dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 7 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1755-—dsUnz ljdkj] ,rnn~okjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk
6 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, egkjk"Vª jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] ea=ky;] fo'o
O;kikj dsUnz] eqacbZ dh lgefr ls fnukad 19 uoacj] 2014 dh
vf/klwpuk lañ ,evkbZ,llh&2014@lhvkj&91@,lih,y&3¼d½ ds
rgr lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh vf/kfu;e] 2000 ¼2000 dh vf/kfu;e lañ
21½ dh /kkjk 66 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 43 ds vuq:i csyft;e naM
lafgrk dh vuqPNsn 550 chvkbZ,l vkSj 550 VhbZvkj ds vfrØe.k
ls ekyos;j ds iz;ksxksa ds ifj.kkeLo:i csyft;u Vsfydkse vkijsVj
cksykxkse ,uñohñ ds lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh iz.kkyh esa xSj dkuwuh :i ls
igqapus ds fy, ekyos;j iz;ksx ,oa xyrh ls gh bl lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh
iz.kkyh esa vfufnZ"V lwpukvksa ds pksjh ,oa gkfu mRiUu djus ds vijkè
ls lacaf/kr dkuwuh lgk;rk gsrq ¼fnukad 4-10-13 ds uksV osjkcsy lañ
13@00844½ ds csyft;e jk"Vª ds jktnwrkokl ubZ fnYyh ls izkIr
ysVlZ jksxsVjh ds dk;Z fu"iknu ,oa mi;qZDr vijk/k ds laca/k esa vFkok
mlls tqM+s iz;kl] nq"izsj.k vkSj "kM;a= dk ,oa mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu mlh
nkSjku fd, x, dksbZ vU; vijk/k dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh
fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kf/kdkj {ks= dk
foLrkj laiw.kZ egkjk"Vª jkT; ij djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 228@16@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training )
New Delhi, the 7th September, 2015
S.O. 1755.—In exercise of the power conferred by sub-
section (1) of section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Maharashtra, Home Department,
Mantralaya, World Trade Centre, Mumbai vide Notification
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- 37]
ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 6—flrEcj 12] 2015] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 15—Hkkæ 21] 1937
No. 37]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 6—SEPTEMBER 12, 2015, SATURDAY/BHADRA 15—BHADRA 21, 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)
3680 GI/2015
(3673)
3674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
No.MISC-2014/CR-91/SPL-3(A) dated 19th November, 2014,
hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of
the State of Maharashtra for investigation in respect of
execution of Lettters Rogatory received from the Embassy
of the Kingdom of Belgium, New Delhi for legal assistance
(Note Verbale No. 13/ 00844 dated 04.10.2013) relating to
offences of use of malware to unlawfully access the secure
information technology system of the Belgian telecom
operator Belgacom N.V. and stealing unspecified
information and causing damage, even inadvertently, to
this information technology system as a result of the
malware which correspond to violation of article 550 bis
and 550ter of the Belgian Criminal Code corresponding to
section 43 read with section 66 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000) and any other
offence(s) attempt, abetments and conspiracies in relation
to or in connection with above mentioned offence and any
other offence or offence committed in the course of the
same transaction arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/16/2015 -AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYYkh] 9 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1756-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 25½ dh
/kkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, gfj;k.kk jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] paMhx<+ ds fnukad
'kwU; dh vf/klwpuk lañ 20@10@2015&3 ,pthñ I }kjk izkIr lgefr
ls iqfyl LVs'ku ekuslj] ftyk xqMxkao esa Hkkñ nñ lafgrk dh /kkjk 420]
468] 471 vkSj 120& ch rFkk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 dh
/kkjk 13 ds rgr ntZ ,QvkbZvkj lañ 510 fnukad 12-08-2015 rFkk
muls lacaf/kr vijk/kksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM~;a=ksa ;k mlh laO;ogkj ds
Hkkx ds :i esa fd, x, vFkok mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu vijk/k ;k
vijk/kksa ,oa mi;qZDr vijk/kksa esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj
"kM~;a=ksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, vFkok mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu
fdlh vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa ls lacaf/kr tkap ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k
iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj
leLr gfj;k.kk jkT; esa djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 228@39@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2015
S.O. 1756.—In exercise of the power conferred by sub-
section (1) of section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act,1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the Notification
No. 20/10/2015-3 HG-1, dated NIL hereby extends the
powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Haryana
for investigation of FIR No. 510 dated 12.08.2015 u/s 420,
468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Manesar, Distt.
Gurgaon and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in
relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned
above and any other offence or offences committed in the
course of the same transaction or arising out the same
facts.
[F. No. 228/39/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1757-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rnn~okjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 45½ dh /kkjk 6
dh lgifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, v#.kkpy izns'k ljdkj] lrdZrk foHkkx] bVkuxj ds fnukad
25 tqykbZ] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk lañ ih,loh&20@2012&13 n~okjk
izkIr lgefr ls v#.kkpy izns'k jkT; ds Hkhrj dsUnz ljdkj rFkk
lkoZtfud {ks= mn~;eksa ¼ih,l;w½ vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ds fo#)
fuEufyf[kr vijk/kksa ds vUos"k.k ds laca/k esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/kdkj {ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ
v#.kkpy izns'k jkT; ij djrh gSA
dñ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 45½
dh /kkjk
34] 114] 120&[k] 121] 121&d] 122] 123] 124] 124&d]
128] 129] 130] 131] 132] 133] 134] 135] 136] 138] 140] 143]
147] 148] 149] 153] 153&d] 153&[k] 161] 162] 163] 164]
165] 165&d] 166] 167] 168] 169] 170] 171&b] 171&p] 182]
186] 188] 189] 190] 193] 196] 197] 198] 199] 200] 201]
203] 204] 211] 212] 214] 216] 216&d] 217] 218] 220] 222]
223] 224] 225] 225&[k] 231] 232] 233] 234] 235] 236] 237]
238] 239] 240] 241] 242] 243] 244] 245] 246] 247] 248]
249] 250] 251] 252] 253] 254] 255] 256] 257] 258] 259] 260]
261] 262] 263] 263&d] 275] 277] 279] 283] 284] 285] 286]
287] 292] 295] 295&d] 302] 303] 304] 304&d] 304&[k] 306]
307] 308 309] 323] 324] 325] 326] 328] 330] 331] 332] 333]
334] 336] 337] 338] 341] 342] 343] 344] 346] 347] 352]
354] 355] 363] 363&d] 364] 364&d] 365] 366] 366d] 366[k]
367] 368] 370] 371] 372] 373] 374] 376] 376&d] 376&[k]
376&x] 376&?k] 377] 379] 380] 381] 382] 384] 385] 386]
387] 388] 389] 392] 393] 394] 395] 396] 397] 398] 399]
401] 402] 403] 406] 407] 408] 409] 411] 412] 413] 414]
417] 418] 419] 420] 421] 423] 424] 426] 427] 429] 431]
432] 434] 435] 436] 440] 447] 448] 449] 450] 452] 454]
456] 457] 460] 461] 465] 466] 467] 468] 469] 471] 472]
473] 474] 475] 476] 477] 477&d] 482] 483] 485] 489]
489&d] 489&[k] 489&x] 489&?k] 489&M+] 495] 498&d] 499]
500] 501] 502] 504] 505] 506] 507] 509 ds rgr n.Muh;
vijk/k
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3675
[kñ dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e%
fuEufyf[kr ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k%—
1-
,;jØk¶V vf/kfu;e] 1934 ¼1934 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 22½ mDr vf/kfu;e ds rgr cuk, x, fofu;e
2-
vigj.k fujks/k vf/kfu;e] 1982 ¼1982 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 65½
3-
iqjkoLrqvksa ,oa dykdks"k vf/kfu;e] 1972 ¼1972 dk
vf/kfu;e lañ 52½
4-
iqjkoLrqvksa ¼fu;kZr fu;a=.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 31½ dks fujLr fd;k x;k
5-
vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 ¼1959 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 54½
6-
ijek.kq ÅtkZ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 33½
7-
csukeh lapkyu ¼fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk
vf/kfu;e lañ 45½ dh /kkjk 3
8-
ca/kqvk etnwj fu;e ¼mUewyu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 19½
9-
dsUnzh; mRikn ,oa ued vf/kfu;e] 1944 ¼1944 dk
vf/kfu;e lañ 1½
10-
cky Je ¼fuokj.k ,oa fofu;ekoyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1986
dh /kkjk 14¼1½ ,oa 14 ¼3½
11-
daiuh vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 1½
12-
dkWihjkbV vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 14½ dh /kkjk 63] 63&d] 63&[k] 65] 67] 68] 68&d
,oa 69
13-
vijk/k dkuwu ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼1961 dk
vf/kfu;e lañ 23½
14-
lhek 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 52½
15-
ngst fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼1961 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 28½ dh /kkjk 3 ,oa 4
16-
vkS"kf/k ,oa izlk/ku lkexzh vf/kfu;e] 1940 ¼1940 dk
vf/kfu;e lañ 23½
17-
mRizoklh vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼1983 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 31½
dh /kkjk 24
18-
vkikrdkyhu izko/kku ¼fujarjrk½ v/;kns'k] 1946
¼1946 dh v/;kns'k lañ 20½ ;fn dsUnz ljdkj n~okjk
tkjh fd, x, fdlh vkns'k ds mYya?ku n~okjk dsUnz ljdkj
ds deZpkfj;ksa] Bsdsnkjksa vFkok mi&Bsdsnkjksa vFkok muds
izfrfuf/k;ksa n~okjk izfrc) gksA
19-
vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼1955 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 10½
20-
foLQksVd vf/kfu;e] 1884 ¼1884 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 4½
21-
foLQksVd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1908 ¼1908 dk 6½
22-
fon~;qr vf/kfu;e] 1910 ¼1910 dk 9½
23-
fons'kh vfHknk; ¼fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976
dk 49½
24-
fons'kh vfHknk; ¼fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 2010 ¼2010
dk 42½
25-
fons'kh fo"k;d vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk 31½
26-
fons'kh eqnzk fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1973 ¼1973 dk 46½
27-
lk/kkj.k chek dkjckj ¼jk"Vªh;dj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1922
¼1922 dk 57½
28-
nkj&dj vf/kfu;e] 1958 ¼1958 dk 18½
29-
Lo.kZ fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1968 ¼1968 dk 45½
30-
vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼1961 dk 43½
31-
vk;kr vkSj fu;kZr ¼fu;a=.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 18½
32-
vuSfrd O;kikj ¼fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk
104½ dh /kkjk 3] 4] 5] 8] 9 ,oa 15
33-
chek vf/kfu;e] 1938 ¼1938 dk 4½
34-
mn~;ksx ¼fodkl vkSj fofu;e½ vf/kfu;e] 1951 ¼1961
dk 65½
35-
lwpuk izkSn~;ksfxdh vf/kfu;e] 2000 ¼2000 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 21½
36-
lwpuk izkSn~;ksfxdh ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2008 ¼2009
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 10½
37-
Hkkjrh; eqnzk vf/kfu;e] 1899
38-
Hkkjrh; ou vf/kfu;e] 1927 ¼1927 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 16½
39-
cky U;k; vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh /kkjk 23] 24] 25 ,oa 26
40-
ykWVjh ¼fofu;e½ vf/kfu;e] 1998 ¼1998 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 17½
41-
[kuu ,oa [kfut ¼fofu;e ,oa fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957
¼1957 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 67½
42-
eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e] 1939 ¼1939 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 4½
3676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
43-
Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985
¼1985 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 61½
44-
Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985
¼1985 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 61½ dh /kkjk 25&d
45-
ijkØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1861 dh /kkjk 138 ¼1861
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 26½
46-
ljdkjh xksiuh;rk vf/kfu;e] 1923 ¼1923 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 19½
47-
ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e] 1920 ¼1920 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 24½
rFkk ikliksVZ fu;ekoyh] 1950 dk fu;e lañ 6
48-
ikliksVZ ¼Hkkjr esa izos'k½ vf/kfu;e] 1920 ds lanHkZ esa
¼1920 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 34½ ikliksVZ ¼Hkkjr esa izos'k½
fu;ekoyh] 1950-
49-
ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e] 1967 ¼1967 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 15½
50-
Mkd ?kj vf/kfu;e] 1898 ¼1898 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 2½
51-
Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 2½
52-
Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 49½
53-
[kkn~; vifeJ.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1954 ¼1954 dk
vf/kfu;e lañ 37½
54-
yksd laifÙk uqdlku fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1984 ¼1984
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 3½
55-
Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1988
¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 46½
56-
jk"Vªh; izfr"Bk dh voekuuk fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1971
¼1971 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 69½
57-
vkradokn fuokj.k v/;kns'k] 2001 ¼2001 dk 9½
58-
vkradokn fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 2002 ¼2002 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 15½
59-
izSl rFkk izLrdksa dk iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1867 ¼1867
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½
60-
ikfjrksf"kd fpV ,oa eqnzk ifjpkyu ;kstuk ¼izfrca/k½
vf/kfu;e] 1978 dh /kkjk 4 vkSj 5 ¼1978 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 43½
61-
;kSu mRihM+u ls cPpksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 ¼2012
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 32½
62-
lkoZtfud ijh{kk ¼vijk/k½ vf/kfu;e] 1980 ¼1980
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 62½
63-
jsyos vf/kfu;e] 1890 ¼1890 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 9½
64-
jsyos HkaMkj ¼voS/k dCtk½ vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼1959 dk
vf/kfu;e lañ 51½
65-
jsyos vf/kfu;e] 1989 ¼1989 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 24½
66-
yksd izfrfuf/kRp vf/kfu;e] 1950 ¼1950 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 43½
67-
yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 ¼1951 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 43½
68-
fonsf'k;ksa dk iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1939 ¼1939 dk
vf/kfu;e lañ 16½
69-
Hkkjrh; izfrHkwfr fofu;e cksMZ vf/kfu;e] 1922 dh
/kkjk 24
70-
ukxj foekuu lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1982 ds fo#) voS/k
dk;ksZa ij izfrca/k ¼1982 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 66½
71-
/kkfeZd laLFkkvksa ¼nq#i;ksx fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1988
¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 41½
72-
vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds ¼vR;kpkj
fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989 dh /kkjk 3 ,oa 4
73-
egkn~ohih; ty 'ksYQ] fo'ks"k vkfFkZd {ks= vkSj vU;
leqnzh tksu vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk vf/kfu;e lañ
80½ dh /kkjk 11 ,oa 12
74-
VsyhxzkQ vf/kfu;e] 1885 ¼1885 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 13½
75-
VsyhxzkQ rkjksa ¼voS/k dCt+k½ vf/kfu;e] 1950 ¼1950
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 74½
76-
vkradokn vkSj fo?kVudkjh xfrfof/k;ka ¼fuokj.k½
vf/kfu;e] 1985 ¼1985 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 31½ vkSj
blds varxZr cuk, x, fu;e
77-
vkradokn vkSj fo?kVudkjh lfØ; xfrfof/k;ka ¼fuokj.k½
vf/kfu;e] 1987 ¼1987 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 28½ vkSj
blds rgr cuk, x, fu;e
78-
ekuoh; vaxksa dk VªkalIykaVs'ku vf/kfu;e] 1994 ¼1994
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 42½
79-
xSjdkuwuh xfrfof/k;ka ¼fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1967 ¼1967
dk vf/kfu;e lañ 37½
80-
ok;jysl vkSj VsyhxzkQh vf/kfu;e] 1933 ¼1933 dk
vf/kfu;e lañ 17½
81-
laifÙk dj vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 27½
82-
oU; tho dk ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1972 dh /kkjk 51
¼1972 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 53½
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3677
83-
oU; tho ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1972 ¼1972 dk
vf/kfu;e lañ 53½
84-
O;kkolkf;d ysu&nsu vf/kfu;e] 1999 ¼1999 dk
vfèfu;e lañ 46½ ds rgr lHkh laKs; vijk/kA
d vkSj [k esa mfYyf[kr vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa iz;kl]
nq"izsj.k rFkk "kM~;a=A
[lañ 228@63@2013&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2015
S.O. 1757.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 45 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Arunachal Pradesh Vigilance Department,
Itanagar vide Notification No. PSV-20/2012-13 dated
25th July 2013, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction
of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
to the whole of the State of Arunachal Pradesh for
investigation of the following offences against Central
Government and Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) Officers/
Officials within the State of Arunachal Pradesh:—
A Offences punishable under sections 34,114, 120-B,
121,121-A, 122, 123, 124, 124-A, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134,
135, 136, 138, 140, 143, 147, 148, 149, 153, 153-A, 153-B, 161,
162, 163, 164, 165, 165-A, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171-E,
171-F, 182, 186, 188, 189, 190, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200,
201, 203, 204, 211, 212, 214, 216, 216-A, 217, 218, 220, 222,
223, 224, 225, 225-B, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239,
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252,
253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263-A, 275,
277, 279, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 292, 295, 295-A, 302, 303,
304, 304-A, 304-B, 306, 307, 308, 309, 323, 324, 325, 326, 328,
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342, 343, 344, 346,
347, 352, 353, 354, 355, 363, 363-A, 364, 364-A, 365, 366,
366-A, 366-B, 367, 368, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 376, 376-A,
376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 377,379, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385, 386,
387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 401, 402,
403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 419, 420,
421, 423, 424, 426, 427, 429, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436, 440, 447,
448, 449, 450, 452, 454, 456, 457, 460, 461, 465, 466, 467, 468,
469, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 477-A, 482, 483, 485,
489, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 489-E, 495, 498-A, 499, 500,
501, 502, 504, 505, 506, 507, 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Act No. 45 of 1860).
B. CENTRAL ACTS:
Offences punishable under:—
1.
Aircraft Act 1934 (Act No. 22 of 1934) and rules
made under the said Act.
2.
Anti-Hijacking Act 1982 (Act No. 65 of 1982).
3.
Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972 (Act No.
52 of 1972).
4.
Antiquities (Export Control) Act, 1947 (Act No.
31 of 1947) Repealed.
5.
Arms Act 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959).
6.
Atomic Energy Act 1962 (Act No. 33 of 1962).
7.
Section 3 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition)
Act 1988 (Act No. 45 of 1988).
8.
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (Act
No. 19 of 1976).
9.
Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (Act No. 1 of
1944).
10.
Section 14(1) and 14(3) of Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
11.
Companies Act 1956 (Act No. 1 of 1956)
12.
Sections 63, 63-A, 64-B, 65, 67, 68, 68-A and 69 of
Copy-rights Act, 1957 (Act No. 14 of 1957) .
13.
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1961 (Act No. 23
of 1961) .
14.
Customs Act 1962 (Act No. 52 of 1962) .
15.
Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 (Act No. 28 of 1961) .
16.
Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (Act No. 23 of
1940) .
17.
Section 24 of Emigration Act 1983 (Act No. 31 of
1983) .
18.
Emergency Provisions (Continuance) Ordinance
1946 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1946) if committed by
the Employees of the Central Government or
contractors or sub-contractors or their
representatives by contravening any order issued
by the Central Government.
19.
Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Act No. 10 of
1955) .
20.
Explosives Act 1884 (Act No. 4 of 1884.)
21.
Explosive Substances Act 1908 (Act No. 6 of
1908).
22.
Electricity Act 1910 (Act No. 9 of 1910) .
23.
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976 (Act
No. 49 of 1976).
24.
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 (Act
No. 42 of 2010).
25.
Foreigners Act, 1946 (Act No. 31 of 1946).
26.
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Act No.
46 of 1973).
3678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
27.
General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act
1922 (Act No. 57 of 1922).
28.
Gift Tax Act 1958 (Act No. 18 of 1958).
29.
Gold Control Act 1968 (Act No. 45 of 1968).
30.
Income Tax Act 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961).
31.
Import and Export (Control) Act 1947 (Act No. 18
of 1947).
32.
Sections 3,4,5,8,9, and 15 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956).
33.
Insurance Act 1938 (Act No. 4 of 1938).
34.
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act
1951 (Act No. 65 of 1951).
35.
Information Technology Act 2000 (Act No. 21 of
2000).
36.
Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008
(Act No. 10 of 2009).
37.
Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
38.
The Indian Forest Act, 1927(Act No.16 of 1927).
39.
Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2006.
40.
The Lotteries (Regulation ) Act 1998 (Act No. 17
of 1998).
41.
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act 1957 (Act No. 67 of 1957).
42.
Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (Act No. of 1939).
43.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act
1985 ( Act No. 61 of 1985).
44.
Section 25-A of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 (Act No. 61 of
1985).
45.
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881
(Act No. 26 of 1881).
46.
Official Secrets Act 1923 (Act No. 19 of 1923).
47.
Passport Act 1920 (Act No. 24 of 1920) and rule 6
of passport Rules 1950.
48.
The Passport (Entry into India) Rules 1950 r/w
Passport (Entry into India) Act 1920, (Act No. 34
of 1920).
49.
Passport Act 1967 (Act No. 15 of 1967).
50.
Post Office Act 1898 (Act No. 6 of 1898).
51.
Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (Act No. 2 of
1947).
52.
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Act No. 49 of
1988).
53.
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (Act
No. 37 of 1954).
54.
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984
(Act No.3 of 1984).
55.
The Prevention of Damage to Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act
1988 (Act No. 46 of 1988).
56.
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971
(Act No. 69 of 1971).
57.
Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance 2001 (No.9 of
2001).
58.
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 (Act No. 15 of
2002).
59.
The Press and Registration of Books Act 1867
(Act No. 25 of 1867).
60.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978 (Act No.
43 of 1978).
61.
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012)
62.
Public Examination (Offences) Act, 1980 (Act No.
XLII of 1980).
63.
Railways Act 1890 (Act No. 9 of 1890).
64.
Railways Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act 1955
(Act No. 51 of 1959).
65.
The Railways Act 1989 (Act No. 24 of 1989).
66.
Representation of the People Act 1950 (Act No.
43 of 1950).
67.
Representation of the People Act 1951 (Act No.
43 of 1951).
68.
Registration of Foreigners Act 1939 (Act No.16 of
1939).
69.
Section 24 of the Securities Exchange Board of
India Act 1992.
70.
Suppression of Unlawful Act against Safety of
Civil Aviation Act 1982 (Act No. 66 of 1982).
71.
The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse)
Act 1988 (Act No. 41 of 1988).
72.
Section 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
73.
Section 11 & 12 of the Territorial Waters
Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and
other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (Act No. 80 of
1976).
74.
Telegraph Act 1885 (Act No. 13 of 1885).
75.
Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act 1950
(Act No. 74 of 1950).
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3679
76.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act 1985 (Act No. 31 of 1985) and Rules made
hereunder.
77.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activates (Prevention)
Act 1987 (Act No. 28 of 1987) and Rules made
thereunder.
78.
Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (Act
No. 42 of 1994).
79.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (Act
No. 37 of 1967).
80.
Wireless and Telegraphy Act 1933 (Act No. 17 of
1933).
81.
Wealth Tax Act 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957).
82.
Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (Act
No. 53 of 1972).
83.
Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (Act No. 53 of
1972).
84.
All cognizable offences under the Trade Marks
Act, 1999 (Act No. 46 of 1999).
and attempts, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or
in connection with the offences mentioned at A and B.
[No. 228/63/2013-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1758-—dsUnz ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6
ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, if'pe caxky jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] vkarfjd lqj{kk
czkap] xksiuh; izdks"B uckuk] ,pvkjchlh Hkou] f'koiqj] gkoM+k
dksydkrk dh 22 fnlEcj] 2014 ds ljdkj }kjk nh xbZ
1613&vkbZ,l,l dh lgefr ls yXteoxZ dh xzkaM Mph jktnwrkokl
ls izkIr jsxqysVjh i=ksa ds dk;kZUo;u fd, tkus ds laca/k esa Lopkfyr
vkadM+k izfØ;kUo;u iz.kkyh] xyr uke dk iz;ksx djus] vizkfFkZr
lEizs"k.k] gsrq iwjs if'pe caxky esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds
lnL;ksa dks fNiko bR;kfn ls lacaf/kr diViw.kZ igqap] dk vUos"k.k
djus ds fy, 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kf/kdkj {ks= dk dkuwuh lgk;rk
¼ojacsy lañ 27@2014 fnukad 15-07-2014½ foLrkj laiw.kZ if'pe
caxky jkT; ij djrh gSA ;g ,d izdkj dk Qksu LdSe gS] ftlesa
fo'oHkj esa gtkjksa dEI;wVjksa esa Qksu dkWy }kjk QSyk;k tkrk gSA
yXtecxZ Hkh bl izdkj ds vkØe.kksa dk y{; jgk gS ftlls yXtecxZ
dh vijk/k lafgrk ds vuqPNsn 509&1] 509&2 vkSj 509&3 dk
mYya?ku gksrk gSA dfFkr vijk/k lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh vf/kfu;e] 2000
¼2000 dk 21oka vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 66 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 43 ds
fofo/k izko/kkuksa] vU; vijk/kksa] mlls tqM+s fofo/k iz;klksa rFkk leku
rF;ksa ls mRiUu leku ysu&nsu ls laca/k j[krk gSA
[lañ 228@70@2014&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2015
S.O. 1758.—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 Government
of West Bengal, Home Department, Internal Security
Branch, Secret Cell Nabanna, HRBC Building, Shibpur,
Howrah, Kolkata vide No. 1613-I.S.S. dated 22nd December,
2014, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the
members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the
whole of the State of West Bengal for investigation in
respect of execution of Letters Rogatory received from the
Embassy of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, New Delhi
for legal assistance (Note Verbale No. 27/2014, dated
15.07.2014) relating to fraudulent access to an automated
data processing system, public use of a false name,
unsolicited communication, concealment processing
system, public use of a false name, unsolicited
communication, concealment etc. This is a kind of phone
scam, wherein thousands of computers throughout the
world are infested by phone call. Luxembourg is also a
target of these attacks which correspond to violation of
Article 509-1, 509-2, and 509-3 of the Criminal Code of
Luxembourg.The said offences correspond to various
provisions of Sections 43 read with 66 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000) and any other
offence (s), attempt, abetments and conspiracies in relation
to or in connection with above mentioned offence and any
other offence of offences committed in course of the same
transaction arising out of the same facts.
