alleged against the workman were properly arrived at and
the domestic enquiry was in no way vitiated.
13. Since it has been decided that the domestic enquiry
held against the concerned workman is valid and since
the said order has not been challenged by any of the parties,
the workman has no right to agitate that the charge framed
against him is false as he had no scope to commit theft of
currency notes in presence of his officers who were
supposed to be present in the currency chest when the
same was opened for counting and other purpose. So it
appears that the domestic enquiry was valid and the
findings of the enquiry were not perverse.
14. In this case, the workman was dismissed from
service as the charge of theft against him was proved in
the domestic enquiry. From the said action of the
management it may reasonably be presumed that the
management/Bank which deals with the public money, lost
confidence in the workman due to the lack of his integrity
and honesty. Such distrust of the management cannot be
brushed aside under the carpet because in the banking
business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and
honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee. It
is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors
would be impaired. So, theft by an employee of the Bank
is the theft of public money and must be treated
differently. Such misconduct cannot be treated lightly.
15. By referring three decisions reported in 1973-I-
LLJ 278; 2001-II-LLJ 1259 and 2010-III-LLJ 500 it has
been submitted on behalf of the workman that after
incorporation of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 this Tribunal is entitled to hold that even if the
misconduct is proved, the punishment of dismissal is not
justified.
16. It is well settled that before the insertion of Section
11A, the Tribunal could interfere with the quantum of
punishment only where punishment was shockingly
disproportionate with the gravity of misconduct
committed by the delinquent workman because that could
lead to the inference of rnalafides but now it has the
jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment, the tribunal
has only to see whether the punishment imposed by the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 15] [email protected] 24] 1937
3437
employer is commensurate with the gravity of the act of
misconduct. If it comes to the conclusion that the
misconduct is proved, it may still hold that punishment is
not justified because the misconduct alleged and proved
is such as does not warrant the punishment of discharge
of dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of
discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or
without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit, or give
any other relief including the ward of punishment in lieu
of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case
may warrant.
But, in this case it has already been discussed that
major misconduct i.e., theft of public money has been
proved against the bank employee. So it cannot be said
that the punishment is not justified because of misconduct
alleged and found proved is such that it does not warrant
dismissal or discharge.
17. The Ld. Counsel for the workman has referred three
decisions reported in 1989-I-71; 2000-11-LLJ1599 and
2006-II-LLJ 401 and submitted that the workman should
be given opportunity to reform himself and prove to be
loyal and disciplined employee.
18. It has already been pointed out that charge of theft
in respect of public money has been established against
the bank employee and it appears that the management
dismissed him from service as it lost confidence in the said
employee on apprehension that he could commit such
offence again in future, if he was allowed to continue the
job.
19. In this context it is desirable to mention the
decision reported in (2006) 5 S.C.C. 201 where the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"If the enquiry is fair and proper then in the absence of
any allegation of victimization or unfair labour practice
the Labour court has no power to interfere with the
punishment imposed. Section 11-A of the industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 gives ample power to the Labour court
to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also
sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing
punishment.............................."
It has also been held in a decision reported in (2000) 7
S.C.C. 517 that
"After finding that charges against the workman for
breach of trust and misappropriation of funds
entrusted to them for the value mentioned in the
charge-sheet had been established, the Labour Court
materially erred in setting aside the order passed
by the management removing the workmen
concerned from service and reinstating them with
25% back wages. Once an act of misappropriation
is proved, may be for small or large amount, there
is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy
and reinstating the employees in service.
In case of proved misappropriation, there is no
question of considering the past record. It is the
discretion of the employer to consider the same in
appropriate cases, but the Labour Court cannot
substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in
such cases."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in a
decision reported in (2006) 12 S.C.C. 554 that:
"We find that the Labour Court has found the enquiry
to be fair and proper. The conduct highlighted by the
management and established in enquiry was certainly of a
very grave nature. The Labour Court and High Court had
not found the misconduct was of any minor nature. On
the contrary, the finding on facts that the act complained
of has not been disturbed. That being so, the leniency
shown by the Labour Court is certainly unwarranted and
would in fact, encourage indiscipline. Without indicating
any reason as to why it was felt that the punishment was
disproportionate, the Labour Court should not have passed
the order in the manner done...."
20. Considering the above facts and circumstances and
the nature and gravity of the offence and in view of the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court I do not find any
reason to interfere with the decision of the management/
Bank in dismissing the concerned workman.
21. Accordingly the instant reference is answered in
the affirmative and the concerned workman is not entitled
to get any relief whatsoever.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 3rd August, 2015.
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.