[No. 228/70/2014-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1759-—thou chek fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956
dk 31½ dh /kkjk 4 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsanzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk Jhefr Lusgyrk JhokLro] vij lfpo] foÙkh;
lsok,a foHkkx dks MkWñ gleq[k vf/k;k ds LFkku ij rRdky izHkko ls
3680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd mDr fuxe ds lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh
gSA
[Qkñ lañ 14@3@2003&chek&IV]
,uñ Jhfuokl jko] funs'kd ¼chek½
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2015
S.O. 1759.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of
1956), the Central Government hereby appoints
Smt. Snehlata Shrivastava,Additional Secretary,
Department of Financial services as Member of the said
Corporation vice Dr. Hasmukh Adhia, with immediate effect
until further orders.
[F.No. 14/3/2003-Ins.-IV]
N. SRINIVASA RAO, Director (Insurance)
ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1760-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vfèfu;e] 1981
¼1981 dk 28½ dh èkjk 6 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼³½ ds mi[kaM
¼i½ ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vkyksd V.Mu
¼vkbZ,,l&1986&;wih½] la;qDr lfpo] foRrh; lsok,a foHkkx] foÙk
e=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dks rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd
MkWñ gleq[k vf<;k ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad ¼,fDte
cSad½ ds funs'kd e.My esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 9@16@2012&vkbZ,Q&I]
lkSE;kthr ?kks"k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2015
S.O. 1760.—In pursuance of sub-clause (i) of clause
(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import
Bank of India Act, 1981 (No. 28 of 1981), Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Alok Tandon (IAS-1986-UP), Joint
Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of
Finance, New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Directors
of Export Import Bank of India with immediate effect and
until further orders vice Dr. Hasmukh Adhia.
[F.No. 9/16/2012-IF-I]
SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1761-—ljdkjh LFkku vuf/kd`r ¼vfèHkksfx;ksa dh
csn[kyh½ vfèfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh èkjk 3 }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rnn~okjk] fuEufyf[kr
lkj.kh ds dkye ¼2½ esa mfYyf[kr vfèdkjh dks fu;qDr djrh gS tks
mDr vfèfu;e ds iz;kstu ds fy, lEink vfèdkjh ¼,LVsV vkfQlj½
gksaxsA dfFkr vfèdkjh mDr vfèfu;e ds varxZr vius {ks=kfèdkj
dh LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj vkus okys {ks=] tks fuEufyf[kr lkj.kh
ds dkWye ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V gSa] iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsaxs vkSj
lEink vfèdkjh dks lkSais x, dk;Z djsaxsA
lkj.kh
Øe inuke vkSj irk
ljdkjh LFkkuksa dh Jsf.k;ksa vkSj
lañ
vfèdkfjrk dh LFkkuh; lhek,a
1
2
3
1-
Jh dSyk'kukFk] eq[; izcaèd]
Hkkjr esa nsuk cSad ds iz'kklfud
nsuk cSad] ,pvkj,e foHkkx] izèku
fu;a=.k ds rgr mlds ifjlj vFkok
dk;kZy;] nsuk dkjiksjsV dsUnz] rhljk
cSad ds vkèkj ij vFkok mlds n~okjk
ry] lh&10] th Cykd] ckUnzk&dqykZ
iV~Vs ij fy, x, ifjljA
dkEIysDl] ckUnzk ¼bZLV½]
eqEcbZ&400051 ¼egkjk"Vª½
[Qkñ lañ 4@1@2015&chvks,]
rhFkZ jke] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2015
S.O. 1761.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
section 3 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government
hereby appoints the Officer mentioned in column No. 2 of
the table below to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the
said Act and further direct that the said officer shall exercise
the powers conferred and the duties imposed on an Estate
Officer by or under the said Act with the local limits of his
jurisdiction in respect of the public premises falling under
area as specified in column No. 3 of the table below:
Sl.
Designation and Address
Categories of public premises
No.
and local limits of jurisdiction
1
2
3
1.
Shri Kailashnath,
Premises belonging to or taken
Chief Manager,
on lease by or on behalf of the
Dena Bank,
Bank and under the
HRM Department, Head
administrative control of
Office, Dena
Dena Bank in India.
Corporate Centre, 3rd Floor,
C-10, G. Block, Bandra-
Kurla Complex, Bandra
(East), Mumbai-400 051
(Maharashtra)
[F.No. 4/1/2015-BOA]
TIRTH RAM, Under Secy.
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2015
S.O. 1762.—In partial modification of Government of
India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial
Services, Notification No. 6/3/2011-BO-I dated the 6th July,
2015, published in Part II Section 3(ii) of the Gazette of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3681
India, the name of the person proposed in column 3 may be
read as "Shri A. K. Misra" instead of "Shri A. K. Mishra".
[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] tks/kiqj
tks/kiqj] 3 flrEcj] 2015
la[;k 03@63@2015&16
dk-vk- 1763-—vk;dj vfèfu;e] 1961 ¼1961 dk 43oka½
dh èkjk 10¼23x½ ds [k.M ¼iv½ ds lkFk ifBr vk;dj
fu;ekoyh&1962 ds fu;e 2 x , }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr tksèiqj ,rn~}kjk ^^Jh jkepUnz xqtZj Le`fr
tu lsok lfefr ekjokM+ tD'ku] ftyk ikyh ekjokM+** dks mDr èkjk
ds iz;kstukFkZ fuèkZj.k o"kZ 2014&15 ls vkxs rd fuEufyf[kr 'krks±
ds vèhu vuqeksfnr djrs gSa%µ
1- dj fuèkZfjrh mldh vk; dk iz;ksx vFkok mldh vk; dk
iz;ksx djus ds fy, mldk lap;u iw.kZr% rFkk vU;r% mu
mn~ns';ksa ds fy, djsxk ftuds fy, bldh LFkkiuk dh xbZA
dj fuèkZfjrh lkslkbZVh }kjk ,d izfrc)rk ¼vaMjVsfdax½ dh
x;h gS fd laLFkk dk dk;Z dsoy f'k{kk izlkj ghs gksxk o blds
vykok laLFkk dksbZ dk;Z ugha djsaxsA laLFkk dks ;g lqfuf'pr
djuk gS fd nh xbZ vUMjVsfdax dk mYya?ku u gksA
2- dj fuèkZfjrh mi;qZDr dj fuèkZj.k o"kks± ls laxr iwoZorhZ o"kks±
dh fdlh vofè ds nkSjku èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼5½ esa
fofufnZ"V fdlh ,d vFkok ,d ls vfèd <ax vFkok rjhdksa
ls fHkUu rjhdksa ls mldh fufè ¼tsoj&tsokjgkr] QuhZpj
vkfn ds :i esa izkIr rFkk vuqjf{kr LoSfPNd va'knku ls
fHkUu½ dk fuos'k ugha djsxk vFkok mls tek ugha djok ldsxkA
3- ;g vkns'k fdlh ,slh vk; ds lacaè esa ykxw ugha gksxk tks fd
dkjksckj ls izkIr ykHk rFkk vfHkykHk gks tc rd ,slk dkjksckj
mDr dj fuèkZfjrh ds mn~ns';ksa dh izkfIr ds fy, izklafxd
ugha gks rFkk ,sls dkjksckj ds lacaè esa vyx ls ys[kk iqfLrdk,a
ugha j[kh tkrh gksA
4- dj fuèkZfjrh vk;dj vfèfu;e] 1961 ds izkoèkuksa ds
vuqlkj viuh vk; fooj.kh fu;fer :i ls vk;dj izkfèdkjh
ds le{k Qkby djsxkA
5- fo?kVu dh fLFkfr esa bldh vfrfjDr jkf'k;ka vkSj ifjlaifRr;ka
leku mn~ns';ksa okys èekZFkZ laxBu dks ns nh tk,xh vkSj
mldk dksbZ Hkh Hkkx laLFkku ds fdlh lnL; dks ugha fn;k
tk,xkA
6- vk;dj vfèfu;e dh èkjk 10¼23x½¼vi½ ds lkFk ifBr
115[k[kx esa ijUrqd 15 'krks± esa vuke nkuksa ds lEcUè esa
;g vuqeksnu ykxw ugha gksxkA
7-
;g vfèfu;e rc rd tkjh jgsxh tc rd bls okil u
fy;k tk;sA
[lanHkZ lañ eqñvkñvkñ@vkñvñ¼rd½@tksè@2015@16@695]
jkt dqekj] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME-TAX, JODHPUR
Jodhpur, the 3rd September, 2015
No. 03/63/2015-16
S.O. 1763.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (vi) of section 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
(43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income Tax Rules,
1962, I, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur
hereby approve "Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar Smriti Jan Sewa
Samiti, Marwar Junction Distt.-Pali" for the purpose of the
said section for the assessment year 2014-15 onwards,
subject to the following conditions:—
1.
The assessee will apply its income, or accumulate
for application wholly and exclusively to education
purpose only. The Society shall have to ad here to
its undertaking that the activities of the Society
shall be confined only to educational purpose. The
Institute shall do no other activity except
education.
2.
The assessee will invest or deposit its funds (other
than voluntary contribution received and
maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.)
for any period during the previous years relevant
to the assessment years mentioned above
otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or
modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11:
3.
This order will not apply in relation to any income
being profits and gain of business, unless the
business is incidental to the attainment of the
objectives of the assessee and separate books of
accounts are maintained in respect of such
business;
4.
The assessee will regularly file its return of income
before the income-tax authority in accordance will
the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961;
5.
That in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the
assets will be given to a charitable organization
with similar objectives and no part of the same with
go to any of the members of the Institution.
6.
The approval will not apply in relation to anonymous
donations in terms of the fifteenth proviso to section
10(23C)(vi) r.w.s. 115BBC of the Act.
7.
This notification will remain in force it is withdrawn.
[Ref. No. CCIT/ITO (Tech.)/Ju/2015-16/695]
RAJ KUMAR, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
3682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
fons'k ea=ky;
¼lhihoh izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1764-—jktuf;d vkSj dkalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk
vkSj Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k
esa dsanz ljdkj] Jh iou nsojkuh] futh lgk;d] dks 31 vxLr] 2015
ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] cekdks ¼ekyh½ esa lgk;d dkalqyh; vfèdkjh
ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy;s izkfèd`r djrh gSA
[lañ Vhñ 4330@01@2015 ¼[kaM½]
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dkSalqyj½
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1764.—In pursuance of 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 Pawan Devrani, PA in the Embassy of India,
Bamako to perform the Consular Services an Assistant
Consular Officer with effect from 31st August, 2015.
[No. T. 4330/01/2015-(Pt.)]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
d`f"k ea=ky;
¼d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2015
dk-vk- 1765-—cgqjkT;h; lgdkjh lfefr;ka fu;ekoyh] 2002
ds fu;e 28 ds lkFk ifBr cgqjkT;h; lgkdjh lfefr;ka vfèfu;e]
2002 ¼2002 dk 39½ dh èkjk 89 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] isVªksfQYl dksvkWijsfVo fyfeVsM] cM+ksnjk] xqtjkr ds
ifjlekiu ds mís';ksa ls 26 twu] 2015 ls ifjlekid ds :i esa
Jh fou; O;klk] vkbZñ,ñ,lñ ¼lsñfuñ½ dh fu;qfDr ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr
dh tkrh gSA
[lañ vkj&11017@15@89&,y ,aM ,e]
ihñ laiFk] funs'kd ¼lgdkfjrk½
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(Department of Agriculture and Cooperation)
New Delhi, the 26th June, 2015
S.O. 1765.—In exercise of the powers conferred under
section 89 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies
Act, 2002 (39 of 2002), read with rule 28 of the Multi State
Co-operative Societies Rules, 2002, the appointment of
Shri Vinay Vyasa, IAS (Retd.) liquidator with effect from
26th day of June, 2015 for the purpose of winding up of the
Petrofiles Cooperative Ltd., Vadodara, Gujarat is hereby
notified.
[No. R-11017/15/89-L&M]
P. SAMPATH, Director (Cooperation)
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1766-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu; ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vfèlwfpr djrk gS%
vuqlwph
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx
vuq&
o"kZ
mRikn
bdkbZ
U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd
bdkbZ nj
LySc
'ks"k
izpkyu
ekud
Hkkx
cMs iSekus
NksVs iSekus
LySc 1
esa
frfFk
la[;k
ij
ij
¼#ñ½
bdkbZ;ka
13258
&
&
2014
vYi nkc nzo.kh; ds fy, 5 fyVj ls
,d
60]000-00
51]000-00
2-65
lHkh
&
09 07 2014
vfèd ty {kerk okys osfYMr vYi
flfyaMj
dkcZu bLikr ds flfyaMj&mi;ksx fd;s
x;s ,yihth flfyaMjksa ds iquohZ;u vkSj
fufj{k.k dh vis{kk,a ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
[lanHkZ% lh,eMh&2@¼,QlhVh½@13258]
lhñ dsñ egs'ojh] oSñ thñ miegkfuns'kd ¼izek.ku½
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3683
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015
S.O. 1766.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:
SCHEDULE
IS No.
Part
Sec
Year
Product
Units
Minimum Marking Fee
Unit Rate
Units
Rema-
Effective
Large
Small
Slab-1
in
ining
Date
Scale
Scale
Slab-1
13258
-
-
2014
Welded Low Carbon Steel
One
60,000.00
51,000.00
2.65
All
-
09 07 2014
Cylinders Exceeding 5 Litre
Cylin-
Water Capacity for Low
der
Pressure Liquefiable Gas-
Requirements for Inspection
and reconditioning of
Used LPG Cylinders
[Ref. CMD-II (FCT)/16:13258]
C.K. MAHESHWARI, Sc. G DDG (Certification)
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1767-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut
ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vfèdkj dk vtZu½ vfèfu;e]
1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh èkjk 6 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu tkjh
dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh
uhps nh xbZ vuqlwph esa ;Fkk mYysf[kr rkjh[kksa dh vfèlwpuk la[;k
dkñ vkñ }kjk mu vfèlwpukvksa ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe
esa vi;ksx ds vfèdkj dk vtZu fd;k FkkA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 6 dh mi&èkjk
¼4½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa tks lHkh
foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gS] mi;ksx dk vfèlwpukvksa ls layXu dk vfèdkj
bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa] fufgr fd;k FkkA
vkSj l{ke izkfèdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g fjiksVZ nh gS dh
NRrhlx<+ jkT; esa ikjknhi&jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk dk
isVªksfy;e mRikn ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
}kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tk pqdh gSA vr% ml Hkwfe esa izpkyu dh
lekfIr dh tk, ftldk laf{kIr fooj.k bl vfèlwpuk ls layXu
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V fd;k tkrk gSA
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx
ds vfèdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds Li"Vhdj.k&1
ds vèhu vis{kkuqlkj mDr vuqlwph ds LraHk 7 esa mfYyf[kr rkjh[kksa
dks izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[kkas ds :i esa ?kksf"kr djrh gSA
vuqlwph
rglhy% ljk;ikyh
ftyk% egkleqan
jkT;% NÙkhlx<+
Øñlañ dkñvkñ uañ ,oa fnukad
xkao dk uke
rglhy
ftyk
jkT;
izpkyu dh
lekfIr dh
rkjh[k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
149¼v½ 24-01-2011
uañ 1 jsagVh[kksy
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
15-06-2013
uañ 2 eqjeqjh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
13-06-2013
uañ 3 fpojkdqaVk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
20-12-2014
uañ 4 xfu;kjhikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
12-06-2013
uañ 5 fla?kksMk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-06-2013
uañ 6 lkxjikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
08-06-2013
3684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
uañ 7 iylkHkkMh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
08-06-2013
uañ 8 [kj[kMh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
08-06-2013
uañ 9 y[kuiqj
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
05-06-2013
uañ 10 cVdh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
03-06-2013
uañ 11 #<k
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
01-06-2013
uañ 12 vkdk'k[kkj
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
28-05-2013
uañ 13 [kEgkjikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
25-05-2013
uañ 14 fNanikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
24-05-2013
uañ 15 pV~Vhfxjksyk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
22-05-2013
uañ 16 cksnkuokikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
20-05-2013
uañ 17 njkZHkkBk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
18-05-2013
uañ 18 oSnikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
16-05-2013
uañ 19 ckylh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
14-05-2013
uañ 20 cfjgkikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
11-05-2013
uañ 21 yqdkikjk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
09-05-2013
uañ 22 ijlnk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
07-05-2013
2
150 ¼v½ 24-01-2011
uañ 1 ckylh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
14-05-2013
uañ 2 cfjgkikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
11-05-2013
uañ 3 eks[kkiqVdk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
04-05-2013
uañ 4 dudsok
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
02-05-2013
3
1656 ¼v½ 18-07-2011
uañ 1 :<k
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
01-06-2013
uañ 2 ckylh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
11-05-2013
4
2143 ¼v½ 19-08-2014
uañ 1 eks[kkiqVdk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
04-05-2013
5
2992 ¼v½ 24-11-2014
uañ 1 ckylh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
11-05-2013
uañ 2 cSnikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<
16-05-2013
uañ 3 njkZHkkVk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
18-05-2013
uañ 4 cksnuokikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
20-05-2013
uañ 5 pV~Vhfxjksyk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
22-05-2013
uañ 6 fNanikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
24-05-2013
uañ 7 :<+k
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
01-06-2013
uañ 8 y[kuiqj
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
05-06-2013
uañ 9 [kj[kjh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
08-06-2013
uañ 10 iylkHkkMh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
08-06-2013
uañ 11 fla?kksMk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-06-2013
uañ 12 xfu;kjhikyh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
12-06-2013
uañ 13 fpojkdqaVk
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
20-12-2014
uañ 14 ?kkVdNkj
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
12-06-2013
uañ 15 eqjeqjh
ljk;ikyh
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
13-06-2013
1
153 ¼v½] 24-01-2011
uañ 1 fla?kuiqj
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-10-2012
uañ 2 xkSjVsd
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
06-06-2013
uañ 3 cksgkjikj
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
04-10-2012
uañ 4 ladjh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
12-10-2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3685
uañ 5 txr
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
13-10-2012
uañ 6 tksxhikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
14-10-2012
uañ 7 ikSaljk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
14-10-2012
uañ 8 ifB;kikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
07-12-2013
uañ 9 tydksV
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
15-10-2012
uañ 10 gcsdkaVk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
22-05-2013
uañ 11 fcVkaxhikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
20-05-2013
uañ 12 injMhg
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
04-06-2013
uañ 13 cjxkao
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
18-10-2012
uañ 14 [kV[kVh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
02-06-2013
uañ 15 [kseMk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
19-10-2012
uañ 16 thjkMcjh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
21-10-2012
2
219¼v½] 31-01-2011
uañ 1 dksfy;kjhMhg
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
22-10-2012
uañ 2 es<kikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
23-10-2012
uañ 3 fiyokikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
24-10-2012
uañ 4 larikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
25-10-2012
uañ 5 iylkHkkMh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
26-10-2012
uañ 6 [kksxlk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
27-10-2012
uañ 7 dqleqj
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
28-10-2012
uañ 8 ?kqVhdksuk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
29-10-2012
uañ 9 lkxquMhg
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
30-10-2012
uañ 10 djukikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
31-10-2012
uañ 11 Hk¡ojpqok
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
01-11-2012
uañ 12 Hk¡ojpqok ¼Vq-½
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
02-11-2013
uañ 13 NkrkiBkj
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
07-06-2013
uañ 14 gjnk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
08-06-2013
uañ 15 cMslktkikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-06-2013
uañ 16 cqUnsykHkkaBk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
11-06-2013
uañ 17 yksgkjikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
12-06-2013+
3
1657¼v½] 18-07-2011
uañ 1 [kseMk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
19-10-2012
uañ 2 dqleqj
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
28-10-2012
uañ 3 [kV[kVh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
02-06-2013
uañ 4 NkrkiBkj
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
07-06-2013
4
753]26-03-2013
uañ 1 yksgkjikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
12-06-2013
uañ 2 es<kikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
23-10-2012
5
2124¼v½] 08-08-2014
uañ 1 es<kikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
23-10-2012
uañ 2 fiyokikyh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
24-10-2012
uañ 3 [kksxlk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
27-10-2012
uañ 4 ?kqVhdksuk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
29-10-2012
uañ 5 Hk¡ojpqok ¼Vq-½
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
02-11-2012
uañ 6 cqUnsyHkkaBk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
11-06-2013
uañ 7 xkSjVsd
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
06-06-2013
uañ 8 gcsdkaVk
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
22-05-2013
uañ 9 [kV[kVh
cluk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
02-06-2013
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
rglhy% fiFkksjk
ftyk% egkleqan
jkT;% NÙkhlx<+
1-
151 ¼v½] 24-01-2011
uañ 1 jseMk
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
22-10-2012
uañ 2 jseMk VqdMk
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
25-10-2012
uañ 3 fryatuiqj
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
21-01-2013
uañ 4 <kck[kkj
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
19-01-2013
uañ 5 lkfo=hiqj
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
18-01-2013
uañ 6 fotseky
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
12-01-2013
uañ 7 cMs Vsejh ¼Hksalkukyk½
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
01-11-2012
uañ 8 cMs Vsejh iqjkuk VqdMk
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
01-10-2012
uañ 9 cMs Vsejh
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
02-11-2012
uañ 10 lku Vsejh
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
02-01-2013
uañ 11 nsoljky
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
27-12-2012
uañ 12 dqjekMhg
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
19-12-2012
uañ 13 ikVunknj
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
28-01-2013
uañ 14 [ksj[kqVk
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
04-02-2013
uañ 15 xksikyiqj
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-02-2013
uañ 16 fd'kuiqj
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
07-02-2013
uañ 17 y{ehiqj
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-02-2013
uañ 18 taxy IykV
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
19-03-2013
uañ 19 vBkjkxqMh
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
18-02-2013
uañ 20 ljdMk
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
23-02-2013
uañ 21 ygjkSn
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
19-03-2013
uañ 22 eq<hikj
fiFkksjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
19-03-2013
2-
754] 26-03-2013
uañ 1 [kSj[kqVk
fiFkkSjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
04-02-2013
uañ 2 xksikyiqj
fiFkkSjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-02-2013
3-
1054¼v½] 28-03-2014
uañ 1 jseMk
fiFkkSjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
22-10-2012
uañ 2 fryatuiqj
fiFkkSjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
21-01-2013
uañ 3 lkfo=hiqj
fiFkkSjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
18-01-2013
uañ 4 vBkjkxqMh
fiFkkSjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
18-02-2013
uañ 5 ljdMk
fiFkkSjk
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
23-02-2013
rglhy% egkleqan
ftyk% egkleqan
jkT;% NÙkhlx<+
1-
220¼v½] 31-01-2011
uañ 1 flèqikyh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
22-03-2013
uañ 2 Mqejikyh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
05-04-2013
uañ 3 <kad
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-04-2013
uañ 4 rsyhckaèk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-04-2013
uañ 5 >yi
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-04-2013
uañ 6 VqjhMhg
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
15-04-2013
uañ 7 xksaxy
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
15-04-2013
uañ 8 fNUnksyh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
17-04-2013
uañ 9 flaèksjh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
19-04-2013
uañ 10 Qqyokjh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
19-04-2013
uañ 11 fpjdks
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
25-04-2013
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3687
uañ 12 lkfygkHkkBk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
26-04-2013
uañ 13 rksjyk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
26-04-2013
uañ 14 iVsok
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
27-04-2013
uañ 15 cksMjk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
30-04-2013
uañ 16 uokxkao
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
01-05-2013
uañ 17 tydh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
05-05-2013
uañ 18 ckaldqMk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-05-2013
uañ 19 fcjchjk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-05-2013
uañ 20 fijnk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
09-04-2013
uañ 21 ekyhMhg
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
11-04-2013
uañ 22 [kSjf>Vh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
18-04-2013
uañ 23 csafnzMhg
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
06-01-2013
uañ 24 Hkks¯jx
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
24-04-2013
uañ 25 rqexkao
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
06-05-2013
uañ 26 vekol
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
06-05-2013
uañ 27 xksikyiqj
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
23-04-2013
uañ 28 eqldh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
16-06-2013
uañ 29 dkaik
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
18-06-2013
uañ 30 ijlokuh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
09-07-2013
uañ 31 csylksMk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
09-07-2013
uañ 32 ukanxkao
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
27-08-2013
uañ 33 eqMsuk egkleqan
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
23-06-2013
2-
1646¼v½ 18-07-2011
uañ 1 ckaldqMk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-05-2013
uañ 2 fcjchjk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-05-2013
uañ 3 ukanxkao
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
27-08-2013
uañ 4 cksMjk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
30-04-2013
uañ 5 irbZekrk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
20-04-2013
uañ 6 eqxbZekrk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
20-04-2013
3-
756] 26-03-2013
uañ 1 Qqyokjh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
19-04-2013
uañ 2 fijnk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
09-04-2013
4-
2030 ¼v½] 07-08-2014
uañ 1 rqexkao
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
06-05-2013
uañ 2 [kSjf>Vh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
18-04-2013
uañ 3 ¯l?kksjh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
10-05-2013
uañ 4 ukanxkao
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
27-08-2013
uañ 5 fcjfcjk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
09-04-2013
uañ 6 fNUnksyh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
17-04-2013
uañ 7 Mwejikyh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
05-04-2013
uañ 8 ijlokuh
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
09-07-2013
uañ 9 csylksaMk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
09-07-2013
uañ 10 fijnk
egkleqan
egkleqan
NÙkhlx<+
09-04-2013
rglhy% vkjax
ftyk% jk;iqj
jkT;% NÙkhlx<+
1-
152¼v½] 24-01-2011
uañ 1 xksbZUnk
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
26-06-2013
uañ 2 fulnk
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
26-06-2013
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
uañ 3 vdksyh dyk
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
23-06-2013
uañ 4 vdksyh [kqnZ
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
19-06-2013
uañ 5 fHkykbZ
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
17-06-2013
uañ 6 cksjhn
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
11-06-2013
uañ 7 nsonk
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
05-06-2013
uañ 8 y[kksyh
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
28-05-2013
2-
1655¼v½] 18-07-2011
uañ 1 y[kksyh
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
28-05-2013
uañ 2 nsonk
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
05-06-2013
3-
608] 11-03-2013
uañ 1 xksbZUnk
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
26-06-2013
4-
3287¼v½] 23-12-2014
uañ 1 vdksyh dyk
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
23-06-2013
uañ 2 fHkykbZ
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
17-06-2013
uañ 3 cksjhn
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
11-06-2013
uañ 4 nsonk
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
05-06-2013
uañ 5 y[kksyh
vkjax
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
28-05-2013
[lañ vkj&25011@3@2015&vks vkj&1]
iou dqekj] voj lfpo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015
S.O. 1767.— Whereas by the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas number S.O. Number and dated as mentioned in the
Schedule below issued under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of
the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right
User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government
acquired the right of user in the lands, specified in the
schedule appended to those notifications.
And whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby vested the right of user in the said
lands, free form all encumbrances, in the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited;
And Whereas, the Competent Authority has made a
report to the Central Government that the laying of pipeline
for the purpose of transportation, of petroleum products
under Paradip-Raipur-Ranchi Pipeline Project completed
in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore operation in
ROW(Right of Way) land and has been closed description
of which in brief is specified in the Schedule annexed to
notification;
Now therefore, as required under explanation-1 of rule 4
of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquired of Right
of User in Land) Rules 1963, the Central Government hereby
declares the dates mentioned in Column 7 of the said
schedule as the dates of termination of operation.
SCHEDULE
Thesil: Saraipali
District:Mahasamund
State: Chhattigarh
Sl.
S.O. No. and Date
Name of Village
Tehsil
District
State
Date of
No.
Termination of
Operation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.
149(E) 24.01.2011
No. 1 Rehatikhol
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
15.06.2013
No.2 Murmuri
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
13.06.2013
No. 3 Chiwarkut
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
20.12.2014
No. 4 Ganiyaripali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
12.06.2013
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3689
No. 5 Singhoda
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
10.06.2013
No. 6 Sagapali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
08.06.2013
No. 7 Palsabhadi
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
08.06.2013
No. 8 Kharkhari
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
08.06.2013
No. 9 Lakhanpur
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
05.06.2013
No. 10 Batki
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
03.06.2013
No. 11 Ruda
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
01.06.2013
No. 12 Akashkhara
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
28.05.2013
No. 13 Khamharpali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
25.05.2013
No. 14 Chhindpali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
24.05.2013
No. 15 Chattigirola
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
22.05.2013
No. 16 Bondanavapali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
20.05.2013
No. 17 Darrabhata
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
18.05.2013
No. 18 Baidpali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
16.05.2013
No. 19 Balsi
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
14.05.2013
No. 20 Baherapali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
11.05.2013
No. 21 Lukapara
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
09.05.2013
No. 22 Parsada
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
07.05.2013
2.
150(E) 24.01.2011
No. 1 Balsi
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
14.05.2013
No. 2 Barihapali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
11.05.2013
No. 3 Mokhaputka
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
04.05.2013
No. 4 Kankewa
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
02.05.2013
3.
1656(E) 18.07.2011
No. 1 Ruda
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
01.06.2013
No. 2 Balsi
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
11.05.2013
4.
2143(E) 19.08.2014
No. 1 Mokhaputka
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
04.05.2013
5.
2992(E) 24.11.2014
No. 1 Balsi
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
11.05.013
No. 2 Baidpali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
16.05.2013
No. 3 Darbhhata
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
18.05.2013
No. 4 Bodanavapali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
20.05.2013
No. 5 Chattigirola
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
22.05.2013
No. 6 Chhindpali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
24.05.2013
No. 7 Ruda
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
01.06.2013
No. 8 Lakhanpur
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
05.06.2013
No. 9 Kharkhari
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
08.06.2013
No. 10 Palasabhadi
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
08.06.2013
No. 11 Singhoda
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
10.06.2013
No. 12 Ganiyaripali
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
12.06.2013
No. 13 Chiwarakuta
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
20.12.2014
No. 14 Ghhatkachhar
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
12.06.2013
No. 15 Murmuri
Saraipali
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
13.06.2013
Thesil: Basna
District: Mahasamund
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
153(E), 24.01.2011
No. 1 Singhanpur
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
10.10.2012
No. 2 Gaurtak
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
06.06.2013
No. 3 Boharpar
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
04.10.2012
No. 4 Sankri
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
12.10.2012
No. 5 Jagat
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
13.10.2012
No. 6 Jogipali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
14.10.2012
No. 7 Pounsara
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
14.10.2012
No. 8 Pathiyapali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
07.12.2013
No. 9 Jalkot
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
15.10.2012
No. 10 Habekanta
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
22.05.2013
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
No. 11 Bitangipali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
20.05.2013
No. 12 Padardih
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
04.06.2013
No. 13 Bargaon
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
18.10.2012
No. 14 Khatkhati
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
02.06.2013
No. 15 Khemda
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
19.10.2012
No. 16 Jeeradabri
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
21.10.2012
2.
219(E), 31.01.2011
No. 1 Koliyaridih
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
22.10.2012
No. 2 Medhapali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
23.10.2012
No. 3 Pilwapali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
24.10.2012
No. 4 Santpali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
25.10.2012
No. 5 Palsabhadi
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
26.10.2012
No. 6 Khogasa
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
27.10.2012
No. 7 Kusmur
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
28.10.2012
No. 8 Ghutikona
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
29.10.2012
No. 9 Sagundih
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
30.10.2012
No. 10 Karnapali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
31.10.2012
No. 11 Bhawarchuwa
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
01.11.2012
No. 12 Bhawarchuwa
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
02.11.2012
(Part)
No. 13 Chhatapathar
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
07.06.2013
No. 14 Harda
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
08.06.2013
No. 15 Badesajapali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
10.06.2013
No. 16 Bundelabhantha Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
11.06.2013
No. 17 Loharpali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
12.06.2013
3.
1657(E), 18.07.2011
No. 1 Khedma
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
19.10.2012
No. 2 Kusmur
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
28.10.2012
No. 3 Khatkhati
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
02.06.2013
No. 4 Chhatapathar
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
07.06.2013
4.
753, 26.03.2013
No. 1 Loharpali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
12.06.2013
No. 2 Medhapali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
23.10.2012
5.
2124(E), 08.08.2014
No. 1 Medhapali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
23.10.2012
No. 2 Pilwapali
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
24.10.2012
No. 3 Khogsa
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
27.10.2012
No. 4 Ghutikona
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
29.10.2012
No. 5 Bhawarchuwa
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
02.11.2012
(Part)
No. 6 Bundelabhantha Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
11.06.2013
No. 7 Gaurtak
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
06.06.2013
No. 8 Hawekanta
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
22.05.2013
No. 9 Khatkhati
Basna
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
02.06.2013
Thesil: Pithora
District: Mahasamund
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
151(E), 24.01.2011
No.1 Remda
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhatisgarh
22.10.2012
No. 2 Remda Tukha
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
25.10.2012
No. 3 Tilanjanpur
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
21.01.2013
No. 4 Dhabakhar
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
19.01.2013
No. 5 Sawatripur
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
18.01.2013
No. 6 Vijyamaal
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
12.01.2013
No. 7 Badetemri
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
01.11.2012
(Bhensanala)
No. 8 Badetemri
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
01.10.2012
(Purana Tukda)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3691
No.9 Badetemri
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
02.11.2012
No. 10 Santemri
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
02.01.2013
No. 11 Deosaral
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
27.12.2012
No. 12 Kurmadih
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
19.12.2012
No. 13 Patandadar
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
28.01.2013
No. 14 Khairkhuta
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
04.02.2013
No. 15 Gopalpur
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.02.2013
No. 16 Kishanpur
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
07.02.2013
No. 17 Laxmipur
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.02.2013
No. 18 Jangalplat
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
19.03.2013
No. 19 Atharagudi
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
18.02.2013
No. 20 Sankarta
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
23.02.2013
No. 21 Lahraud
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
19.03.2013
No.22 Mudhipar
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
19.03.2013
(Mudipar)
2.
754, 26.03.2013
No. 1 Khairkhuta
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
04.02.2013
No. 2 Gopalpur
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.02.2013
3.
1054(E), 28.03.2014
No. 1 Remda
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
22.10.2012
No. 2 Tilanjanpur
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
21.01.2013
No. 3 Sawitripur
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
18.01.2013
No. 4 Atgaragudi
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
18.02.2013
No. 5 Sankara
Pithora
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
23.02.2013
Thesil: Mahasamund
District: Mahasamund
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
220(E), 31.01.2011
No. 1 Sindhupali
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
22.03.2013
No. 2 Dumerpali
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
05.04.2013
No. 3 Dhank
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.04.2013
No. 4 Telibandha
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.04.2013
No. 5 Jhalap
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.04.2013
No. 6 Turidih
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
15.04.2013
No. 7 Gongal
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
15.04.2013
No. 8 Chhindoli
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
17.04.2013
No. 9 Singhori
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
19.04.2013
No. 10 Phulwari
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
19.04.2013
No. 11 Chirko
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
25.04.2013
No. 12 Salihabhanta
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
26.04.2013
No. 13 Torla
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
26.04.2013
No.14 Patewa
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
27.04.2013
No. 15 Bodra
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
30.04.2013
No. 16 Navagaon
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
01.05.2013
No. 17 Jalki
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
05.05.2013
No. 18 Banskuda
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.05.2013
No. 19 Birbira
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.05.2013
No. 20 Pirda
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
09.04.2013
No. 21 Malidih
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
11.04.2013
No. 22 Kherjhiti
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
18.04.2013
No. 23 Bendridih
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
06.01.2013
No. 24 Bhoring
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
24.04.2013
No. 25 Tumgaon
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
06.05.2013
No. 26 Amawas
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
06.05.2013
No. 27 Gopalpur
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
23.04.2013
No. 28 Muski
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
16.06.2013
No. 29 Kapa
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
18.06.2013
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
No. 30 Parswani
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
09.07.2013
No. 31 Belsonda
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
09.07.2013
No. 32 Nandgaon
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
27.08.2013
No. 33 Mudena
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
23.06.2013
2.
1646(E), 18.07.2011
No. 1 Banskuda
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.05.2013
No. 2 Birbira
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.05.2013
No. 3 Nandgaon
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.05.2013
No. 4 Bodra
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
30.04.2013
No. 5 Pataimata
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
20.04.2013
No. 6 Mungaimata
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
20.04.2013
3.
756, 26.03.2013
No. 1 Phulwai
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
19.04.2013
No. 2 Pirda
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
09.04.2013
4.
2030(E), 07.08.2014
No. 1 Tumgaon
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
06.05.2013
No. 2 Kherjhiti
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
18.04.2013
No. 3 Singhori
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
19.04.2013
No. 4 Navagaon
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
27.08.2013
No. 5 Birbira
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
10.05.2013
No. 6 Chhindoli
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
17.04.013
No. 7 Dumarpali
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
05.04.2013
No.8 Parswani
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
09.07.2013
No. 9 Belsonda
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
09.07.2013
No.10 Pirda
Mahasamund
Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
09.04.2013
Thesil: Arang
District: Raipur
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
152(E), 24.01.2011
No. 1 Goinda
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
26.06.2013
No. 2 Nisda
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
26.06.2013
No. 3 Akolikalan
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
23.06.2013
No. 4 Akolikhurd
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
19.06.2013
No. 5 Bhilai
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
17.06.2013
No. 6 Borid
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
11.06.2013
No. 7 Deoda
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
05.06.2013
No. 8 Lakholi
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
28.05.2013
2.
1655(E), 18.07.2011
No. 1 Lakholi
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
28.05.2013
No. 2 Deoda
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
05.06.2013
3.
608, 11.03.2013
No. 1 Goinda
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
26.06.2013
4.
3287(E), 23.12.2014
No. 1 Akolikala
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
23.06.2013
No. 2 Bhilai
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
17.06.2013
No. 3 Borid
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
11.06.2013
No. 4 Deoda
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
05.06.2013
No. 5 Lakholi
Arang
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
28.05.2013
[No. R-25011/3/2015-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1768-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut
ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vfèdkj dk vtZu½ vfèfu;e]
1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh èkjk 6 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu tkjh
dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh
uhps nh xbZ vuqlwph esa ;Fkk mYysf[kr rkjh[kksa dh vfèlwpuk la[;k
dkñ vkñ }kjk mu vfèlwpukvksa ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe
esa vi;ksx ds vfèdkj dk vtZu fd;k FkkA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 6 dh mi èkjk
¼4½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa tks lHkh
foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gS] mi;ksx dk vfèlwpukvksa ls layXu dk vfèdkj
bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa] fufgr fd;k FkkA
vkSj l{ke izkfèdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g fjiksVZ nh gS dh
NRrhlx<+ jkT; esa ikjknhi&jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk dk
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3693
isVªksfy;e mRikn ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
}kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tk pqdh gSA vr% ml Hkwfe esa izpkyu dh
lekfIr dh tk, ftldk la{khIr fooj.k bl vfèlwpuk ls layXu
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V fd;k tkrk gSA
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx
ds vfèdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds Li"Vhdj.k&1
ds vèhu vis{kkuqlkj mDr vuqlwph ds LraHk 7 esa mfYyf[kr rkjh[kksa
dks izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[kksa ds :i esa ?kksf"kr djrh gSA
vuqlwph
rglhy% fcykbZx<+
ftyk% jk;iqj
jkT;% NÙkhlx<+
Øñlañ dkñvkñ uañ ,oa fnukad
xkao dk uke
rglhy
ftyk
jkT;
izpkyu dh
lekfIr dh
rkjh[k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
325¼v½] 10-02-2011
ua- 1 ujs'k uxj
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
04-04-2013
ua- 2 <u<uh
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
30-03-2013
ua- 3 jk;dksuk
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
28-03-2013
ua- 4 eqM+ikj
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
25-03-2013
ua- 5 fiijMqyk
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
24-03-2013
ua- 6 ljlhok
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
23-03-2013
ua- 7 is.Mªkou
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
22-03-2013
ua- 8 pkjHkkaBk
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
21-03-2013
ua- 9 cykSnh
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
20-03-2013
ua- 10 tSriqj
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
17-03-2013
2
326¼v½] 10-02-2011
ua- 1 >qedk
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
16-03-2013
ua- 2 eksgrjk
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
15-03-2013
ua- 3 fNjpqok
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
14-03-2013
3
1647¼v½] 18-07-2011
ua- 1 ljlhokW
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
23-03-2013
ua- 2 pkjHkkaBk
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
21-03-2013
4
750] 20-03-2013
ua- 1 pkjHkkaBk
fcykbZx<+
jk;iqj
NÙkhlx<+
21-03-2013
rglhy% fcykbZx<+
ftyk% cykSnk cktkj
jkT;% NÙkhlx<+
5
2122¼v½] 13-08-2014
ua- 1 ujs'k uxj
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
04-04-2013
ua- 2 <u<uh
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
30-03-2013
ua- 3 jk;dksuk
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
28-03-2013
ua- 4 eqM+ikj
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
25-03-2013
ua- 5 fiijMqyk
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
24-03-2013
ua- 6 ljlhok
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
23-03-2013
ua- 7 is.Mªkou
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
22-03-2013
ua- 8 pkjHkkaBk
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
21-03-2013
ua- 9 cykSnh
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
20-03-2013
ua- 10 tSriqj
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
17-03-2013
ua- 11 >qedk
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
16-03-2013
ua- 12 eksgrjk
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
15-03-2013
ua- 13 fNjpqaok
fcykbZx<+
cykSnkcktkj
NÙkhlx<+
14-03-2013
3694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
rglhy % tStSiqj
ftyk % tkatxhj&pkEik
jkT; % NÙkhlx<+
1-
702¼v½] 06-04-2011
ua 1 fplnk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
24-05-2013
uañ 2 glkSn
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
26-05-2013
uañ 3 dqVjkcksM
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
28-05-2013
uañ 4 rqlkj
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
30-05-2013
uañ 5 xqpdqfy;k ¼egky uacj 1½ tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
01-06-2013
xqpdqfy;k ¼egky uacj 2½
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
01-06-2013
xqpdqfy;k ¼egky uacj 3½
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
01-06-2013
uañ 6 uansyh ¼egky uacj& 1½
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
03-06-2013
uansyh ¼egky uacj&2½
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
03-06-2013
uansyh ¼egky uacj&3½
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
03-06-2013
uañ 7 dksVsrjk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
05-06-2013
uañ 8 BwBh
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
13-03-2013
2-
1760¼v½] 28-07-2011
uañ 1 cjsdsy dyk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
06-06-2013
uañ 2 ijlnk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
07-06-2013
uañ 3 dSFkk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
14-11-2013
uañ 4 nsoj?kVk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
09-06-2013
uañ 5 cSgkxqM#
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
10-06-2013
uañ 6 rqehMhg
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
10-06-2013
uañ 7 vksMsdsjk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
12-06-2013
uañ 8 xyxykMhg
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
13-06-2013
uañ 9 BBkjh
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
15-06-2013
3-
2107¼v½] 14-09-2011
uañ 1 cqVjkcksM
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
28-05-2013
uañ 2 dksVsrjk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
05-06-2013
4-
609] 11-03-2013
uañ 1 dksVsrjk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
05-06-2013
uañ 2 dqVjkcksM
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
28-05-2013
uañ 3 glkSn
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
26-05-2013
uañ 4 rq"kkj
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
30-05-2013
uañ 5 xyxykMhg
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
13-06-2013
uañ 6 nsoj?kVk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
09-06-2013
uañ 7 uansyh ¼egky uacj 1½
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
03-06-2013
5-
2029¼v½] 07-08-2014
uañ 1 ijlnk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
07-06-2013
uañ 2 glkSn
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
26-05-2013
uañ 3 nsoj?kVk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
09-06-2013
uañ 4 cSgkxqM#
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
10-06-2013
uañ 5 rqehMhg
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
11-06-2013
uañ 6 dqVjkcksM
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
28-05-2013
uañ 7 vksMsdsjk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
12-06-2013
uañ 8 xyxykMhg
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
13-06-2013
uañ 9 BBkjh
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
15-06-2013
uañ 10 xqpdqfy;k ¼egky uEcj&1½ tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
01-06-2013
uañ 11 xqpdqfy;k ¼egky uEcj&2½ tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
01-06-2013
uañ 12 xqpdqfy;k ¼egky uEcj&3½ tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
01-06-2013
uañ 13 uUnsyh ¼egky uEcj&1½
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
03-06-2013
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3695
uañ 14 uUnsyh ¼egky uEcj&2½ tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
03-06-2013
uañ 15 dksVsrjk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
05-06-2013
uañ 16 rqlkj
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
30-05-2013
uañ 17 BwBh
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
13-03-2013
6- 3286¼v½] 23-12-2014
uañ 1 dSFkk
tStSiqj
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
14-11-2013
rglhy % pkEik
ftyk % tkatxhj&pkEik
jkT; % NÙkhlx<+
1-
686¼v½] 31-03-2011
uañ 1 lat;xzke
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
13-05-2013
uañ 2 fjlnk
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
14-05-2013
uañ 3 dqEgkjh dyk
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
15-05--2013
uañ 4 y{uiqj
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
16-05-2013
uañ 5 dMjh
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
17-05-2013
uañ 6 iksMh dyk
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
18-05-2013
2-
1761¼v½] 28-07-2011
uañ 6 iksMh dyk
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
18-05-2013
3-
2133¼v½] 14-08-2014
uañ 1 lat;xzke
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
13-05-2013
uañ 2 fjlnk
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
14-05-2013
uañ 3 dqEgkjh dyk
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
15-05--2013
uañ 4 yNuiqj
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
16-05-2013
uañ 5 dMjh
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
17-05-2013
uañ 6 iksMh dyk
pkEik
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
18-05-2013
rglhy % lDrh
ftyk % tkatxhj&pkEik
jkT; % NÙkhlx<+
1-
706¼v½] 06-04-2011
uañ 1 iykMh [kqnZ
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
19-05-2013
uañ 2 iykMh dyk
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
20-05-2013
uañ 3 eqDrk&jktk
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
21-05-2013
uañ 4 HkkxksMhg
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
22-05-2013
uañ 5 ljgj
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
23-05-2013
uañ 6 tosZ
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
24-05-2013
uañ 7 xrok
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
25-05-2013
uañ 8 lqUnjsyh
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
26-05-2013
2-
2135¼v½] 14-08-2011
uañ 1 iykMh [kqnZ
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
19-05-2013
uañ 2 iykMh dyk
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
20-05-2013
uañ 3 eqDrk&jktk
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
21-05-2013
uañ 4 HkkxksMhg
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
22-05-2013
uañ 5 ljgj
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
23-05-2013
uañ 6 xrok
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
25-05-2013
uañ 7 lqUnjsyh
lDrh
tkatxhj&pkEik NÙkhlx<+
26-05-2013
rglhy % djryk
ftyk % dksjck
jkT; % NÙkhlx<+
1-
703¼v½] 06-04-2011
uañ 1 f<Vksjh&tkjh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
04-02-2014
uañ 2 djkZikyh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
03-02-2014
uañ 3 cqf<+;kikyh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
06-02-2014
uañ 4 lksgkxiqj
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
07-02-2014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
uañ 5 dq:Mhg
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
08-02-2014
uañ 6 edqUniqj
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
09-02-2014
uañ 7 jksaxnk
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
11-02-2014
uañ 8 ?kkBknqokjh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
13-02-2014
uañ 9 tosZ
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
14-02-2014
uañ 10 ukokikjk
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
16-02-2014
uañ 11 cjikyh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
17-02-2014
uañ 12 lfygkHkkaBk
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
18-02-2014
uañ 13 c/kokHkkaBk
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
20-02-2014
uañ 14 VqUMk
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
05-02-2014
2-
1652¼v½] 18-07-2011
uañ 1 djkZyh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
03-02-2014
uañ 2 cqf/k;kikyh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
06-02-2014
uañ3 edqUniqj
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
09-02-2014
3-
755] 26-03-2013
uañ 1 ?kkVknqokjh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
13-02-2014
4-
2149¼v½] 08-08-2014
uañ 1 djkZikyh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
03-02-2014
uañ 2 f<Vksjh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
04-02-2014
uañ 3 VqUMk
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
05-02-2014
uañ 4 cqf<;kikyh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
06-02-2014
uañ 5 lksgkxiqj
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
07-02-2014
uañ 6 dq:Mhg
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
08-02-2014
uañ 7 edqUniqj
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
09-02-2014
uañ 8 jksaxnk
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
11-02-2014
uañ 9 ?kkBknqokjh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
13-02-2014
uañ 10 tosZ
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
14-02-2014
uañ 11 cjikyh
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
17-02-2014
uañ 12 lfygkHkkaBk
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
18-02-2014
uañ 13 uokikjk
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
16-02-2014
uañ 14 c/kokHkkaBk
djryk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
20-02-2014
rglhy % dksjck
ftyk % dksjck
jkT; % NÙkhlx<+
1-
707¼v½] 06-04-2011
uañ 1 frydstk
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
18-06-2014
uañ 2 cxcqMk
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
19-06-2014
uañ 3 elku
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
20-06-2014
uañ 4 dqdjh pksyh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
21-06-2014
uañ 5 dq#Mhg
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
22-06-2014
uañ 6 iaMjhikuh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
24-06-2014
uañ 7 uDVh[kkj
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
25-06-2014
uañ 8 HkqylhMhM
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
26-06-2014
uañ 9 MqejMhg
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
27-06-2014
uañ 10 dslyk
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
28-06-2014
uañ 11 nksanjks
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
29-06-2014
uañ 12 jksxcgjh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
30-06-2014
uañ 13 tkecgkj
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
31-06-2014
uañ 14 lksuiqjh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
24-03-2015
uañ 15 lksuxqMk
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
24-03-2015
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3697
2-
1653¼v½] 18-07-2011
uañ 1 nksanjks
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
29-06-2014
3-
751] 26-03-2013
uañ 1 jksxcgjh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
30-06-2014
uañ 2 iaMjhikuh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
24-06-2014
uañ 3 dq#Mhg
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
22-06-2014
uañ 4 dqdjh pksyh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
21-06-2014
4-
2132¼v½] 14-08-2014
uañ 1 uDVh[kkj
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
25-06-2014
uañ 2 iaMjhikuh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
24-06-2014
uañ 3 HkqylhMhg
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
26-06-2014
uañ 4 MqejMhg
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
27-06-2014
uañ 5 dslyk
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
28-06-2014
uañ 6 nksanjks
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
29-06-2014
uañ 7 jksxcgjh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
30-06-2014
uañ 8 tkecgkj
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
31-06-2014
uañ 9 lksuiqjh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
24-03-2015
uañ 10 lksuxq<+k
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
24-03-2015
uañ 11 dq#Mhg
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
22-06-2014
uañ 12 frydstk
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
18-06-2014
uañ 13 dqdjhpksyh
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
21-06-2014
uañ 14 cxcqMk
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
19-06-2014
uañ 15 elku
dksjck
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
20-06-2014
rglhy % dV?kksjk
ftyk % dksjck
jkT; % NÙkhlx<+
1-
1022¼v½] 05-05-2011
uañ 1 uokxkao dyk
dV?kksjk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
07-11-2014
uañ 2 lkgheqMh
dV?kksjk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
08-11-2014
uañ 3 xksikyiqj
dV?kksjk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
10-11-2014
2-
2118¼v½] 07-07-2013
uañ 1 xksikyiqj
dV?kksjk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
10-11-2014
uañ 2 uokxkao dyk
dV?kksjk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
07-11-2014
uañ 3 lkgheqMh
dV?kksjk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
08-11-2014
3-
1992¼v½] 10-07-2014
uañ 1 xksikyiqj
dV?kksjk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
10-11-2014
uañ 2 uokxkao dyk
dV?kksjk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
07-11-2014
uañ 3 lkgheqMh
dV?kksjk
dksjck
NÙkhlx<+
08-11-2014
[lañ vkj&25011@3@2015&vks vkj&1]
iou dqekj] voj lfpo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015
S.O. 1768.—Whereas by the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas Number S.O. Number and dated as mentioned
in the Schedule below issued under sub-section (1) of
section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of
1962) the Central Government acquired the right of user in
the lands, specified in the schedule appended to those
notifications.
And Whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby vested the right of user in the said
lands, free form all encumbranches, in the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited;
And Whereas, the Competent Authority has made a
report to the Central Government that the laying of pipeline
for the purpose of transportation of petroleum products
under Paradip-Raipur-Ranchi Pipeline Project completed
in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore operation in ROW
3698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
(Right of Way) land has been closed description of which in brief is specified in the Schedule annexed to notification;
Now therefore, as reguired under explanation-1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquired of Right of
User in Land) Rules 1963, the Central Government hereby decares the dates mentioned in Column 7 of the said Schedule as
the dates of termination of operation.
SCHEDULE
Thesil : Bilaigarh
District : Raipur
State : Chhattisgarh
Sl.
S.O. No. and Date
Name of Village
Tehsil
District
State
Date of
No.
Termination of
Operation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.
325(E), 10.02.2011
No. 1 Naresh Nagar
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
04.04.2013
No. 2 Dhandhani
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
30.03.2013
No. 3 Raikona
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
28.03.2013
No. 4 Mudpar
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
25.03.2013
No. 5 Pipardula
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
24.03.2013
No. 6 Sarsinwa
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
23.03.2013
No. 7 Pendrawan
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
22.03.2013
No. 8 Charbhatha
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
21.03.2013
No. 9 Balaudi
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
20.03.2013
No. 10 Jaitpur
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
17.03.2013
2.
326(E), 10.02.2011
No. 1 Jhumka
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
16.03.2013
No. 2 Mohtara
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
15.03.2013
No. 3 Chhirchuwa
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
14.03.2013
3.
1647(E), 18.07.2011
No. 1 Sarsinwa
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
23.03.2013
No. 2 Charbhata
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
21.03.2013
4.
750, 20.03.2013
No. 1 Charbhatha
Bilaigarh
Raipur
Chhattisgarh
21.03.2013
Thesil : Bilaigarh
District : Balauda Bazar
State : Chhattisgarh
5.
2122(E), 13.08.2014
No. 1 Naresh Nagar
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
04.04.2012
No. 2 Dhandhani
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
30.03.2013
No. 3 Raikona
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
28.03.2013
No. 4 Mudpar
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
25.03.2013
No. 5 Pipardula
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
24.03.2013
No. 6 Sarsinwa
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
23.03.2013
No. 7 Pendrawan
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
22.03.2013
No. 8 Charbhatha
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
21.03.2013
No. 9 Balaudi
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
20.03.2013
No. 10 Jaitpur
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
17.03.2013
No. 11 Jhumka
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
16.03.2013
No. 12 Mohtara
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
15.03.2013
No. 13 Chhirchuwa
Bilaigarh
Balauda Bazar
Chhattisgarh
14.03.2013
Thesil : Jaijaipur
District : Janjgir-Champa
State : Chhattisgarh
1.
702(E), 06.04.2011
No. 1 Chisda
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
24.05.2013
No. 2 Hasaud
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
26.05.2013
No. 3 Kutrabod
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
28.05.2013
No. 4 Tusar
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
30.05.2013
No. 5 Guchkuliya
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
01.06.2013
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3699
(Mahaal Number 1)
Guchkuliya
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
01.06.2013
(Mahaal Number 2)
Guchkuliya
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
01.06.2013
(Mahaal Number 3)
No. 6 Nandeli
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
03.06.2013
(Mahaal Number 1)
Nandeli
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
03.06.2013
(Mahaal Number 2)
Nandeli
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
03.06.2013
(Mahaal Number 3)
No. 7 Kotetara
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
05.06.2013
No. 8 Thuthi
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
13.03.2014
2.
1760(E), 28.07.2011
No. 1 Barekel Kala
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
06.06.2013
No. 2 Parsada
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
07.06.2013
No. 3 Kaitha
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
14.11.2013
No. 4 Dewardhata
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
09.06.2013
No. 5 Baihagudaroo
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
10.06.2013
No. 6 Tumidih
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
11.06.2013
No. 7 Odekera
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
12.06.2013
No. 8 Galgaladih
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
13.06.2013
No. 9 Thathari
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
15.06.2013
3.
2107(E), 14.09.2011
No. 1 Kutrabod
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
28.05.2013
No. 2 Kotetara
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
05.06.2013
4.
609, 11.03.2013
No. 1 Kotetara
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
05.06.2013
No. 2 Kutrabod
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
28.05.2013
No. 3 Hasaud
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
26.05.2013
No. 4 Tushar
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
30.05.2013
No. 5 Galgaladih
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
13.06.2013
No. 6 Devarghata
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
09.06.2013
No. 7 Nandeli
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
03.06.2013
(Mahal Number-1)
5.
2029(E), 07.08.2014
No. 1 Parsada
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
07.06.2013
No. 2 Hasaud
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
26.05.2013
No. 3 Devarghata
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
09.06.2013
No. 4 Baihagudru
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
10.06.2013
No. 5 Tumidih
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
11.06.2013
No. 6 Kutrabod
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
28.05.2013
No. 7 Odekera
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
12.06.2013
No. 8 Galgaladih
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
13.06.2013
No. 9 Thathari
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
15.06.2013
No. 10 Guchkuliya
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
01.06.2013
(Mahal-1)
No. 11 Guchkuliya
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
01.06.2013
(Mahal-2)
No. 12 Guchkuliya
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
01.06.2013
(Mahal-3)
No. 13 Nandeli
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
03.06.2013
(Mahal-1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
No. 14 Nandeli
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
03.06.2013
(Mahal-2)
No. 15 Kotetra
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
05.06.2013
No. 16 Tushar
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
30.05.2013
No. 17 Thuthi
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
13.03.2014
6.
3286(E), 23.12.2014
No. 1 Kaitha
Jaijaipur
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
14.11.2013
Thesil: Champa
District: Janjgir-Champa
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
686(E), 31.03.2011
No. 1 Sanjay Gram
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
13.05.2013
No. 2 Risda
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
14.05.2013
No. 3 Kumhari Kala
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
15.05.2013
No. 4 Lachhanpur
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
16.05.2013
No. 5 Kadari
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
17.05.2013
No. 6 Podi Kala
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
18.05.2013
2.
1761(E), 28.07.2011
No. 1 Podi Kala
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
18.05.2013
3.
2133(E), 14.08.2014
No. 1 Sanjaygram
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
13.05.2013
No. 2 Risda
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
14.05.2013
No. 3 Kumhari Kala
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
15.05.2013
No. 4 Lachhanpur
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
16.05.2013
No. 5 Kadari
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
17.05.2013
No. 6 Podikala
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
18.05.2013
Thesil: Sakti
District: Janjgir-Champa
State: Chhattisgarh
1. 706(E), 06.04.2011
No. 1 Paladi Khurd
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
19.05.2013
No. 2 Paladi Kala
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
20.05.2013
No. 3 Mukta-Raja
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
21.05.2013
No. 4 Bhagodih
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
22.05.2013
No. 5 Sarhar
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
23.05.2013
No. 6 Jarwe
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
24.05.2013
No. 7 Gatwa
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
25.05.2013
No. 8 Sundreli
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
26.05.2013
2.
2135(E), 14.08.2014
No. 1 Paladi Khurd
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
19.05.2013
No. 2 Paladi Kala
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
20.05.2013
No. 3 Mukta-Raja
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
21.05.2013
No. 4 Bhagodih
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
22.05.2013
No. 5 Sarhar
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
23.05.2013
No. 6 Gatwa
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
25.05.2013
No. 7 Sundreli
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
26.05.2013
Thesil: Kartala
District: Korba
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
703(E), 06.04.2011
No. 1 Dhitori
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
04.02.2014
No. 2 Karrapali
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
03.02.2014
No. 3 Budhiyapali
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
06.02.2014
No. 4 Sohagpur
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
07.02.2014
No. 5 Kurudih
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
08.02.2014
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3701
Thesil: Champa
District: Janjgir-Champa
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
686(E), 31.03.2011
No. 1 Sanjay Gram
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
13.05.2013
No. 2 Risda
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
14.05.2013
No. 3 Kumhari Kala
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
15.05.2013
No. 4 Lachhanpur
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
16.05.2013
No. 5 Kadari
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
17.05.2013
No. 6 Podi Kala
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
18.05.2013
2.
1761(E) 28.07.2011
No. 1 Podi Kala
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
18.05.2013
3.
2133(E), 14.08.2014
No. 1 Sanjaygram
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
13.05.2013
No. 2 Risda
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
14.05.2013
No. 3 Kumhari Kala
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
15.05.2013
No. 4 Lachhanpur
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
16.05.2013
No. 5 Kadari
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
17.05.2013
No. 6 Podikala
Champa
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
18.05.2013
Thesil: Sakti
District: Janjgir-Champa
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
706(E), 06.04.2011
No. 1 Paladi Khurd
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
19.05.2013
No. 2 Paladi Kala
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
20.05.2013
No. 3 Mukta-Raja
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
21.05.2013
No. 4 Bhagodih
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
22.05.2013
No. 5 Sarhar
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
23.05.2013
No. 6 Jarwe
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
24.05.2013
No. 7 Gatwa
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
25.05.2013
No. 8 Sundreli
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
26.05.2013
2.
2135(E), 14.08.2014
No. 1 Paladi Khurd
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
19.05.2013
No. 2 Paladi Kala
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
20.05.2013
No. 3 Mukta-Raja
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
21.05.2013
No. 4 Bhagodih
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
22.05.2013
No. 5 Sarhar
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
23.05.2013
No. 6 Gatwa
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
25.05.2013
No. 7 Sundreli
Sakti
Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
26.05.2013
Thesil: Kartala
District: Korba
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
703(E), 06.04.2011
No. 1 Dhitori
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
04.02.2014
No. Karrapali
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
03.02.2014
No. 3 Budhiyapali
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
06.02.2014
No. 4 Sohagpur
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
07.02.2014
No. 5 Kurudih
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
08.02.2014
No. 6 Makundpur
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
09.02.2014
No. 7 Rongda
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
11.02.2014
No. 8 Ghataduwari
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
13.02.2014
No. 9 Jarve
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
14.02.2014
No. 10 Nawapara
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
16.02.2014
No. 11 Barpali
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
17.02.2014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
No. 12 Salihabhatha
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
18.02.2014
No. 13 Badhva Batha
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
20.02.2014
No. 14 Tunda
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
05.02.2014
2.
1652(E), 18.07.2011
No. 1 Karrapali
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
03.02.2014
No. 2 Budhiyapali
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
06.02.2014
No. 3 Makundpur
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
09.02.2014
3.
755, 26.03.2013
No. 1 Ghataduwari
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
13.02.2014
4.
2149(E), 08.08.2014
No. 1 Karrapali
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
03.02.2014
No. 2 Dhitori
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
04.02.2014
No. 3 Tunda
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
05.02.2014
No. 4 Budhiyapali
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
06.02.2014
No. 5 Sohagpur
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
07.02.2014
No. 6 Kurudih
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
08.02.2014
No. 7 Makundpur
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
09.02.2014
No. 8 Rongda
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
11.02.2014
No. 9 Ghataduwari
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
13.02.2014
No. 10 Jarve
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
14.02.2014
No. 11 Barpali
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
17.02.2014
No. 12 Salihabhatha
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
18.02.2014
No. 13 Nawapara
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
16.02.2014
No. 14 Badhvabatha
Kartala
Korba
Chhattisgarh
20.02.2014
Thesil: Korba
District: Korba
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
707(E), 06.04.2011
No. 1 Tilkeja
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
18.06.2014
No. 2 Bagbuda
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
19.06.2014
No. 3 Masan
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
20.06.2014
No. 4 Kukri Choli
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
21.06.2014
No. 5 Kurudih
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
22.06.2014
No. 6 Pandripani
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
24.06.2014
No. 7 Naktikhar
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
25.06.2014
No. 8 Bhulsidhi
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
26.06.2014
No. 9 Dumardih
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
27.06.2014
No. 10 Kesala
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
28.06.2014
No. 11 Dondro
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
29.06.2014
No. 12 Rogbahri
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
30.06.2014
No. 13 Jambahar
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
31.06.2014
No. 14 sonpuri
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
24.03.2015
No. 15 Songudha
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
24.03.2015
2.
1653(E), 18.07.2011
No. 1 Dondro
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
29.06.2014
3.
751, 26.03.2013
No. 1 Rogbahari
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
30.06.2014
No. 2 Pandaripani
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
24.06.2014
No. 3 Kurudih
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
22.06.2014
No. 4 Kukricholi
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
21.06.2014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3703
4.
2132(E), 14.08.2014
No. 1 Naktikhar
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
25.06.2014
No. 2 Pandripani
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
24.06.2014
No. 3 Bhulsidih
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
26.06.2014
No. 4 Dumardih
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
27.06.2014
No. 5 Kesala
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
28.06.2014
No. 6 Dondro
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
29.06.2014
No. 7 Rogbahri
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
30.06.2014
No. 8 Jambahar
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
31.06.2014
No. 9 Sonpuri
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
24.03.2015
No. 10 Songudha
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
24.03.2015
No. 11 Kurudih
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
22.06.2014
No. 12 Tilkeja
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
18.06.2014
No. 13 Kukricholi
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
21.06.2014
No. 14 Bagbuda
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
19.06.2014
No. 15 Masan
Korba
Korba
Chhattisgarh
20.06.2014
Thesil: Katghora
District: Korba
State: Chhattisgarh
1.
1022(E), 05.05.2011
No. 1 Nawagaon Kala
Katghora
Korba
Chhattisgarh
07.11.2014
No. 2 Sahimudi
Katghora
Korba
Chhattisgarh
08.11.2014
No. 3 Gopalpur
Katghora
Korba
Chhattisgarh
10.11.2014
2.
2118(E), 07.07.2013
No. 1 Gopalpur
Katghora
Korba
Chhattisgarh
10.11.2014
No. 2 Nawagao Kala
Katghora
Korba
Chhattisgarh
07.11.2014
No. 3 Sahimudi
Katghora
Korba
Chhattisgarh
08.11.2014
3.
1992(E), 10.07.2014
No. 1 Gopalpur
Katghora
Korba
Chhattisgarh
10.11.2014
No. 2 Nawagaonkala
Katghora
Korba
Chhattisgarh
07.11.2014
No. 3 Sahimudi
Katghora
Korba
Chhattisgarh
08.11.2014
[No. R-25011/3/2015-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
lw{e] y?kq vkSj e/;e m|e ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1769-—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] lw{e] y?kq vkSj e/;e m|e ea=ky; ds fu;a=.kk/khu
fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us
fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr
djrh gS%
jk"Vªh; lw{e] y?kq vkSj e/;e m|e laLFkku] ;qlqQxqMk]
gSnjkckn&500 045A
[lañ bZ&12016@01@2005&fgUnh]
,lñ ,uñ f=ikBh] vij lfpo
MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM
ENTERPRISES
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2015
S.O. 1769.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the following office under the control of the Ministry of
Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, whose more than 80%
staff has acquired working knowledge in Hindi:
National Institute for Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises,
Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
[No. E-12016/01/2005-Hindi]
S. N. TRIPATHI, Addl. Secy.
3704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1770-—dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh
Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;kad dkñ vkñ
12 ¼v½] rkjh[k 30 fnlEcj] 2014 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] vlkèkj.k]
Hkkx II] [kaM] 3 mi&[kaM (ii) rkjh[k 01 tuojh] 2015 esa izdkf'kr dh
xbZ Fkh] mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa
blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ vkSj ml Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds
lHkh vf/kdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh;
ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSa(
vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd lsaVªy
dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] jk¡ph] >kj[kaM] ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
mDr ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± dk ftUgsa
dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu
djus ds fy;s jtkean gS(
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e] 1957 dh /kkjk 11
dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k
nsrh gS fd bl izdkj fufgr Hkwfe esa vkSj ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj]
dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus dh ctk;] rkjh[k
01 tuojh] 2015 ls fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/khu jgrs
gq,] ljdkjh dEiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%—
1-
ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk
vo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh
ckcr~ fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ
djsxh(
2-
ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk 'krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds iz;kstu ds fy;s /kkjk 14
ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls
fdlh vf/kdj.k vkSj ,sls vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy;s
fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/kksa esa mixr lHkh O;;] mDr dEiuh
}kjk ogu fd;s tk;asxs vkSj blh izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k
ml ij ds vf/kdkj ds fy;s ;k mlds laca/k esa vihy vkfn
lHkh fo/ks;d dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] blh
izdkj mDr ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;asxs(
3-
ljdkjh dEiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dh] ,sls
fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh tks bl izdkj
fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ;k mlds] in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha
dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko';d gks(
4-
ljdkjh dEiuh ds ikl] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa iwoksZDr vf/kdkjksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr
dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
5-
ljdkjh dEiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu djsxh] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds
fof'k"V {ks=ksa ds fy;s fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir fd, tk,aA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@1@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2015
S.O. 1770.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, number S.O. 12(E), dated the 30th December, 2014
published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, sub-
secion (ii), dated the 1st January, 2015 issued under sub-
section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all
rights in and over the said land described in the Scheduled
appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to
as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section
(1) of section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that
the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand
(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is
willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the
Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that all rights in or over the
said lands so vested shall with effect from the 1st January,
2015 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central
Government shall vest in the Government company subject
to the following terms and conditions namely:—
1.
The Government company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like as
determined under the provisions of the said Act;
2.
A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of
the said Act, for the purpose of determining the
amounts payable to the Central Government by the
said Government company under conditions (1) and
all expenditure incurred in connection with any such
Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal
shall be borne by the said Government Company
and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3705
legal proceedings like appeals etc. for or in
connection with the rights in the said land so vesting
shall also be borne by the Government company;
3.
The Government company shall indemnify the
Central Government its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection
with any proceedings by or against the Central
Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid
rights in the said lands so vested;
4.
The Government company shall no power to transfer
the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested to
any other persons without the prior approval of the
Central Government; and
5.
The Government company shall abide by such
direction and conditions as may be given or imposed
by the Central Government for particular areas of the
said lands as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/1/2013-PRIW-I]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1771-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@1993½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@351@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenral Government
hereby bublishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/1993) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. ECL and their workman, received
by the Central Government on 31/08/2015.
[No. L-20012/351/1991-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 39/1993
Employer in relation to the management of Gopinathpur
Colliery of M/S ECL,
AND
Their workmen
Present:
Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employees
:
Sri D.V. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
State: Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
Dated : 3/7/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/351/1991-IR (C-1) dated
04/01/1993, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-secton (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
''Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union
for regularisation of services of Shri R.S. Sharma and 22
others by the management of Gopinathpur Golliery of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Nirsa Area is justified ? If yes,
to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?''
List of workman is not attached with order of reference
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates. Ld. Counsel for the
workman submits that workman is not interestd to contest
the case. It is felt that the disputes between the parties
have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No dispute
Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1772-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@1993½ dks
3706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@338@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st, August, 2015
S.O. 1772.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenral Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 41/1993) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. ECL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 31/08/2015.
[No. L-20012/338/1991 - IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference No. 41/1993
Employer in relation to the management of M/S CEL,
AND
Their workmen
Present:
Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employees
:
None
For the Workman
:
Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
State: Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 3/7/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/338/1991-IR (C-1) dated 05/01/1993,
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
''Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union for regularising of services of Shri Golak Bouri
and 3 others and paying them the category-IV wages
is Justified? If yes, what relief the concerned workmen
are entitled?
List workman is not attached with order of reference
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates. Ld Counsel for the workman
submits that workman is not interested to contest the case.
It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been
resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is
passed Commnicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1773-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40@1993½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@256@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenral Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/1993) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. ECL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 31/08/2015.
[No. L-20012/256/1991 - IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act,
1947.
Reference No. 40/1993
Employer in relation to the management of Chapapur
Colliery of M/s. CEL.
AND
Their workmen
Present:
Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employees
:
Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
State: Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
Dated : 6/7/2015
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3707
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/256/1991 IR (C-1) dated
05/01/1993, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
''Whether the action of the management of M/s
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Nirsa Area in relation to its
Chapapur Colliery in not regularising S/Shri Narayan
Bouri and seven others as clay cartiage maker in
category-I Mazdoor is justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workmen are entitled?''
List of Workman is not attached with order of reference
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1774-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49@1993½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@402@1991&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/1993) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. ECL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
31.08.2015.
[No. L-20012/402/1991-IR (C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act.
1947.
Reference: No. 49/1993
Employer in relation to the management of Kapasara
Area M/s. E.C.L.
AND
Their workmen.
Present:
Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
None
For the workmen
:
Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
State: Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated: 02.07.2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/402/1991-IR (C-1), dated
06-01-1993, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union
for regularization of S/Shri Bali Mallick and three
others as Black Smith is justified? If yes, what relief
the concerned workmen are entitled?"
List of Workman is not attached with order of
reference
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.
Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between
the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1775-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
3708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2007½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@99@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2007) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
31.08.2015.
[No. L-20012/99/2006-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act.
1947.
Reference: No. 06/2007
Employer in relation to the management of BCCL.
AND
Their workmen
Present:
Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
:
Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
State: Jharkhand
Industry - Coal
Dated: 02.07.2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/99/2006-IR(CM-1) dated
04.02.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (I) 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 Union from the management
for employment of Shri Gopal Dubey, S/o late Suresh
Dubey, who would have been beneficiary of the
award in Supreme Court judgment dt. 12.08.2005 in
SLC© (ii) No. 13066/05, but for his death is justified?
If so, to what relief is Shri Gopal Dubey entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.
Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between
the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1776-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 34@2007½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@40@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2007) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
31.08.2015.
[No. L-20012/40/2007-IR (CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.
Present :
Shri Kishori Ram,
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 34 of 2007
Parties
:
The Working President,
Jharkhand Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union,
Godhur Railway Staff Quarter, PO: Kusunda
Dhanbad.
Vs.
The General Manager,
Bhowra Area of M/s. BCCL, PO: Khas
Jeenagora, Dhanbad.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3709
Order No. L-20012/40/2007-IR(CM-I) dt.
12.07.2007
Appearances:
On behalf of the
:
Mr. Raghunandan Rai,
workman/Union
Ld. Rep. of the Union
On behalf of the
:
Mr. Shekhar Sharma Ld.
Management
Advocate
State :
Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 31st July, 2015
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise
of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/40/
2007-IR(CM-I) dt. 12.07.2007.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Jealgora
Regional Hospital of M/s. BCCL in not allowing
Shri Suresh Hari, Sweeper to join his duty is justified
and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled?"
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/40/2007-IR(CM-I)
dt. 12.07.2007 the above mentioned reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference
Case No. 34 of 2007 was registered on 24.07.2007 and
accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue
notices through the Registered Posts to the parties
concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the
date fixed, and to file their written statements along with
the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,
notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties
concerned.
Both the parties made their appearances and filed their
pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union
and the O.P./Management through their own
Representative & Ld. Counsel respectively, and contested
the case.
2. The case of workman Suresh Hari as represented in
his written statement by the Union concerned is that he
worked as the Sweeper Mazdoor at the Regional Hospital,
Jealgora, where he had been getting treated for his illness
since 09.10.2003. The Session Trial Case No. 53/02 had
been pending against him since earlier, so he was sent to
the Jail on 28.10.2003; hence he begain to absent from his
duty. Meanwhile, the Chief Medical Officer, the Regional
Hospital, Jealgora, had issued the workman the charge
sheet as per the office letter No. 1038 dt. 20.12.03 for his
absentism. The workman also submitted to the Management
his reply to it on 26.12.2003. Later on, he was released from
the jail on the bail on 03.04.2004 as per the order of the
Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi. Consequently, on
his going to join his duty, the management instead of letting
him join his duty ordered on 12.05.2004 at 11.00 A.M. for
the departmental proceeding, appointing Mr. Ved Prakash,
the Sr. Personnel Officer, as the Enquiry Officer as per the
office letter No. 2004/3906-08 dt. 6.5.2004. Even the copy of
the enquiry was not supplied to the workman. Despite the
letter dt. 10.09.05 of the workman to the Chief Medical Office
concerned, he was not allowed to join his duty. At last, it
resulted in the reference for an adjudication.
The Union in its rejoinder for the workman has
specifically denied all the allegations of the OP/
Management as incorrect and baseless, further stating that
though the workman was not found guilty, he was not
allowed to join his duty, for which the workman through
the Jharkhand Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union raised
the Industrial Dispute before the ALC (C), Dhanbad on
26.09.2005, finally resulting in the reference under an
adjudication. The Management in order to conceal their
wrong got the workman out of the service on 24.5.2007 by
causing to arbitrarily hold the enquiry into the charge sheet
dt. 12/13.5.2006.
3. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the
Industrial Dispute on law and facts, the contra case of the
OP/Management is that in fact, workman Suresh Hari was
a Sweeper in the Regional Hospital, Jealgora of BCCL. He
reported his sickness on 09.10.03, but since then he was
unauthorizedly absenting. His previous record of
attendances for 186,171 and 202 days in the last three years
2001 to 2003 respectively indicates his habitual absentism.
The workman had never informed the Management of under
what circumstances he was put in the jail custody for which
offences. Besides, the OP/Management in their
simultaneous rejoinder have categorically denied all the
allegations of the workman, further stating that the copies
of enquiry papers were supplied to the workman. After
finding his reply to the chargesheet unsatisfactory, the
domestic enquiry was conducted in which he though
participated, yet did not disclose of his conviction by the
Court of Law for the offences u/s 342,307/34 of I.P.C. with
Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances, the workman was charge sheeted as per
the Ref. No. 309 dt. 12, 13/05.2006 for his misconducts under
clauses 26.1.19 and 26.1.20 of the Certified Standing Orders
of the Company. But he did not reply to it, though he was
directed to submit the same within seven days. So the
domestic enquiry was held by Mr. R.D. Tripathy, P.M.
Bhowra (S) in presence of Dr. S.P. Pandey appointed as the
Management Representative therein. In the enquiry, the
workman had fully participated and accepted his conviction
in S.T. Case No. 53/02 wherein he was remanded to the Jail
on 28.10.02, but was released on bail on 03.04.2004. The
aforesaid Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report had held the
workman guilty of the charges levelled against him proved
for his misconducts. The reply of the workman to the Second
3710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Show Cause Notice dt. 11.10.06 issued to him with the
enquiry report and its proceeding was found unsatisfactory.
Then the Competent Authority dismissed the workman from
his service w.e.f. 24.5.07 as per the order dt. 24.3.07. So no
question arises for allowing the workman to resume his
duty on 10.09.2005 during the enquiry for the previous
charge sheet.
Finding with the Reasons
4. In the instant referfence, WW1 Suresh Hari, the
workman for the Union concerned, has been examined, but
the affidavited Chief dt. 13.8.13 of the Dr. Suresh Pd. Pandey
in lack of his cross examination on behalf of the workman
due to absence of the said Management witness on 18.12.13
is mere formality which is inadmissible in the eye of law, as
the evidence of the OP/Management was closed on that
very date.
The argument as per the written one on behalf of the
workman is that workman Suresh Hari was a permanent
employee of M/s. BCCL working as a sweeper at Jealgora
Regional Hospital. He absented from his duty w.e.f.
09.10.2003 on account of sickness as per his outdoor
Treatment slip (Ex.M.1 with objection). During his sickness,
he was convicted and sentenced in St. No. 53/03 at Dhanbad
and sent to jail on 28.10.2003. He was served with the 1st
Chargesheet dt. 20.12.2003 (Ext. W.2) to which he had
submitted his reply dt. 14/25.12.2003 (Ext. W.3). On appeal
having been admitted in the Hon'ble High Court at Ranchi
against his conviction, he was released from the jail on
03.04.2004 on bail. He reported for his duty, but he was not
allowed by the Management to join his duty without any
reasons, though he was never suspended. Subsequently
he, was informed as per the Notice of the Enquiry dt. 5/
6.5.2004 (Ext. W.4) about the enquiry. He participated in the
enquiry, but he was not given any record of enquiry or its
any information and never produced before the Tribunal.
Further it has argued on the behalf of the workman that
after more than one year without getting any information
about joining his duty, he was made his one last request dt.
8.9.2005 (Ext.W.5) to the Management for his joining duty,
but he was not allowed to do so. When he did not get any
response from the Management, the workman raised the
I.D. before the ALC(C) though the Union on 26.09.2005
through the Union, which finally resulted in the reference,
due to the failure in its conciliation.
It is also submitted on behalf of the workman that after
about one year of raising the Industrial Dispute before the
ALC(C), the workman received the 2nd Charge sheet dt.
12/13.05.06 (Ext. W.2/1) to which he had also replied on
05.07.2006 (Ext. W.3/1 with objection) stating the 2nd Charge
sheet issued mala fide; thereafter enquiry was conducted
on 11.09.2006 in which the workman had also participated.
On the Show Cause Notice (Ext. W.6) to him, the workman
submitted his reply by challenging the findings of enquiry,
even then the Management as per the letter dt. 24.05.2007
(Ext. W.7) dismissed him from service, though he had never
hidden the facts of his conviction and sentence and
remaining in jail; as such his termination from his service
was quite illegal and justified, because the issuance of 2nd
Chargesheet enquiry and dismissal on 24.05.2007 was an
ex-post facto action of the Management. Moreover, not
any documents as to the charges of specific misconducts
of the Service order proved hence the petitioner is entitled
to join his duty with full back wages, as the refusal of the
OP/Management to the workman to join his duty is illegal
and unjustified.
5.
The arguments advanced on behalf of the OP/
Management is that workman Suresh Hari was the sweeper
in Jealgora Regional Hospital of M/s BCCL, but he was
himself absenting from his duty w.e.f. 09.10.2003 for which
he was initially issued the charge sheet No. 1038 dt.
20.12.203 (Ext. MW.2) by the OP/Management to whcih he
submitted his reply 24.12.2003 (Ext. W.3) that he had
reported his sick on 09.10.03 (Ext. w.1 with objection) and
subsequently he was in jail custody, following his
convicting by the FTC Court VIII, Dhanbad, for sentence
in the S.Tr.No.53/2002 u/s 307/342 I.P.C. etc., then the
Management issued him an afresh charge sheet dt.12/
13.5.2006 for his miconduct under clause 26.1.19 and 26.1.20;
he though unreplied to it, yet participated in the enquiry
proceedings as per Notice of Enquiry (Ext. W.4).
Further it has been argued on his behalf of the
Management that after his appearance in the enquiry, he
had admitted the fact of his conviction and sentence passed
against him in the aforesaid Session case; Thereafter he
was held guilty of the aforesaid misconduct; having
received the receipt of enquiry report and Show Cause
Notice (Ext. W.6), he also gave reply to it (Ext. W.3/1 with
objection); and thereafter finding his reply unsatisfactory,
he was dismissed from his service as per the order dt.
24.05.2007 (Exct. W. 7) which is quite just and proper in
view of his misconducts proved under clauses 26.1.19 &
26.1.20 against him, as also admitted by the workman.
In view of the nature of the schedule to the Reference
related to not allowing the workman to join his duty', it
inevitably needs the determination of its incidental issue
about the legal validity of the domestic enquiry against the
workman.
6. On perusal and consideration of the materials available
on the case record, it seems obvious that the workman as
per his Out Door Ticket, which is dateless (Ext. W.1 with
objection) is acknowledged to have informed the OP/
Management of his sickness on 09.10.2003, since thereafter
he had been absenting from his duty unauthorized without
any information of his whereabouts; hence he was issued
the charge sheet dt. Jan. 19, 2003 by the Dy. C.M.O., Jealgora
Regional Hospital with a copy to the Dy. C.P.M., E.J. Area
(Ext. W2) for his unauthorized absence as a serious
misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3711
Company, On the receipt of the Chargesheet by the
workman being in the jail custody concerning the Session
Trial case No. 53/2002. the workman submitted his reply dt.
24.12.2003 (Ext. W.3) to it about his inability to report for
his duty. Thereafter another charge-sheet dt. 12/
13.05.2006(Ext. W.3/1) was issued by the OP/Management
for his specific misconducts under clauses 26.1.10 and
26.1.20 of the Certified standing Orders of the Company-
particularly about "conviction by a Court of Law for any
criminal offence involving moral Turpitude" and "any
breach of the Mines Act 1952..." The Workman appears to
have submitted his reply dt. 08.09.2005 to the Management
(Ext. W.5 with objection) to the second charge sheet,
mentioning his request for joining for duty after completion
of his enquiry two years ago in which he had also
participated. Notice of enquiry dt. 5/6.5.2004 (Ext. W.4)
relates to the previous chargesheet dt. 20.12.2003 as
contrasted with its original dt. Jan 19, 2003 (Ext. W.2)
Thereafter, on the 2nd Show Cause Notice dt. 11.10.2006
(Ext. W.6) which is related to the aforesaid latter charge-
sheet dt. 12.13.5.2006 (Ext. W.2/1), the workman was
accordingly dismissed from the service of the Company
with immediate effect as per the dismissal letter dt. 24.5.2007
(Ext. W.7). The entire proceedings no where reveals any
fact of the suspension of the workman earlier in respect of
his aforesaid two charge sheets.
7. In the instant case, on perusal of the materials on the
case record manifests, as I observe and find the following
points:
(i) The department enquiry prima facie suffers from
double chargesheets (Extt. W.2 and 2/1) firstly
totally vague for unauthorized absentism and
secondly for specific (on re-charge sheet after
more than 3 years for misconduct of conviction in
the Session Case issued against the workman But
on the enquiry based on the latter chargesheet
dt. 12/13/05/2006, the workman appears to have
got dismissal for alleged misconduct of his
conviction in the S.T., Case. It is well settled that
when a charge based partially on relevant facts
and partially on facts which are irrelevant or
assumed, it is a serious defect in the charges which
can not be sustained in law as held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Dock Labour
Board Vs. Jaffar Iman, reported in AIR 1966 SC
282; 1966 SCC211. It is now well established that
vagueness in a chargesheet framed against an
employee is a defect serious enough to vitiate the
entire proceeding of a domestic enquiry which
otherwise might have culminated in discharge,
dismissal, removal from service or reduction in
the rank of an employee as held in the case of
Khemchand Vs. Union of India, 1959 (i) LLJ 167.
In the instant case, the second chargesheet dt.
12./13/05/2006 [Ext. W.2/1] following the reply of
the workman dt. 24.12.2003 [Ext.W.5] was issued
to the workman for specific misconduct of his
conviction in the S.T. Case;
(ii) No suspension was ever effected by the OP/
Management in natural course of their conduct
even during the period of the entire enquiry
proceeding.
(iii) The petitioner workman appears to have clearly
stated in his reply dt. 24.12.2003 [Ext. W.3] to his
first charge sheet dt. Jan 19, 2003 his inability to
attend to his duty due to unavoidable
circumstances of his being in the jail custody for
his conviction in his Session case.
(iv) The dismissal of the workman only on the ground
of his conviction in his aforesaid Session case is
not usustainable in the eye of Law.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts based on the materials
available on the case record, the reference is responded
and accordingly awarded that the action of the
Management of Jealgora Regional Hospital of M/s BCCL
in not allowing Shri Suresh Hari, Sweeper to join his duty is
unjustified and illegal, hence the workman concerned is
entitled to his reinstatement without his back wages for his
absence period from his duty due to his unavoidable
reasons maintaining his continuity of his service. The OP/
Management is directed to implement the Award in a month
from the date of its receipt following the publication of the
Award in the Gazette of India by the Government of India.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1777-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 145@1998
146@1998½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@08@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@271@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
lañ ,y&20012@272@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenral Government
hereby bublishes the Award (Ref. 145/1998 & 146/1998) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
3712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
31/08/2015.
[No. L-20012/271/1997 - IR (CM-I),
No. L-20012/272/1997 - IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri Kishori Ram,
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section10 (1)
(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
REFERENCE NO. 145 OF 1998
With
REFERENCE NO. 146 OF 1998 (Amalgamated)
The Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Jharnapara,
Hirapur, Dhanbad
Vs.
The General Manager,
Sudamdih Area of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad.
[Ministry's Order No.L-20012/272/97-IR
(Coal-I) dated 15.05.1998]
[Ministry's Order No.L-20012/271/97-IR
(Coal-I) dated 15.05.1998]
respectively
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Workman/Union
: Mr. D. Mukhrjee,
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr.
Ganesh
Prasad,
Ld
Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd July, 2015.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise
of the Powers conferred on them under Sec. 10 (1) (d) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following disputes to this
Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order Nos. referred to
above going paras under Reference heads as per the
Schedules:
SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 145 OF 1998
"Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union in demanding regularization in respect of
S/Sh/Kishan Rewani, Natwar Bhattcharjee, Dulal
Mahato, Gopal Bahadur, Bishan Rewani, Lal Moahan
Rewani, Sukhdeo Singh and Jogesh Mukherjee as
Cat. I Mazdoors in justified? If yes, to what relief are
these workmen entitled"
SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 146 OF 1998
"Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union in demanding regularization in respect of S/ Sh.
Ajit Singh, Dasarath Singh, Nand Gopal Mahoto, Rajesh
Singh and Dhanu Singh as Cat. Mazdoor is justified? If
yes, to what relief are these workmen entitled?'
2. Neither of the workmen S/Shri Kishan Rewani with
seven others nor any of the workmen S/Sh. Ajit Singh with
four others (of Amalgamated case) appeared nor any
Representatives of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Hirapur
Jharnaapur, Dhanabd nor any witness on their behalf is
present or produced. Mr. Ganesh Prasad, the Ld. Advocate
for the OP/Management, namely, the G.M. Sudamdih Area,
M/s BCCL, Dhanbad is Present.
From the perusal of the case records, it is evident that
the instant Reference along with Ref. No. 146/98 since its
amalgamation as per order No. 15 dt. 29.06.1999 has been
pending for the evidence of the workmen since 19.1.2000 in
spite of giving the workmen more than ample opportunities
for the evidence of them, not a single witness on their
behalf/the Union Representative has been produced so
far. The Workmen and their Representatives by their
conducts clearly appear to quite reluctant to produce or
examine any of the workmen as witness in support of their
claim for regularizations raised by their Union concerned.
Since it is the oldest case of the year 1998, it appears that
there is no longer any of the Industrial Disputes relating to
regularization. Hence, the case along with the amalgamated
one is closed as no Industrial Dispute existing. Accordingly
an order of "No Dispute Award" is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1778-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 88@2004½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@204@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3713
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenral Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2004) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. BCCL asnd their workman, received
by the Central Government on 31/08/2015.
[No. L-20012/204/2004-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
SHRI KISHORI RAM,
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute Under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 88 OF 2004
PARTIES
: The Organizing Secretary,
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,
(RCMS), Rajendra Path, Post Box
No. 22, Dhanabd.
Vs.
The Chief Engineer,
Bhowra Coke Plant, PO: Bhowra,
Dhanbad.
Ministry's Order No L-20012/204/2004-
IR(C-1) dt. 28.06.2004
APPEARANCES:
On hehalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. R.R.Ram
Ld.Adv.
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. U.N.Lal, Ld.
Adv.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 31st July, 2015
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise
of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1) (d) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/204/
2004/-IR(C-I) dt. 28.06.2004
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Rastriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh from the Management of Bhowra
Coke Plant of M/s BCCL for giving the pay protection
of past pay with SPRA benefit to the workman Shri
Raj Giri Singh, at the time of pay fixation on
conversion from Piece Rate to Time rate is just and
legal? If yes, what relief is the workman entitled to
and from what date?"
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/204/2004/-IR(C-I)
dt. 28.06.2004 of the above mentioned reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference
Case No. 88 of 2004 was registered on 30.07.2004 and
accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue
notices through the Registered Posts to the parties
concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the
date fixed, and to file their written statements along with
the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,
notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties
concerned.
Bothe the parties made their appearances and filed their
pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union/
Petitioner and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.
Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.
2.The case of the RCMS for workman Rajgiri Singh as
stated in his written statement is that he had been working
as M/Loader at Jealgora Colliery, Lodna area of M/s BCCL
from May, 1981. The Management of the Colliery engaged
him in Time Rated job in exigency. The H.Qr Management
of M/s BCCL as per the letter No. BCCL/PA-I/Conversion/
95/36822 dt/21/22/12/1995 approved his regularization as
explosive Carrier as also communicated to him by the
Colliery Management as per the letter No. GM/PER/XI/
Conversion/96-/175-76 dt.2/6.11.1996 as well as through
the Office Order No. J.P.O./00/96/95 dt. 30.01.1996 of the
Project Officer whereby the workman was regularized as
Explosive Carrier in time Rated Category with initial basis
pay of Category II. No sooner did the workman get the
office order than he had represeted to the Management for
protection of his wages earned at the time of working as
P.R.Worker in accordance with the procedure. The
Management did not care for his several representations
to that effect. Meanwhile, he was transferred to Bhowra
Coke Plant.
Further stated on his behalf is that while fixing in
category II, the basic of the workman was fixed at Rs. 66.86
in place of Rs. 88.88 on 6.1.1996, as he wasbeing paid Rs.
22.02. as S.P.R.A.at the time of his regularization. Similarly
situated persons S/Shri Surendra Hajra (Per No. 2735173)
and others, then P.R. Workers were later on regularized as
the Explosive Carrier in Cat. II with protection of wages.
Their basic was fixed as Rs. 88.88, whereas the basic of the
workman was fixed as Rs. 66.86. Likewise the basic pay of
aforesaid Sri Surendra Hajra, the Explosive Carrier became
Rs. 173.99 on 20.04.2001 but that of the workman as the
Explosive Carrier stood Rs. 145.26 on the same date The
wrong fixation of the basic pay of the workman caused
3714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
huge financial loss to him per month. Though he had never
applied for conversion, the Management had converted
him from P.R. job to T.R. job in exigency. The action of the
Management is unjustified, illegal and violative of Articles
12, 14 to 19 of the Indian Constitution. At last the Industrial
Dispute raised before the A.L.C.(C), Dhanbad, due to its
failure in conciliation resulted in the reference for an
adjudication. So the demand of the Union for protection of
the piece rated Wages of the workman with addition of
S.P.R.A. in the pay of the Time Rated Category while
converting in Time Rated Category with all consequential
benefits w.e.f. 06.01.1996 is proper and justified.
3. The Union Representative in the rejoinder on behalf
of the workman has specifically denied all the allegations
of the OP/Management as concocted, imaginary and
misleading, further alleging that once deployment in a
higher category of any other work has been permanently
made, the previous wages of the workman should be
protected at the time of conversion into his new post.
4. Whereas, challenging the maintainability of the
industrial dispute on the grounds of law and facts, the OP/
Management has counter pleaded that it is not a valid
industrial dispute u/s/ 2(k) of the I/.D. Act, as the reference
being vague is null and void. Moreover, the sponsoring
Union has no locus standi to raise it as the workman is not
a member of it. The reference is an abuse of the process of
law as the instant reference based on irrelevant facts is
unsustainable and unmaintainable, and an adjudication
needs the reference on specific issue as required under the
provision Sec. 10(4) of the I.D. Act. There is inordinate
delay without any satisfactory merits whatsoever. The
Workman posted at Jealgora Colliery was regularized from
Piece Rated to Time Rated as Explosive Carrier in Cat. II,
and thereafter on his transfer to Bhowra Coke Plant, he
was released from Jealgora Colliery w.e.f. 1.06.96. It is an
acknowledged fact that there was no working requirement
of Explosive Carrier at the Coke Plant, yet he was posted
there working as Pump Operator. His initial basic was fixed
in the Time Rated Cat. II at Rs. 66.86 as on 6.1.1996 at that
time the workers were being transferred from Jealgora
Colliery to other underground Mines due to inundation of
Jealgora Colliery. The workman was regularized as Explosive
Carrier. But he got managed to his transfer to Bhowra Coke
Plant instead of the Underground Mines of the Area on his
consent. Prior to his transfer to Bhowra Coke Plant, he was
converted into Time Rated Category II, and accordingly
his initial basic pay for it was fixed at Rs. 66.86. The
Management have rightly fixed initial Basic Pay of the
workman, as also communicated by the Jealgora Colliery
as also apparent from the LPC as also approved by the
Competent Authority for his deployment with his aforesaid
initial basic pay. As such there is no scope for Piece Rated
worker on account of his option and acceptances for the
Time Rated Category in Underground, but in this case in
the Coke Plant.
There was no reduction in the basic wages of the
workmen including the instant one as alleged by the Union.
Therefore the claim of the Union for the pay protection of
the workman with SPRA is unjustified; hence the workman
is not entitled to any relief.
The OP/Management simultaneously but specifically
has denied all the allegations of the workman/Union as
incorrect, because the workmen including the petitioner
were absorbed in different collieries due to inundation, but
never in exigency. No representation whatsoever was
received from the side of the workman.
FINDING WITH REASONS
5. In the Instant Reference WW1 Raj Giri Singh, the
workman himself and WW2 Jagdish Saw on behalf of the
Union concerned and MW1 Sri Ajay Kumar Mehta, the
Accountant on behalf of the OP/Management have been
examined respectively.
The argument of the workman Rajgiri Singh is that the
Management has regularized him as the Pump Operator in
Cat.III in 2000 out of their own violation, but his SPRA was
deducted by the OP/Management at the time of his transfer
from Jealgora Colliery despite his documents of his SPRA
having been filed before the Management. According to
him, his SPRA is due to the OP/Management from the year
1996, though his colleagues/co-workers were given their
SPRA by the Management.
On the other hand, just contrary to it, the contention of
Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld. Counsel for the OP/Management is that
the workman was converted from M/Loader in Piece Rated
Category V-A to the Explosive Carrier for Time Rated job in
Cat.II as per the Office order dt. 30.01.1996 (Ext. M.1); he
had accordingly the initial basic pay of his Cat.II at Rs.
66.86 per day as per the office letter dt. 18.12.1996 (Ext.M1/
1) which was never protested by the workman; that since
his aforesaid conversion was as per his option, he was not
given the protection of SPRA as per the Circular dt. 12/
13.03.1999 as stated in its para II as such the pay protection
of SPRA is not applicable to the workman. Further it has
been contended on behalf of the O.P./Management that
fixation of pay of the workman was effected in accordance
with the rules of Company prevalent at the relevant time.
So the action of the Union for the protection of the SPRA
of the workman is not justified in view of his option for
conversion on consensus.
6. On perusal and consideration of materials available
on the case record, it is an acknowledged fact that the
workman Rajgiri Singh as per the Office Order dt. 30.01.1960
(Ext.M.1) of the Project Officer, Jealgora Colliery was
regularized in the Time Rated Category as the Explosive
Career Cat. II, which was approved designation, for which
he had got the initial basic of Cat.II @ Rs. 66.86. It was also
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3715
paid to him as admitted by the workman. Just after his
conversion into the Explosive Career at the Jealgora Colliery
from where he was transferred to Bhowra Coke Plant on
the post of Pump Operator Cat.II and being so after 8 years
of his service, he had got Cat.III and accordingly he retired.
It also appear the acknowledged fact that his basic pay has
been fixed Rs. 66.86, with the increment in the month of
January (Increment Code A) as per the letter dt. 18.12.96 of
the aforesaid Project Officer, Jealgora Colliery to the Chief
Engineer, CO, Bhowra, BP & BH, Bhowra Area (Ext.M1/1).
Since the workman and others had given their consent for
their conversion from P.R. to TR, so he along with others
was given the initial basic pay of his Cat.II. It is crystal
clear that the pay protection with SPRA appears to be
inapplicable for those who opted for conversion voluntarily
at the relevant time (year 1995-96).
7. In view of the aforesaid finding, the reference is hereby
responded and accordingly awarded that this is an industrial
dispute u/s 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, and that
the demand of the Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh from
the OP/Management of Bhowra Coke Plant of M/s BCCL for
giving pay protection of petitioner workman with SPRA on
his conversion from Piece Rated to Time Rated is neither
just nor legal, as his conversion into Time Rated was effected
on his option just as his colleagues did for it. Hence, the
workman is not entitled to any relief from any date.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1779-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;y; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 177@98½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@123@1997&vkbZvkj¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 177/98) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Hasdeo Area of SECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
31.08.2015.
[No. L-22012/123/1997-IR(C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/177/98
Regional Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation (INTUC),
Hasdeo Area, Post South Jharkhand Colliery,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Hasdeo Area of SECL,
Post South Jhagrakhand Colliery,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of July 2015
1. As per letter dated 23-30.7.98 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/
123/97-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,
Hasdeo Area of SECL in promoting Shri Kanhaiya
Singh to the post of Clerk Grade I in the year 1984
and in this way superseding Shri Ibu Khan and 10
other clerks of SECL, Hasdeo area Units and further
promoting Shri K. Singh to the post of Special Grade
Clerk in the year 1989 and again superseding Shri
Ibu Khan and 10 other clerks is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief Shri Ibu Khan and 10 other clerks
are entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party RCWF submitted statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/4. Case of Ist party Union is that workman
concerned Ibukhan and 10 others are presently working in
different units of Hasdeo Area as shown in the Annexure
A. That hierarchical order of promotion in the ministerial
side is General Mazdoor, Clerk Grade III, Clerk Grade II,
Clerk Grade-I, Special Grade, Office Superintendent. The
requirement of promotion from General Mazdoor to Grade
III, Grade III to Grade II and Grade II to grade I is on seniority
cum merit with 3 years service. From Grade I to special
Grade is 5 years service as Grade I or 8 years service out of
which 5 years as Grade II and 3 years as grade I. From
special Grade to OS, 5 years in special Grade. Upto special
grade the process is seniority-cum-merit and from Special
Grade to OS the same is merit-cum-seniority. That one
Kanaiya Singh appointed in 1989 as loader was promoted
to grade III clerk and Grade II in 1980, Grade I in 1984,
Special Grade in 1989 and OS in October 1995. That Kanaiya
Singh despite promoted as Grade II Clerk subsequent to
3716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
the workman concerned with the dispute No. 1 to 11 shown
in the Annexure was promoted as Grade I clerk in 1984,
superseding all workmen concerned is arbitrary and illegal.
Representations against supersession were made and the
same shall be filled separately along with the list of
documents. However none of the representations received
any consideration. The workmen were subjected to
supersession in the year 1989 when Shri Kanaiyya Singh
was promoted as Special Grade and they were ignored. It is
submitted that promotion from Grade I Clerk as well as
Clerk Special Grade, all the workman fulfilling eligibility
conditions narrated in para-3 of the statement of claim. It is
further submitted that Ranjit Das, K.M. Pandey, R.N.
Chakravorty, R.N. Pandey promoted as Grade I Clerk
subsequent to the workman from 1-9-86 order dated
28-9-86 were eligible for promotion as special grade clerk
after completion of 3 years service as clerk Grade I plus 5
years service as clerk Grade II or 5 years service as clerk
Grade I. In order to give undue benefit of promotion to the
individuals personalized order was passed by the
management on 20-6-88 giving notional seniority as Grade
I clerk from 1-1-84 to the individuals in said order. That in
the documentary evidence, said benefit was accorded to
them for specific purpose providing eligibility for promotion
as Special Grade in 1989. In November 1989, all of them
were promoted as Clerk Special Grade.
3. That Shri R.N. Singh was promoted as Clerk Grade I
and Clerk special Grade vide letter dated 12-6-86 alongwith
workman. He was further promoted to the post of clerk
special grade with 3 workmen Shri R.S. Tripathi. J.K. Shah
and S.D. Sengupta on 23-11-94 giving undue benefit of
notional seniority. That Shri R.N. Singh was promoted as
Clerk Special Grade on 23-11-94. Seniority was allowed to
Shri R.N. Singh as clerk special grade without holding
said post. That Shri K.K. Srivastava working as Clerk
Grade I from 1-1-1987 was junior to all those workmen, he
was promoted as clerk special grade from 16-8-94
superseding the workman. Mr. P.K. Jha appointed as
general mazdoor in 1981 junior to all the workmen was
promoted as clerk special grade by order dated 11-2-1956
superseding all the workmen. It is submitted that in the
past, the management has adopted the policy of pick and
choose giving undue benefit to favourite one contrary to
the principles of natural justice. It is further contented
that management extended benefit to the workers in
arbitrary manner is illegal. It amounts to unfair labour
practice. On such ground, Ist party Union prays that
workman be accorded promotion to the post of Clerk Grade
I from 1-1-1984, clerk special Grade from 1-9-89, Office
Superintendent from 1-10-95 with arrears of wages.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/7
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that the
promotion claimed by Ist party workman from 1984, dispute
is raised in 1994 after lapse of 14 years is highly belated.
The dispute is not tenable. The appropriate Government
should not have reffered on ground of delay and latches.
The order of reference was challenged foiling Petition no.
1669/01. Writ Petition was pending for disposal. Application
for stay was filed. Management was directed to file Written
Statement on merit.
5. 2nd party submits it is company registered under
Company's Act having office at Bilaspur. It is subsidiary of
Coal India Limited. Hasdeo area is one amongst several
area of the company. The terms and conditions of employees
working in Coal industry are covered by NCWA. The
settlement contains cadre scheme. Promotional channel
are given in the cadre scheme. The promotions are given
on recommendations of DPC and availability of post. The
eligibility criteria is given in the cadre scheme for promotion
of Clerk Grade I. Matriculation or equivalent from recognized
board, 5 years experience as Grade I or 8 years service out
of which 5 years as Grade II and 3 years as Grade I. There is
no question of anomaly in Clerk Grade. W.r.t. one sub area
unit to other sub area unit promotion up to clerk Grade I
will be done at area level. The vacancy position report
defers from sub area to other unit.
6. It is contented that promotion for Clerk Grade I to Sr.
clerk Special Grade is area level upto technical and suptd.
Grade B. Sr. Clerk Special grade on basis of seniority cum
merit. That thus Clerk Grade I were promoted as per seniority
cum merit. That thus Clerk Grade I were promoted as per
seniority-cum-merit on recommendation of DPC in 1984.
The Ist party workman connected with dispute did not
qualify eligibility marks. They have not completed 3 years
experience as clerk Grade I as per Cadre Scheme in January
1989 therefore they were not considered for promotion.
The details of date of appointment and promotions to Clerk
Grade III to II, I, Special Grade Clerk are given in para-13 of
the Written Statement. It is reiterated that the reference
made after 14 years is highly belated. The reference is not
tenable. 2nd party prayed for rejection of claim for
promotion to Ist party workman.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
Chief General Manager, Hasdeo
Area of SECL in promoting Shri
Kanhaiya Singh to the post of
Clerk Grade I in the year 1984
and in this way superseding
Shri Ibu Khan and 10 other clerks
of SECL, Hasdeo area Units and
further promoting Shri K. Singh
to the post of Special Grade
Clerk in the year 1989 and again
superseding Shri Ibu Khan and
10 other clerks is legal and
justified?
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3717
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workmen are
workman is entitled to?"
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
8. Though dispute is raised by Union about superseding
of Ibu Khan and 10 others in promotion as Clerk Grade I in
1984 and special Grade in 1989 promoting Kanaiya Singh.
Union has failed to adduce evidence in support of his claim.
Evidence of Ist party is closed on 9-3-2014.
9. 2nd party management filed affidavit of evidence of
witness Shri B.V. Potan supporting contentions of 2nd party
management. Management's witness says that cadre
scheme of Ministerial staff clerk produced as Annexure
M-1. Promotion is given on recommendation of DPC subject
to availability of sanctioned post. The criteria for post of
Sr. Clerk is matriculation from recognized board, 5 years
service as clerk Grade I. that Shri Ibu Khan and 10 others
did not qualify eligibility marks. They have not completed
3 years experience as clerk Grade I required under the Cadre
Scheme in January 1989. The evidence of management's
witness remained unchallenged. I do not find reason to
disbelieve his evidence. The cadre scheme is produced at
Exhibit M-1, M-2, Claim of Ist party workman is not
supported by any evidence. Therefore I record my finding
in Point no. 1 in Afirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The action of the Chief General Manager, Hasdeo
Area of SECL in promoting Shri Kanhaiya Singh to the post
of Clerk Grade I in the year 1984 and in this way superseding
Shri Ibu Khan and 10 other clerks of SECL, Hasdeo area
Units and further promoting Shri K. Singh to the post of
Special Grade Clerk in the year 1989 and again superseding
Shri Ibu Khan and 10 other clerks is proper and legal.
(2)
Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1780-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 154@02 dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@90@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby
publishes the Award Ref. 154/02 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the
Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of Nandan Mine No. 1 of WCL, and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 31/08/2015.
[No. L-22012/90/2002-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/154/02
Shri Kewaldas S/o Shri Bhikamdas,
Damua No. 8, Park Road,
Dholak Bhandar,
PO Damua,
Tehsil, Damua,
Chhindwara
...... Workman
Versus
Manager,
Nanadan Mine No. 1 of WCL,
Kanhan Area, PO Nandan,
Chhindwara
...... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of July, 2015
1. As per letter dated 31-10-02 by the Government of
India Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/
90/2002-IR (CM-II). The dispute under referenced relates
to:
"Whether the action of the management of Nandan
Mine No. 1 of WCL, Kanhan Area, PO Nandan, Distt.
Chhindwara (MP) in dismissing Shri Kewaldas S/o
Shri Bhikamdas from service w.e.f. 10-10-95 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices was issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1
to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was working as casual
labour. He was allotted Token No. 0531 in Nandan Mine
No. 1. That his working with 2nd party was satisfactory.
There was no complaint against him. He was appointed
against permanent vacant post. He worked continuously
more than 240 days with 2nd party. He acquired status of
permanent employee. Chargesheet was issued to workman
making false allegations. Workman submits that he was
not feeling well. He could not contact medical officer of
Kanhan Area Hospital at Junnardeo. Hospital issued
Medical Certificate about his signatures. That he had
submitted the application for leave. However deliberately
management issued chargesheet with malafide intention.
He further submits that once he was not in position to join
duty being under treatment, he cannot be unauthorized
absence from duty. That he had submitted medical
3718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
certificate along with application time to time to the
department. He cannot be said absent from duty without
intimation. The chargesheet issued to him is false.
3. That Enquiry Officer did not accord him proper
oppotunity for his defence. He was not allowed to produce
his defence. Workman was held guilty in violation of
principles of natural justice. Showcause notice was not
issued to him for personal hearing on the point of quantum
of punishment. The dismissal of workman amounts to unfair
labour practice and colourable exercise of power.
4. Workman further submits that after his termination,
he is out of employment. He is not gainfully employed
anywhere. Workman and his family are living in starving
conditions. Workman prays for answering reference in his
favour. That reinstatement with backwages be allowed. It
is further submitted that the absence alleged in chargesheet,
workman was receiving treatment is concerned hospital.
He had submitted application for leave. Punishment of
dismissal is excessive. While workman was receiving
treatment in hospital, his wife was also admitted in hospital.
The absence of workman was beyond his control. Major
punishment is imposed in case of misconduct involving
moral turpitude. In this case, punishment of dismissal is
excessive. On such ground, workman is praying for
reinstatement with backwages.
5. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/11
opposing claim of the workman. It is submitted that workman
was working as casual labour vide Token No. 0531 in
Nandan Mine. Workman was habitual absentee. He
remained absent from duty without intimation/sanctioned
leave. Workman had no interest to work. He was given
ample oppotunity to improve himself but workman did not
show any improvement in his conduct. The attendance
particulars of the workman for the year 1992 to 1995 are
given in Para-2 of the Written Statement. The working days
are 81 days in 1992, 34 days in 1993, 19 days in 1994 & nil in
1995. The particulars of habitual abasence of workman are
shown in para-3 of the Written Statement. Chargesheet
was issued to workman, no reply was filed by workman to
the chargesheet. Enquiry was conducted against workman.
Shri B.N. Prasad was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri
H. Rehman as Management's representative. Enquiry was
conducted on 8-8-94 & 25-9-95. Workman was absent on
both the dates. Enquiry was proceeded exparte. Statement
of Shri Manohar Ramteke was recorded in support of
chargesheet. He submitted attendance particulars of
workman marked Annexure M-9. Enquiry Officer submitted
his report. Charges against workman are proved
considering serious nature of charge proved against
workman. He was terminated on 10-10-95. 2nd party
reiterates that employees of 2nd party are provided medical
facility. 2nd party is running Burkui hospital in Chhindwara
district. Said hospital has 200 beds. That specialized doctors
were working there. Workman was not admitted in Burkui
Hospital, any intimation was not given by workman about
his absence from duty. Enquiry was conducted following
principles of natural justice. 2nd party has referred to ratio
held in various cases emphasizing that claim of workman
deserves to be rejected.
6. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder reiterating its
contentions is statement of claim. That since workman is
alleged to be working as casual workman, no enquiry can
be conducted against him. That casual worker is defined
under Para 3, 4 of the standing orders. That workman had
worked more than 3 months from his appointment but he
could not complete 180-240 days continuous service. All
other contentions in Written Statement filed by workman
are deined.
7. As per order dated 14-8-2012 passed by my
predecessor enquiry against workman was found legal.
8. Considering pleadings on record and order on
preliminary issue, the points which arise for my considering
and determination are as under. My findings are recorded
against each of them for the reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the misconduct
In Affirmative
alleged against workman is
proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii)
Whether the punishment of
In Affairmative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
9. Point No. 1—as per order dated 14-8-2012, enquiry
conducted against workman is found proper and legal.
Question remains for decision whether the charges alleged
against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings. During course of argument, learned counsel
for 2nd party Shri A.K. Shashi pointed out my attention to
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings at Page 5/23 to 5/25.
Enquiry was proceeded exparte as per Enquiry Proceedings
Page 5/23 dated 25-9-95. Statement of management's witness
Manohar Ramteke in his statement says that he was working
in the mine since 20 years. That workman was in habit of
remaining absent from duty. Chargesheet No. 2071 was
issued to workman on 18-7-94. Workman not given reply to
the chargesheet. Enquiry Officer was appointed. Workman
did not submit application for leave. He had not submitted
certificate of his illness. The details of working days of
workman are narrated by the witness 81 days in 1992, 34
days in 1993, 19 days in 1994 & nil in 1995. Workman was
allowed to join duty during pending enquiry. The witness
of management was not cross-examined. Notices issued to
workman in the matter of enquiry conducted against him
are produced at Exhibit M-5, M-6, M-8 already considered
while deciding preliminary issue.
10. Learned counsel for workman Shri R.S. Verma
pointed out my attention to the documents zerox copies
produced by workman which are denined by the
management. Document 6/19, 6/20 discharge note workman
has not adduced valid evidence. When enquiry is found
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3719
legal, learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K. Shashi argues
that to decide whether charges are proved against workman
in evidence in Enquiry Proceedings should be considered,
no other evidence could be adduced. On the point Shri
A.K. Shashi pointed out my attention to proviso to Section
11(A) of ID Act. It is reproduced for convenience for
purpose of clarity—
"Provided that in any proceeding under this section,
the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as
the case may be shall rely only on the merits on
record and shall not take any fresh evidence in
relation to the matter."
Therefore zerox copy of document produced by
workman cannot be considered for deciding whether
charges against workman are proved. Exhibit W-1 produced
by workman is office order dated 10-10-95 the workman
was terminated. Shri R.S. Verma in his argument submits
that workman in his cross-examination has explained that
in 1995, he was ill. He was referred to WCL Hospital. He
was admitted in hospital for 2 years. He submitted Sick
Certificate. Prior to 1995 also he was suffering from illness.
In view of proviso of Section 11-A reproduced above, the
evidence cannot be considered. From evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings, the charge of unauthorized and habitual
absence against workman is proved. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affairmative.
11. Point No. 2—The charge against workman is proved
as per my finding recorded in Point No. 1. At the time of
argument, learned counsel for workman Shri R.S. Verma
submits that workman was in service for 10 years. The
punishment of dismissal imposed for unauthorised absence
is excessive and illegal. Workman in his statement of claim
has not disclosed date of his appointment. The evidence
of workman shows he was working in Nandan Mine from
1984. He was dismissal from service on 10-10-95. Workman
in is cross says he was receiving slip from hospital about
his treatment. All those slips are produced by him in the
office. He has produced slip Exhibit W-1. The date is not
clear. Exhibit W-2, W-3, W-5 are prescriptions. W-4 is
Medical Certificate dated 19-7-91. For the long absence of
workman from duty, the punishment of dismissal cannot
be said excessive. Therefore I record my finding in Point
No. 2 in Affirmative.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:
(1)
The action of the management of Nandan Mine No.
1 of WCL, Kanhan Area, PO Nandan, Distt.
Chhindwara (MP) in dismissing Shri Kewaldas S/o
Shri Bhikamdas from service w.e.f. 10-10-95 is proper
and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1781-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;ksdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 39@2010 dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22011@53@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 39/2010 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour, Jabalpur as shown in the
Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Food Corporation of India, FCI Zonal Office
West, Food Corporation of India, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 31.08.2015.
[No. L-22011/53/2009-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/39/2010
The President,
FCI Handling Workers Union,
8654, Arakshan Road,
...Workman/Union
Paharganj, New Delhi.
Versus
Regional General Manager,
FCI, Regional Office,
MP Chetak Bhawan,
MP Nagar, Habibganj, Bhopal
Executive Director (West),
FCI Zonal Office West,
Dhiraj Arma Building,
Nr. Kaneka Police Station,
Bandra East, Mumbai,
Regional General Manager,
FCI, Regional Office,
Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Marg,
Pandri Raipur.
Area Manager, FCI,
District Office, Durg
Area Manager, FCI,
Gurudwara Hall,
...Management
Bilaspur
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of July 2015
1. As per letter dated 16.6.2010 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,
3720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
as per Notification No. L-22011/53/2009-IR(CM-II). The
dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of FCI in
allegedly transferring S/Shri Bhojram Manhilani & S.K.
Suman from FCI, FSD, Betual & Datia to FCI, Raigarh &
Durg respectively is legal and justified? To what relief
are the claimants entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman failed to appear in reference
proceeding. Ist partys workman is proceeded exparte on
7.6.2013.
3. 2nd party has filed exparte Written Statement. Case of
2nd party is that FCI is corporation constituted under FCI
Act 1964. It is undertaking of Central Government. The
services conditions of employees of FCI are governed by
Staff Regulation of 1973. That workman Shri Surendra
Kumar Suman Yadav was servings in the post of Sardar,
Bhojram Manhilani was serving in the post of Sardar in
Betual Depot of FCI. They have submitted application for
their transfer at Durg, Raigarh depot. On their request,s
they were transferred as per order dated 14.11.08. Workmen
were relieved as per order dated 21.11.08. Both workmen
on their own made request for transfer. On their request,
the order of transfers were issued, copies of applications
submitted by Shri Surendra Kumar Suman Yadav and
Bhojram Manhilani are produced as annexure with Written
Statement. 2nd party submits that employees were
transferred on their request. Order of transfer are not legal.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of FCI in
allegedly transferring S/
Shri Bhojram Manhilani
& S.K. Suman from FCI,
FSD, Betul & Datia of
FCI, FSD, Raigarh &
Durg respectively is legal
and justified?
(ii) if not, what relief the
Workmen are not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5. The dispute referred by Government pertains to the
legality of transfer of workmen Shri Bhojram Manhilani &
S.K. Suman from Betual & Datia depot to Raigarh & Durg
depot. However workman failed to submit statement of
claim. They have not participated in the reference. Exparte
Written Statement filed by 2nd party management and
evidence of management's witness Shri Verma shows that
both parties were tranferred on their applications. Workmen
have failed to adduce evidence in support of their
contentions neither they filed statement of claim therefore
I record Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of FCI in allegedly
transferring S/Shri Bhojram Manhilani & S.K.
Suman from FCI, FSD, Betul & Datia to FCI, FSD,
Raigharh & Durg is legal.
(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relif.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1782-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 60@2005 dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@215@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 60/05 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
managerment of Bhatgaon Area of SECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
31.08.2015.
[No. L-22012/215/2004-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/60/05
Shri Bimal Bose & 5 others,
S/o Shri Satish Bose,
Vill. Bhawanpur,
Surguja (CG).
..... Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Bhatgaon Area of SECL,
P.O. Bhatgaon,
Surguja (CG)
....Management
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3721
AWARD
Passed on this 16th of July 2015
1. As per letter dated 6.7.05 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/215/2004-
IR(CM-II). The dispute under references relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Bhatgaon
Area of SECL in terminating the service of Shri Bimal
Bose and 5 others is legal and justified? If not, of what
relief the workmen are entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 5/2 to 5/5. Case of Ist party workman is that workman
No. 1 to 6 were appointed as labour in 1980 under the
management of Manager, Bhatgaon area of SECL. Shri Bimal
Bose, Ramchandra, Nankaram, Dularsaya were allotted PF
Account. Shri Ramanand and Daduram were not given GPF
Account though the deducation of PF were made from
them. Those workers were prevented from doing their duties
declaring that their services were suspended for their
absence from duties from 4.12.83. Workmen have contented
that they were in regular service. They had completed 240
days continuous service for several years without any
break. Workers had right for regularization of their service
in view of Section 25 B of ID Act. Dispute of termination of
services of all employees were raised by Union before ALC,
Shahdol. During conciliation proceeding, management
assured and undertaken to enquire into the matter on
assurances and undertaking given by management, the
conciliation proceeding was disposed.
3. Several representations were submitted by workers
to the respondent. Enquiry was kept pending for long time.
No notices for appearance were issued to them. In November
2002, the respondents (Committee) ordered to restore
services of 18 labours out of 47 labours. Applicants were
not provided appearance and hearing before enquiry
committee. Workman served notice under Section 18 CPC
through their counsel on 2.12.12. Respondent management
did not respond to said notice. The dispute was again
raised before ALC, Shahdol. After following the procedure
dispute is referred by Central Government. Workman
submits that their services are illegally terminated. The
action of the management is discriminatory and arbitrary.
Their services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of
ID Act. on such ground, workman prays for their
reinstatement with back wages.
4. 2nd party field Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/3
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that
workman Bimal Bose, Ram Chandra, Nanka Ram, Dularsaya,
Ramanand and Dadu Ram were isnitially engaged as
substitute workmen in Bhatgaon colliery. They were
engaged as daily rated Category I mazdoor. Those workmen
were irregular in their attendance. They were unauthorisely
absent. Workman had not given intimation or requested
permission or obtained sanctioned leave. Their services
came to end automatically as per standing orders. Dispute
is raised after more than 7 years is not tenable. 2nd party
management has referred to ratio held in various cases.
2nd party reiterates that the services of those workmen
were terminated for unauthorized absence which is major
misconduct. If this Tribunal comes to conclusion with DE
was required to be conducted before termination of services
of the workman. Managements reserves its right to prove
misconduct against them. That employee has to perform
his job delinquently and must not absent from work without
sufficient case. Absenteeism is failure of the employee to
report for which he had scheduled to work. 2nd party has
contented that various facilities of free electricity, medical
aid, educational facility, school bus etc. are provided to its
employees. Anticipating 100% attendance for coal
production. That coal is used for production of electricity.
If coal production is affected, production of electricity will
also be affected. All adverse contentions of workman are
denied. It is denied that workman had completed 240 days
continuous service. It is submitted that dispute is raised
after long lapse of time is belated. The reference is not
tenable. The services of workmen were terminated for
unauthorized and habitual absence is legal.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Bhatgaon
Area of SECL in terminating
the services of Shri Bimal
Bose and 5 others is legal
and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workmen are not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
6. Point No. 1-workmen raised disputes challenging
legality of their termination. As per workmen, they were
engaged by 2nd party from 1980. They completed more
than 240 days continuous service. Their services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F,G,H of ID Act. Rule
77 of ID Rules is also alleged. However the workman did
not adduce evidence in support of their claim. The evidence
of workmen was closed on 23.6.2011.
7. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Somesh
Das supporting contentions of 2nd party in Witten
Statement. That for absence of the workmen, their services
3722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
came to end automatically from 4.12.1983 as per provisions
of standing order. Ist party workmen failed to cross-examine
witness of the management. His evidence remained
unchallenged. Copy of standing order is not produced
therefore in evidence of management's witness that services
of workmen are automatically terminated as per standing
orders cannot be accepted. However workmen have failed
to adduce evidence that they were in continuous
employment of 2nd party from 1980, they completed 240
days. Their services terminated without notice in violation
of Section 25-F of ID Act is not supported by any thread of
evidence therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Bhatgaon Area
of SECL in terminating the services of Shri Bimal
Bose and 5 others is proper and legal.
(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1783-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 96@07½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@348@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/07) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
31.08.2015.
[No. L-22012/348/2005-IR(CM-II)]
REJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/96/07
General Secretary,
SC/ST/OBC Karmchari Kalyan Parishad,
9, Sanwer Road,
Ujjain
.... Workman/Union
Versus
Sr. Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Regional Office, Chetak Building,
Bhopal
District Manager, Food Corporation of India,
64, University Road,
Ujjain
.... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of July 2015
1. As per letter dated 27.9.07 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/348/2005-
IR(CUM-II) The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Sr. Regional Manager, Food
Corporation of India, Bhopal in not considering the case
of Shri Pratik Chhawand for providing him
compassionate appointment is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief Shri Pratik Chhawand is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Statement of claim is filed by Ist party workman
claiming employment on compassionate ground. His father
Heeralal Chhawand died on 20.7.99 leaving widow Lata
Chhawand, Priti Chhawand, Deepmala Chhawand and
Prateek Chhawand i.e. workman.
3. Management filed Written Statement opposing claim
of workman raising preliminary objections and other
contentions.
4. The application is filed by management for passing
No Dispute Award. It is submitted that Ist party workman
Prateek Chhawand comes under the scheme formulated by
FCI for compassionate appointment. The appointment is
offered to the workman. He has submitted joining report at
District Office, Indore. Workman present before this
Tribunal admitted contents of said application.
Management's representative Amitabh Sharma also admits
the contents of the application. The application is also
supported by affidavit .The copy of offer of appointment
to workman dated 14.11.2014 is produced on record. As the
workman is given appointment on compassionate ground,
the dispute between parties ceized to exist. Therefore award
is passed as under:—
"Ist party workman is given appointment on
compassionate ground, the dispute between parties
ceized to exist. Therefore the dispute under reference is
not decided on merit. The dispute under reference is
disposed as parties settled their dispute outside."
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3723
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1784-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 101@92½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@25@1992&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1784.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/92) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Kumda Sub Area of SECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
31.08.2015.
[No. L-22012/25/1992-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR-COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/101/92
Shri Krishna Kumar Goyal,
S/o Late Shri Om prakash Goyal,
Gram Vishrampur,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
....Workman
Versus
The Sub Area Manager,
Kumda Sub Area of SECL,
Post Vishrampur Colliery,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of July 2015
1. As per letter dated 2.6.92 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-22012/25/92-IR
(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Bisrampur
Sub Area of SECL Post Bisrampur Colliery in dismissing
Shri krishina Kumar Goyel, Casual Mazdoor from
company's services w.e.f. 14.4.86 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/6. Case of workman is that he was employed
by 2nd party on post of casual employee since 1984. He
was continuously working without break. He was given all
benefits of permanent employee. The order of his dismissal
was issued by 2nd party on the basis of chargesheet issued
to him. The chargesheet issued to him was based on
complaint lodged by Shri B.K. Lal. chargesheet was replied
by him. Enquiry was conducted against him. During
pendency of departmental proceedings, workman was
prosecuted in criminal case on complaint by Shri B.K. Lal.
Criminal case was pending before Judicial Magistrate
Bikundpur, Distt. Surguja. Enquiry was continued against
him. his request to stay departmental proceeding was not
considered. The criminal case and chargesheet issued to
him were based on same set of facts and evidence.
Workman was acquitted as per order dated 27.3.91 in criminal
case No. 60/90 by Additional District Judge, Bikudpur,
Surguja. As Competent Court acq uitted workman, the
department was not justified to conduct Departmental
Enquiry against him. In view of his acquittal in criminal
case, workman deserves to be reinstated with full back
wages.
3. Workman further reiterated that enquiry conducted
against him is illegal. Principles of natural justice were
violated. Copy of complaint on which the chargesheet was
issued was not replied on his request. In absence of the
copy of complaint, workman could not prepare his defence
properly. It resulted in prejudice to the workman, The
prosecution witnesses could not be cross-examined. During
enquiry, workman had requested assistance of Union leader
for his defence. Management turned down said request.
That management's witness Shri B.K. Lal was committed to
give his statement by reading and hand notes in the Enquiry
Procedings. Similarly management's witness was permitted
to give his statement reading the statement brought by
him. It is reiterated that workman is not acquainted with
him. He studied only 5th standard. The Enquiry proceeding
was recorded in English . It resulted prejudice to the
workman, principles of natural justice were violated. That
Enquiry Officer recorded finding that charges were proved
against him. No. showcause notice was issued to workman.
Punishment of dismissal was imposed is illegal. The findings
of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Ist party workman was
subjected to harassment. The action of the mangement
dismissing from service is illegal. The chargesheet issued
to him doesnot constitute misconduct under standing
orders. On such ground, workman prays for his
reinstatement with backwages.
4. By amendment, workman pleaded that management
was prejudiced agaisnt workman. Since his appointment,
he was subject to unfair labour practice, inhuman
exploitation. That complainant Shri B.K. Lal, Electrical and
Mechanical Engineer was not concerned with Drivers/
3724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Tipper Operators. The matter was not concerned within
the discipline of Electrical and Mechanical Department.
Workman was working as piece rated worker. He could not
be ordered to drive tipper or any other vehicles. On his
refusal to unauthorized orders, he was subjected to
disciplinary action. Report of Enquiry Officer is not cogent.
The punishment imposed without approval of the owner
or Competent Authority as per Clause 17(ii) of standing
orders. Workman prays for his reinstatement with
backwages.
5. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/2
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party contents that
workman was working as casual labour. Casual labours
are given employment to the job of casual nature. As
soon as job is completed, they have no right to continue
in service. As a gesture of good will, workman was engaged
as casual mazdoor as he was residing in vicinity of the
colliery. Workman was issued chargesheet for assaulting
his superior Shri B.K. Lal who was Shift Incharge. Workman
abused Mr. Lal and threatened him in dire consequences.
Reply to the chargesheet was not found satisfactory.
Enquiy was conducted against workman. Workman had
participated in enquiry alongwith his co-worker. Full
opportunity for his defence was given to the workman.
Principles of natural justice were followed. After
conclusion of enquiry, workman was dismissed on basis
of proved misconduct. In case DE conducted against
workman is found vitiated, mangement be allowed to prove
misconduct on merit adducing evidence. Workman is not
entitled to any reliefs. Management could not repose
confidence on such arrogant and disobedient casual
mazdoor who refuse to obey reasonable order of his
superiors. Management further submits that it is extremely
dangerous to keep such person in employment, it is not
in interest of workman or management. The workman
cannot be reinstated as he may create further unrest.
6. As per order dated 14.5.2013, enquriy conducted
against workman was found illegal. Management was
permitted to prove misconduct adducing evidence.
7. Considering pleadings on record and findings on
preliminary issued, the points which arise for my
consideration and determination are as under. My findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as
below:
(i) Whether the charges alleged
In Affirmative
against workman is proved
from evidence in Enquiry
procedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Affirmative
dismissal imposed against
workman in proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
8. As staed above enquiry against workman is found
illegal as per order dated 14.5.2013. The charges against
workman was of (i) willful insubordination or disobedience
under Clause 17(1)(C), fighting or riotous disorderly or
indecent behavior while on duty at place of work under
Clause 17(1) (e), causing willful damage to work in progress
under Clause 17(1)(i), threatening, abusing or assaulting
any superior or co-worker under Clause 17(1)(r) & any
breach of the Mines Act, 1952 or any other act of any rules,
regulations or byelaws thereunder or of any standing
orders under Clause 17(1)(q). Management has been
permitted to prove misconduct adducing evidence.
Management has filed affidavits of witness Anand Pathak,
Ansari, B.C. Sethi, B.K. Lal. Shri Anand Pathak in his
affidavit of evidence says on 20.2.86, he was assigned duty
in Ist shift for taking out ropes from Kumda colliery. Around
12.30 hours, Shri B.K. Lal and Mr. A.K. Sarkar were standing
welding shed. Workman Krishna Kumar and other person
reached to the place, workman had pulled Mr. B.K. Lal and
inflicted blows by a wooden stick. He had taken away Shri
Krishna Kumar, the workman. he had snatched wooden
stick from him. Workman and other unknown person left
the place giving indecent abuses. Shri Anand Pathak in his
cross-examination says on 26-27/2/86, he was working as
casual labour. He had seen incident dated 28.2.86. He had
not seen judgment passed by Session Judge in Criminal
case. He was not examined as witness in criminal case. His
statement was recorded in Enquiry Proceedings. He claimed
ignorance how unknown person had come to the colliery.
He denies that he had not seen workman inflicting blows
by wooden stick. The stick was not seized. The evidence
of Anand Pathak is silent that workman had inflicted blows
by wooden stick on Mr. Lal.
9. Management's witness Kamruddin in his affidavit of
evidence says he was working in Ist shift on 27th February
1986 as time keeper. Shri B.K. Lal had given a slip that
Krishna Kumar instead of Ist shift would work in 2nd shift
on 28.2.86. At that time, workman had not come. He told
Driver and Tripman present to tell workman Krishna Kumar
that he should attend 2nd shift on 28.2.86. In his affidavit,
Shri Kamruddin Ansari says that Mr. Lal told workman to
work in 2nd shift. Around 12.30 hours, when he came out
of office, he had seen Anand Pathak, Ashok Kumar were
bringing Krishna Kumar towards Sub Area Office. Shri
Ashok Kumar was having wooden stick in his hand. In his
cross-examination, Kamruddin says in February 86, he was
working in colliery as time keeper. he was doing writing
work in the office. He was not examined as witness in criminal
case. The statement was recorded in Enquiry Proceedings.
He had not seen order passed by District Court dated 27.3.91
but he had not seen the workman inflicting blow by wooden
stick, he had not reported incident to police. Thus evidence
of Shri Ansari is not supporting the allegation of
management that workman had inflicted with wooden stick
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3725
on Mr. Lal. He says that he had heard about it. The hear
say evidence is not sufficient. Shri B.C. Sethi in his affidavit
of evidence says workman was working as casual mazdoor
at Kumda. On 27.2.86, workman was directed to attend the
duty in 2nd shift on 28.2.86. Workman had assaulted
Mr. Lal and also abused and threatened him on dire
consequences. His affidavit is further devoted on point of
chargesheet issued to workman and prosecution of
workman for offence under Section 323 IPC. In his cross-
examination, Shri Sethi says he was not in service in 1986,
he is working in Kumda colliery from 97 to 2013. He filed
affidavit as per the records. He was not witness to the
incident. The evidence of Shri Sethi is also supporting
allegation of management that the workman assaulted
Shri B.K. Lal.
10. Affidavit of evidence of Shri B.K. Lal is filed. He has
stated that in his affidavit on 28.2.86 around 12.30 hours he
was in Kumda incline No. 3, 4 presently called Incline No.
7, 8. Krishna Kumar i.e. workman had come with wooden
stick along with unknown boys. They were saying who
will save him, they will shoot him, they were not worried of
their job. They had also abused and said who will save him
if he was shot. Krishna Kumar workman was having
wooden stick started inflicting blows on his left side buttock
and leg. He fell down. The unknown erson accompanying
workman was also abusing him. Shri A.K. Sarkar, Ashok
Kumar, saved him. In his cross-examination, witness Shri
B.K. Lal says his evidence was recorded in Surguja Court.
He claims ignorance whether workman was acquitted. He
denies that he falsely implicated workman. The evidence
of Shri B.K. Lal is not shattered in his cross-examination.
They copy of judgement in Appeal No. 60/90 is produced
in which workman was acquitted. From reading of judgment,
para-11 it is clear that witness Ratan Vishwakarma, Ratpal
Singh were not examined in criminal case. Evidence of
witness Shri B.K. Pal, Das were examined. Para-13 of the
judgment is clear that eye witness Shri L.K. Das not
supported prosecution. He had not seen police seized
wooden stick from workman. Witness Arun Kumar Sarkar
Manager in his evidence says he was standing near welding
shed. At that time Krishna Kumar workman came with
wooden stick accompanied with its associates towards Lal
and inflicted blow on his leg. Mr. Lal while going back fell
down. Wooden stick was snatched from accused. Witness
Shri B.K. Lal i.e. complainant has deposed that on 28.2.86,
he was standing out of the office. The accused came and
started beating him. It was observed that evidence of both
witnesses were not consistent. The names of witnesses
were not written in FIR. In Para 19 of the judgment in criminal
apeal 60/90, it is observed that Dr. P.C. Jain had found
injuries on left toe of Vijay Kumar and contusion over left
buttock. His evidence was not accepted observing he was
not eye witness to the incident.
11. The burden of proof in DE is not similar to the burden
of proof in criminal case. The legal position is settled that
in DE, probabilities are to be considered. The evidence of
Shri B.K. Lal who was inflicted injuries by wooden stick by
workman is not shattered. Even in criminal case,
Shri B.K. Lal has deposed about inflicting blows by
workman Krishna Kumar. Absolutely there is no reason
why evidence of Shri B.K. Lal should be disbelieved if his
evidence in cross-examination in seen.
12. Workman died during pendency of reference
proceeding. His LRs are brought on record from evidence
of management's witness Shri B.K. Lal, it is established
that workman had inflicted injuries on him. The other
management's witness Anand Pathak, Ansari, Sethi are not
corroborating Shri B.K. Lal on the point of inflicting blows
by deceased workman but presence of workman and
abusing Shri B.K. Lal is corroborated by the witnesses.
13. Learned counsel for management Shri A.K. Shashi
has relied judgment in Writ petition 2584/95. Considering
Para-20 of the judgment, I find that the facts of present
case are not comparable and the judgments relied cannot
be beneficially applied. However from evidence of Shri B.K.
Lal, charge under Clause 17(1)(r) is proved against workman.
14. Point NO. 2-In view of my finding in Point No. 1
charge under Clause 17(1)(r) is proved against deceased
workman assaulting, threatening, abusing supervisors
inflicting blows on Shri B.K. Lal, Superior of deceased
workman. The proved charge against deceased workman
is of very serious nature. The punishment of dismissal
against workman therefore cannot be said disproportionate.
For abvoe reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 2 in
Affirmative.
15. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the Sub Area Manager, Bisrampur
Sub Area of SECL Post Bisrampur Colliery in
dismissing Shri Krishina Kumar Goyel, Gasual
Mazdoor from company's services w.e.f. 14.4.86 is
proper and legal.
(2) The reference is answered in favour of the
management and against the deceased workman.
(3) Parties to bear their respective costs.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1785-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
lhñ,eñihñMhñvkbZñ,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; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
3726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
la[;k 208@94½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
31@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@289@1994&vkbZvkj ¼lh&2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2015
S.O. 1785.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 208/94) 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 31/08/2015.
[No. L-22012/289/1994-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/208/94
The Secretary,
Singrauli Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),
Singrauli, Post Jayant Colliery,
Distt. Sidhi (MP)
.....Workman/Union
Versus
Regional Director,
CMPDIL, RI-VI,
Singrauli-CWS Colony,
Post Jayant Colliery,
Distt. Sidhi (MP)
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of July, 2015
1. As per letter dated 15-11-94 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-22012/289/94-IR
(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Regional Director, Coalmine
Planning & Design Institute Ltd. RI-VI Singrauli in
penalising Shri Pritam Kumar, Ringman by way of with-
hodling two year increments is legal and justified? If
not to what relief is the workman entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party Koyla Mazdoor Sangh Union is that
workman Pritam Kumar working as Ringman with Non-
applicant is active Trade Union Worker. He had raised
certain demands with the management. Along with other
office bearer of Union related to drinking water, electricity
in workers colony and office. Management was annoyed
with workman and issued chargesheet dated 21-1-93.
Workman denied charges. Management conducted enquiry.
On the findings of Enquiry Officer, punishment of stoppage
of increment for two years was imposed on 7-8-92. Union
submits that enquiry conducted against workman in
violation of natural justice. Enquiry Officer denied relevant
documents to the workman. Disciplinary Authority not
supplied Enquiry Report even after demand by workman
as per letter dated 31-5-92. It caused prejudice to the
workman. Reliance is also placed in ratio held in case of
Mohd. Rehman reported in 1991-SCC-588. The punishment
imposed on vitiated enquiries be called back.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at 6/1 to 6/3 opposing
claim of Union 2nd party submits that chargesheet was
issued to workman related to serious misconduct. Workman
forced other employees not to go to their work assembled
them to come to CMPDI. Work progress was adopted. He
had forced the executives of the camp to come with him.
Because of the act committed by workman Pritam Kumar,
chargesheet was issued. The reply given by workman was
found unsatisfactory. Shri N.C. Narula, Dy. CME was
appointed as Enquiry Officer. Detailed enquiry was made
for the charges against workman. Enquiry was conducted
on various dates. Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated
5-10-91 holding charges against workman proved.
Management examined 5 witnesses before Enquiry Officer.
All the witness were cross-examined by co-worker.
Workman to examine any witness in his defence. Competent
Authority considering findings of Enquiry Officer imposed
punishment of withholding increments for 2 years.
Workman was given full opportunity for his defence. If
enquiry is found vitiated, management requested
permission to prove misconduct by leading evidence. 2nd
party submits that its action is justified.
4. Union submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/3 reiterating
its contentions in statement of claim.
5. Vide order dated 15-1-2014 enquiry conducted against
workman is found legal.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise
for my consideration and determination are as under. My
findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons
as below:—
(i) Whether the charges alleged
In Affirmative
against workman is proved
from evidence in Enqiry
proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Affirmative
withholding of two
increments imposed against
workman is proper and
legal?
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3727
(iii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
7. Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal
as per order dated 15-1-2014, question remains whether
charges alleged against workman are proved from evidence
in Enquiry Proceedings. The record of enquiry proceedings
is produced at Exhibit M-5. Witness No. 1 Shri Sinha in his
statement before Enquiry Officer says he was working as
Sr. Geologist at Singrauli. He had received information from
Shri N.K. Das. He reached to the place. He and Mr. Das
were forcibly taken in jeep to Head Office. His statement is
also devoted on the point that when he went to Mr. Das, he
was gheroed, he was not permitted to go out. They were
forcibly taken to the head office. He has disclosed name of
Shri Pritam Kumar (workman), Shri S.S. Shukla, V.K. Verma
were among the persons gheraoed them. Witness No. 2 to
5 also supported the allegations of management namely
Shri P.K. Sarkar, N.K. Das.
8. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C. Shrivastava
did not advance any argument about evidence before
Enquiry Officer. Rather Shri R.C. Shrivastava argued that
Disciplinary Authority not considered findings of Enquiry
Officer; extraneous matters were considered while imposing
punishment as per document 9/36 referred to certain
complaints. The punishment was imposed without
application of mind considering extraneous matter and
therefore punishment is illegal.
9. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K. Shashi submits
that Dy. Personal Manager did not pass order of
punishment. The recommendation was of Dy. Personal
Manager was not binding on the Disciplinary Authority,
any adverse inference cannot be drawn. The punishment
of withholding two increments was imposed considering
the charges of illegal strike, its enquiry is found legal. The
matter cannot be considered again. That powers under
Section 11-A of ID Act could not be exercised in case of
discharge, dismissal of employees. That action of the
management withholding two increments of workman Pritam
Kumar considering findings of Enquiry Officer is legal.
10. Reliance is placed on ratio held in Case of South
Indian Cashew Factories Workers Union versus Kerala State
Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and others reported
in 2006(5) SCC 201. The Bias against Enqiry Officer must
be specifically pleaded and proved before he adjudicator.
Raising of such plea in the present case for the first time
before Supreme Court deprecated.
Enquiry is held legal as per order dated 15-1-2014. Said
findings is not open for consideration. Therefore the ratio
cannot be applied to case at hand. The enquiry Report is
produced at Page 9/30 to 9/35. Other complaints, order of
punishment would not be rendered when findings of
Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence of 5
management's witnesses, no argument are advanced by
learned counsel for workman quality of evidence therefore
I record my finding in Point No. 1 is Affirmative.
11. Punishment of withholding two increments is
imposed by Regional Director as per Exhibit M-6. Shri R.C.
Shrivastava, Advocate for Ist party pointed out my
attention to the reference of other complaints in
punishment order is extraneous, matter considered while
imposing punishment; it was argued that therefore
punishment is illegal. When charge against workman Pritam
are supported by evidence of all 5 management's witnesses,
reference of other complaints in punishment order cannot
render the punishment illegal. The punishment of
withholding two increments of workman cannot be said
excessive, disproportionate considering the nature of the
charges proved against workman. Therefore I record my
finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the Regional Director, Coalmine
Planning & Design Institute Ltd. RI-VI Singrauli
in penalising Shri Pritam Kumar, Ringman by way
of withholding two year increments is proper and
legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1786-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 138@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@68@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2015
S.O. 1786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 138/2005) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Manderboni Colliery under
Pandaveshwar Area of ECL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 02/09/2015.
[No. L-22012/68/2005-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
3728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, ASANSOL.
Present:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 138 OF 2005
Parties:
The management of Mendarboni Colliery
of M/s. ECL, Burdwan.
Vs.
Sri Pairu Bhuiya
Representatives:
For the Management
: Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the Union (Workman) : None
Industry
:
Coal
State
:
West Bengal
Dated-07.07. 2015
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/
68/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 08.12.2005 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Manderboni
Colliery under Pandeveshwar Area of M/s Eastern
Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh. Pairu Bhuiya, U.G.
Loader, U. M. No. 118301 from service w.e.f. 15.10.2003
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman
entitled?"
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/68/
2005-IR(CM-II) dated 08.12.2005 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 138 of
2005 was registered on 23.12.2005 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out. Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. of the management
appeared. But none appeared on behalf of the workman.
On perusal of the case record I find that compromise
(Form 'H') has been filed by the parties and workman has
joined. The reference is decided on the basis of compromise
filed by the parties. Since the workman has already been
reinstated the case is closed and accordingly an award on
settlement may be passed. Settlement is to form a part of
award.
Considering the above facts, the case is closed and
accordingly it is awarded that the case has been settled as
per Form 'H' memorandum of settlement between both the
parties as an integral part of it. The terms and conditions of
the settlement shall be binding upon both the parties.
Hence, it is ordered
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above
discussion. Form 'H' containing terms and conditions does
form as an integral part of the Award. Send the copies of
the award to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, New Delhi for information and needful. The
reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1787-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u VsyhQksu
baMLVªht] y[kuÅ ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 01@2008½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@56@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2015
S.O. 1787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 01/2008) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Indian Telephone Industries, Lucknow
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 01/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/56/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Present :
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 01/2008
Ref. No. L-40012/56/2007-IR (DU) dated 27.12.2007
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3729
BETWEEN
Mr. Mahesh Kumar Dhanuk S/o Late Sri Lalle
R/o 2, DGP Road, Bhuiyan Devi Mandir
Narhi, Lucknow
AND
The Dy. General Manager (Sales Service Divn.)
Indian Telephone Industries
I.T.I. Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar
Lucknow
AWARD
1. By order No. L-40012/56/2007-IR (DU) dated 27.12.2007
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Mr. Mahesh Kumar Dhanuk
S/o Late Sri Lalle and the Dy. General Manager (Sales
Service Divn.) I.T.I. Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the action of the Management of Indian
Telephone Industries, Lucknow, in terminating the
services of their workman Shri Mahesh Kumar Dhanuk
w.e.f 01.09.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
3. The claim statement A1-3 has been filed on behalf of
the workman, it has been stated therein that the workman
was employed as Sweeper w.e.f. 01.11.1987, he had
continuously worked with the employers up to 31.08.1998,
was employed for more than 240 days in each completed
year of service. It has further been stated suddenly his
services were terminated on 01.09.1998 without any bonafide
reason, at that time he was being paid Rs.440/- p.m. as his
monthly salary.
4. the workman has emphasized that at the moment of
termination, the workman was neither given one month's
notice or pay in lieu thereof nor any retrenchment
compensation, hence, the employers have violated the
provisions of section 25-F of the I.D. Act, consequently
the termination of the workman is illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to the law of land. It is submitted pertinently that
as the employers have also violated the provisions of
section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act, inter alia by way of
not adopting the principle of "Last Come First Go"
therefore, the termination of workman is also wrong and
unfair labour practice under the Act. The workman made a
protest against his termination vide his notice dated
10.09.1998 sent to the employers and asked them to reinstate
in the services with all benefits, but the employers paid no
heed towards his request, hence, filed a case u/s 2-A of
U.P. I. D. Act, before the Regional Conciliation Officer, which
had later been referred by the state government to the
Inustrial Tribunal-VI, Lucknow. In the meantime the
Industrial Tribunal-VI had been transferred to Gorakhpur,
hence, the case of the workman was transferred to Industrial
Tribunal-II, Lucknow, where it was registered as Adj. Case
No. 291 of 2001.
5. The Inustrial Tribunal-II vide its award dated
14.02.2002 held that the state government was not an
appropriate government to refer the case; consequently, it
had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Consequently
the matter was referred to this Tribunal. The workman has
stated that his termination is illegal, wrong and arbitrary
and unfair labour practice was adopted. He has prayed for
his reinstatement along with all consequential benefits.
6. The management has filed written statement M-8
wherein it has been stated that there was no sanctioned
post of Sweeper in the establishment, the applicant was
private Safai Karmchari, for cleanliness of lanes of
Halwasiya Market building. The shop owner used to pay
him some amount for his work. The opposite party has
stated that Regional Office of I.T.I. Ltd. was at III floor
Halwasiya Building, where the applicant approached the
management for cleaning work at the office on the contract
basis; approximately he used to do the same for about an
hour. It has further been stated in the written statement
that the Regional Office of the I.T.I. Ltd., was shifted to
I.T.I. Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in
August 1998, the maintenance as regards water, electricity
supply and cleaning of the said building was entrusted to
another unit of I.T.I. Ltd., i.e. I.T.I., Mankapur. The contract
work available for applicant was limited to the regional
office at Halwasiya only after the transfer of the office to
Gomti Nagar, his contract automatically ended.
7. The management has stated Sh. Mahesh Kumar
Dhanuk was never engaged as employee as per the service
rules of I.T.I., he was working on contract part time for an
hour or so, Regional Office at Halwasiya Market. The I.T.I.
Ltd., had no control on his work. He was at liberty and
sweet will to come for work or not, occasional he did not
come for work, the work of sweeping was got done by
some other person on payment.
8. The main allegation of the claim statement have been
denied by the management, it has been emphasized that
applicant was never employed as such he was never
terminated, hence the question of giving one month's notice
or pay in lieu thereof or violating any section of the
Industrial Disputes Act does not arise at all. The
management has requested to reject the reference as being
illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law.
9. Rejoinder W-9 has been filed by the workman wherein
the pleas taken in the written statement have been denied,
while reiterating the pleas of the claim statement.
10. The parties have filed documentary evidence in
support of their respective pleadings. The workman has
examined himself whereas the management has examined
Shri S.C. Srivastava, Sr. Accountant in support of their
respective case. The parties availed opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses of each other apart from forwarding
oral arguments.
3730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
11. heard learned authorized representatives of the
parties at length and perused the records available on file.
12. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that the workman has worked continuously for
more than 240 days in year and accordingly it was
mandatory for the management to comply with the
provisions of Section 25 F of the Act before retrenching
the services of the workman. He has relied on Divisional
Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A.
Sankaralingam 208 (119) FLR 398.
13. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
opposite party has argued that the workman was neither
appointed nor engaged by the management; nor had worked
for 240 days in a year; therefore, there arises no question
for his termination or compliance of any of the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management has
contended that the workman was working on contract, part
time for an hour or so at I.T.I. Regional Office at Halwasiya
Market, Lucknow and due to shifting of Regional Office to
its new building at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, the contact
automatically ended, as such, there was no question of
termination of his services. He has relied on:
(i) BSNL & others Vs. Mahesh Chand (2008) 3 SCC
474.
(ii) R.K. Chaturvedi Vs. Secretary, BHEL & others
1997 (77) FLR 364.
(iii) Oshiar Prasad & others Vs. Employers in relation
to management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of
M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad,
Jharkhand (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 789.
(iv) Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. The Perfect
Pottery Co. Ltd & others 1979 (38) FLR 38.
(v) U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & other Vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur & other 2007
(115) FLR 638.
(vi) Devanand Vs. State of U.P. through Engineer-in-
Chief, P.W.D., Lucknow & others 2006 (110) FLR
389.
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the parties and scanned entire evidence
on record in light thereto.
15. The workman has come up with the case that he
worked with the opposite party management as Sweeper
w.e.f. 01.11.1987 to 31.08.1998 for more than 240 days in a
year even then the management retrenched his services
without giving him any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof
or any retrenchment compensation, in violation to the
provisions of Section 25- F of the Act. In order to corroborate
his pleadings regarding his working with the management
he has tried to summon the payment vouchers, attendance
register for the relevant period of time, which was opposed
by the management on the sole ground that the same are
not traceable being very old for 15 to 20 years. However,
this Tribunal directed the management to file the documents
required by the workman; but the management instead of
filing them, submitted an affidavit reiterating the submission
that they are not available being very old.
16. In rebuttal, the management has come up with a
clear cut case that the workman had never been appointed
or engaged by it at any point of time, therefore, there arises
no question of terminating his services at any point of
time, It has specifically been pleaded by the management
that the workman has been working with the management
of I.T.I. on contractual basis on part time and was paid
accordingly. In this regard the management has filed
following documents vide list dated 27.08.2009, paper No.
M-13:
(i) Photocopy of note sheet dated 3.4.89.
(ii) Photocopy of letter by workman dated 13.12.96.
(iii) Photocopy of bill dated 2.6.97.
(iv) Photocopy of letter by workman dated 4.7.97.
(v) Photocopy of the Bill dated month of July, 98.
17. It is settled law that when a party invokes the
jurisdiction of the Court for favourable orders then burden
of proof heavily lies upon it to prove its pleadings. Hon'ble
Apex Court in paragraph of 15 of its judgment in Director,
Fisheries Terminal Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai
Chavda 2010 AIR SCW 542 has observed as under:
"Applying the principles laid down in the above case
by this Court, the evidence produced by the appellants
has not been consistent. The appellants claim that the
respondent did not work for 240 days. The respondent
was a workman hired on a daily wage basis. So it is
obvious, as this court pointed out in the above case
that he would have difficulty in having access to all the
official documents, muster rolls etc. in connection with
the service. He has come forward and deposed, so in
our opinion the burden of proof shifts to the employer/
appellants to prove that he did not complete 240 days
of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous
service. The witness produced by the applellant stated
that the respondent stopped coming to work from
February, 1988. The documentary evidence produced
by the appellant is contradictory to this fact as it shows
that the respondent was working during February, 1989
also. It has also been observed by the High Court that
the muster roll for 1986-87 was not completely produced.
The appellants have inexplicably failed to produce the
complete records and muster rolls from 1985 to 1991, in
spite of the direction issued by the Labour Court to
produce the same. In fact there has been practically no
challenge to the deposition of the respondent during
cross-examination. In this regard, it would pertinent to
mention the observation of three-Judge Bench of this
court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad
vs. Siri Niwas (2004) 8 SCC 195: 2004 AIR SCW 5184,
where it is observed:
"A Court of Law even in a case were provisions of the
Indian Evidence Act apply, may presume or may not
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3731
presume that if a party despite possession of the best
evidence had not produced the same, it would have
against this contentions. The matter, however, would
be different where despite direction by a court the
evidence is withhold."
Thus, in view of the law pronounced by Hon'ble Apex
Court, hereinabove, the burden of proof was on the
management to come forward with cogent documentary
evidence that the workman did not complete 240 days of
service in the requisite period of one year; but the
managment in order to check the workman has taken the
baest recourse of denying the appointment/engagement
of the workman in any form at any point of time. And when
the management was directed to file the documents, required
by the workman, the management filed an affidavit to the
effect that they are not no more present with I.T.I.; but very
surprisingly it filed certain selective paper i.e. note sheet
pertaining to the year 1989. Thus, production of selective
documents/muster rolls by the management before this
Tribunal proves malice on the part of the management,
who had been time and again reiterating that it neither
appointed/engaged the workman nor retrenched him but
when it was compelled to file the payment vouchers and
attendance sheet; it filed an affidavit regarding their non-
availability. Hence, the management utterly failed to
discharge the burden that lied upon it.
18. In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another V.
Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon'ble
Apex Court came to the conclusion that the workman could
be entitled for the protection of section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 provided he is successful in establishing
the fact that he had been in employment with the employer
for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly in twelve calendar
months preceding the date of termination.
The workman's attempt to prove its pleadings could not
fructified due to filing of the management to the effect that
the payment vouchers and attendance registered
summoned by the workman are not traceable being very
old. However, the management has tried to prove its
pleadings that the workman was working with them on
contractual basis, has field photocopy of note sheet dated
03.04.89, paper No. 13/2, which reads as under:
"Please refere to the application Dt. 31.03.89 of Shri
Mahesh Kumar part time cleaner of the office, he has
requested to enhance the amount from Rs. 250/- to Rs.
350/- per month due to the increase area of cleaning
which includes parking place and other area of stores.
As negotiated, he has agreed to do the cleaning job on
the part time basis w.e.f. 1.4.89 at the rate of
Rs. 300/-PM.
Submitted for approval.
-Sd-
Asstt. Personnel Manager"
The above document relied upon by the management
does not support the pleadings of the management that
the workman was working on contract basis as the
formalities required for execution of a valid contract/
agreement is not complied with in the above 'so called
contract'. However the above note dated 03.04.89 goes to
prove that the workman started working w.e.f. 01.04.1989
on monthly payment of Rs. 300/-. The Further, the
application dated 13.12.1996, paper No. 13/3 and bill dated
2.6.97, paper No. 13/4 goes to show that the workman was
working on part time basis with the management on the
relevant dates. The application of workman dated 4.7.97,
filed by the management, paper No. 13/5, wherein it is stated
by the workman had been working with the I.T.I. w.e.f.
01.11.87 for 9 years 7 months. It is pertinent to mention
here that the management on one side has filed affidavit
the documents summoned by the workman is not available/
traceable being very old; but it procured some of the
documents, filed vide list, paper No. M-13. Therefore,
having regard to the reliance placed upon by the
management itself, it goes to prove that the workman had
been working as part time cleaner for the claimed period i.e.
01.11.87 to 31.08.98
19. Further, as per pleadings of the management, there
was no need for compliance of provisions of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as there was no
termination of services of the workman, at their end, at any
point of time as the services of the workman came to an
end due to shifting of the office to new premises, making it
clear that the management of the I.T.I. failed to comply with
mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act.
20. The management has relied on BSNL & others vs
Mahesh Chand (2008) 3 SCC 474 decided on 15.02.2008;
wherein Hon'bls Supreme Court denied reinstatement of a
part time worker for violation of Section 25F; whereas, in
rebuttal the workman has relied upon Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided on 03.10.2008;
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed reinstatement of
the workman with full back wages for non-compliance of
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court in State of U.P. Vs. Mahendra Pal Singh &
another 2012 (2) ALJ 325 while scrutinizing the validity of
the award of the Labour Court found that the findings of
the Labour Court were not perverse; wherein the Labour
Court has drawn out a finding that the workman had
continuously worked for more than 240 days in calendar
months prior to termination of his services; and the
termination of services was without any notice and without
payment of retrenchment compensation; and accordingly,
Hon'ble High Court held that the relief of reinstatement
with 60% of back wages, awarded by the Labour Court was
justified. Hon'ble High Court in para 47—50 of its judgment,
has referred decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishan
Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural
3732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana) (2010) 3 SCC 637: (AIR
2010 SC (Supp) 787 as under:
"47. ..................the appellant worked as a daily wager
under the respondent from 1.6.1988. His services were
terminated in December, 1993. He served a notice of
demand dated 30.12.1997 on the respondent contended
that his services were terminated orally without
complying with the mandatory provisions of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) and that he may be reinstated in
service with full back wages from the date of illegal
termination and he may be regularized accoding of the
Government policy. The respondent did not respond to
the demand made by the appellant and by and order
dated 23.7.1999, the State Government referred the
dispute under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court.
Thereupon the Labour Court passed the award dated
18.7.2006 holding that the appellant had admittedly
completed 267 days from 1.6.1988 to 30th April, 1989
and his services were terminated without any notice or
notice pay and without payment of retrenchment
compensation and the termination was, therefore, in
violation of Section 25-F of the Act and the appellant
was entitled to be reinstated in his previous post with
continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date
of demand notice i.e. 30.12.1997.
48. The respondent challenged the award of the Labour
Court before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in writ
petition and by order dated 9.12.2008, High Court allowed
the said writ petition and set aside the award dated 18.7.2006
of the Labour Court and directed the respondent instead
to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant.
Aggrieved by order dated 9.12.2008 of the High Court, the
applellant filed appeal before the Apex Court. By placing
reliance upon earlier decision rendered by theApex Court
in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra), I allowed the appeal
and set aside the impugned order dated 9.12.2008 passed
by the High Court and directed that the appellant will be
reinstated as a daily wager with 50% backwages forthwith.
49. While dealing with the question of discretionary
powers of the Labour Court, in para 17 of the decision,
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"17. Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the Labour
Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute relating
to the discharge or dismissal of a workman and if the
Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in the facts
and circumstances of the case of direct reinstatement of
a workman with 50% back wages taking into
consideration the pleadings of the parties and the
evidence on record, the High Court in exercise of its
power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India will not interfere with the same, exept on well settled
principles laid down by this Court for a writ of certiorari
against an order passed by a court or a tribunal."
50. In the said case while drawing distinction between
the cases of this nature and State of karnataka vs. Umadevi
(2006) 4 SCC 1: (AIR 2006 SC 1806 SC 1806) in para 22 of the
said decision Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
22. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3) cited by the counsel for the respondent
relates to regularization in public employment and has
no relevance to an award for reinstatement of a
discharged workman passed by the Labour Court under
Section 11-A of the Act without any direction for
regularization of his services."
21. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, discussions made hereinabove and law relied on, it is
established that the workman, Mahesh Kumar Dhanuk,
who was working as part time cleaner with the management
of ITI had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year
preceding the date of his termination and his services have
been illegally termination w.e.f. 01.09.1998 by the
management of ITI without following the mandatory
provisions of the Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Therefore, I am of the considered opintion that
the workman, Mahesh Kumar Dhanuk is entitled for
reinstatement with continuity in service along with 60% of
back wages within 08 weeks of publication of the award,
failing which: the back wages shall carry simple interest @
8% per annum.
22. The reference is answered accordingly.
Lucknow
28th August, 2015
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1788-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iksLV ekLVj
tujy] Mkd foHkkx] nsgjknwu 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;] uañ 2] fnYyh ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 30@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 01@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@16@2008&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2015
S.O. 1788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 30/2008) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. II,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Post Master General, Department of
Post, Dehradun and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 01/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/16/2008-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3733
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT-II, ROOM NO. 33, BLOCK-A,
GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT
COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110032
Present:-Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. No. 30/2008
Sh. Raj Pal Singh Negi,
S/o Sh. Surender Singh Negi,
Village Tilwadi,
Dehradun
.......Workman
Versus
The Post Master General,
D/o Post,
GPO, Clock Tower,
Dehradun.
........Management
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-40012/16/2008(IR)(DU) dated 06.06.2008
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication:-
Whether the action of the management of Post Master
General, Dehradun, in terminating the services of their
workman Sh. Raj Pal Singh Negi, w.e.f. 12.08.1993 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?
On 01.09.2008 reference was received in this Tribunal.
Which was register as I.D. No. 30/2008 and claimant union
was called upon to file 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 workman/claimant filed claim
statement on 01.09.2008. Wherein he prayed as, follows:—
Claimant filed claim-petition on 30.06.2008 on the basis
of averments in claim statement he prayed after setting
aside termination order dated 12.08.1993 he be reinstated
along with all benefits.
Against claim statement management filed written
statement on 15.01.2009. Through which he prayed as
follows:—
It is therefore, prayed that the claim petition of Shri Raj
Pal Singh may kindly be dismissed with costs as per the
provisions of the departmental rules and regulations and
in the interest of justice.
Workman on 1.09.2010 filed rejoinder. Through which
the reaffirmed the contents of his claim statement.
My Ld. Predecessor on 15.4.2015 framed issued. Out of
which issue No. 1 was relating to inquiry and was ordered
to be decided as Preliminary Issue and fixed 29.05.2013 for
workman evidence. Workman adduce no evidence inspite
of several opportunities. Management in its turn produce
MW1 Sh. Ashish Kumar, Assistant Superintendent, who
tendered his affidavit alongwith annexed documents on
31.7.2014. None turn up on behalf of workman to cross-
examine MW1. Sh. Ashish Kumar, Assistant
Superintendent. As statement of Sh. Sh. Ashish Kumar,
Assistant Superintendent, was uncontroverted so this
Tribunal has no option except to believe the testimony of
Sh. Ashish Kumar, Assistant Superintendent, is credible
and reliable. Which proved Preliminary Issue No. 1 in favour
of management and against workman on 20.04.2015 and
hold that inquiry conducted by management against
workman is just fair and proper and fixed 02.07.2015 for
arguments on apportionment of punishment to workman.
On 2.07.2015 none turn up on behalf of workman to
raise arguments on the point of quantum of punishment
and then I reserved the Award.
Even at this stage none turn up to argue the case on
behalf of workman. Since 2.7. 2015 till now.
In these circumstances punishment of termination pass
by Disciplinary Authority on the basis report of inquiry
officer appears to be just and proper.
In these circumstances reference is liable to be decided
against workman and in favour of management.
Which is accordingly decided. Award is accordingly
passed.
Dated:- 27.8.2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1789-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr] fnYyh
fuxj fuxe] ¼nf{k.k½ ubZ fnYyh ds izcaè ra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;- 2 fnYyh ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ No. 09/2014½ izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 01@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@141@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2015
S.O. 1789.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 09/2014) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II,
3734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Commissioner, MCD (South), New Delhi
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 01/09/2015.
[No. L-42011/141/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, ROOM NO. 33, BLOCK-A,
GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT
COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110032
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 09/2014
The General Secretary,
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
C/o Room No. 95,
Barrack No. 1/10, Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi-110011
Versus
The Commissioner,
MCD, (South), Civic Centre,
Minto Road,
New Delhi
EX-PARTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42011/141/2013(IR(DU) dated 07.02.2014
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication:—
"Whether Sh. Ajeet S/o Late Sh. Het Ram is entitled to
the status of Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590
w.e.f. 16-06-1997 revised from time to time along with all
consequential benefits/ If so, what directions are necessary
in this respect?
On 17.02.2014 reference was received in this Tribunal.
Which was register as I.D.No. 09/2014 and claimant was
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 workman/claimant filed claim statement
on 28.05.2014. Wherein he stated as follows:—
1.
That the appropriate Govt. i.e. National Capital
Territory of Delhi referred following dispute for
industrial adjuducation before the Industrial Tribunal:
"Whether Sh. Ajeet S/o Late Sh. Het Ram is entitled
to the status of Chaudhary in the pay scale of
Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f. 16-06-1997 revised from time to
time along with all consequential benefits/ If so, what
directions are necessary in this respect?
2.
That Sh. Ajeet S/o Late Sh. Het Ram has been allotted
the work of Chaudhary with effect from 16.06.1997
by the competent officer(s) of Horticulture
Department and was posted under South Zone to
work under Dy. Director of Horticulture, but he has
been denied the pay scale of Chaudhary revised from
time to time. His qualification is 6th pass and belongs
to OBC category. It is also submitted that qualification
is not prescribed for the promotion of Chaudhary.
3.
That the management of MCD has fixed the different
pay scales to their employees including Mali,
Chaudhary etc. in accordance to their job and non-
grant of proper pay scale of Chaudhary to Sh. Ajeet
is forced labour and the management is indulged in
unfair labour practice.
4.
That the workman Sh. Ajeet has got the payment in
lower pay scale of Mali Rs. 2550-3200 revised from
time to time but he is denied the pay scale of Rs.
3050-4590 with effect from 16.06.1997 and revised
from time to time and this action of the management
is also illegal as well as unjustified.
5.
That the duty of Mali is presently of an unskilled
workman (according to the Award the duty of Mali is
classified with Semi-skilled workman) but the duty
of a Chaudhary is a skilled nature of job being a
Group "C" employee and there are different pay
scales for both the categories. Copy indicating the
names of officiating Chaudhary issued by the officers
of Horticulture concerned is annexed as Annexure-A
and the name is appearing at Sl. No. 24 of Annexure-
A. The said list was duly prepared by the concerned
zone of Horticulture and submitted the same to the
office of Director (Horticulture), MCD.
6.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Jai
Chand Vs. M.C.D. (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved
the non-payment vide order dated 2.05.2003 for the
post of Chaudhary for taking the work from, him for
the said post.
7.
That in compliance of orders of Hon'ble High court
dated 2.5.2003 the management of M.C.D.,
Horticulture Department, New Delhi has also issued
the implementation of the said order vide its office
order No. ADC(Hort.) AO (Hort)/DA-VII/05/457 dated
4.3.2005. Copy of the said order issued by the
management is annexed as Annexure-B.
8.
That the recent judgement of Division bench of
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have settled the matter
by the recent judgement of Hon'ble Division bench
of Hon'ble High Court in the matter MCD Vs. Sultan
Singh & ors. W.P. (C) No. 7947/2010 and the same
stand has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court in
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3735
Writ-petition No. 5550 of 2010 titled MCD Vs. Mahipal
S/o Late Dalel Singh C/o MCD General Mazdoor
Union and reiterated the decision of Division Bench
in the matter MCD Vs. Sultan Singh vide its judgement
on 27.07.2011. The same is reproduced as under"
"Mr. Varun Prasad, counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that the present petition filed
by the petitioner is squarely covered by the recent
judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in MCD Vs. Sh. Sultan Singh & Ors W.P. (C)
No. 7947/2010.
Ms. Amita Gupta, Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/MCD subimts that by the present petition
the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4th
February 2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.
III, Karkardooma Courts. The Industrial Tribunal held
that the workman who was performing duties on the
post of Garden Chaudhary is entitled to the pay scale
of Garden Chaudhary in force time to time w.e.f. June
1987. Learned Tribunal also took a view that
respondent would not be entitled to regularization
as he lacked requisite qualification. The operative
para of the said judgment in Sultan Singh's case
(supra) of the Hob'ble Division Bench is reproduced
as under :
"28.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is
apparent that the claim of the respondents have
always been that they should be paid the difference
in pay of Mail/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary
as they were made to work on the post of Garden
Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied
that they worked as Garden Chaudhary., then took
the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture)
was not competent to ask the respondents to work
as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents
cannot be appointed to the post of Garden
Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules.
There is not doubt that respondents are not claiming
appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on
account of having worked on ad-hoc basis on the
post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that
some of them not having the requisite qualifications
are entitled for relaxation.
29.
In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore,
the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
make out any such grounds which will impel this
court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to set-aside the orders of the
Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October,
2010 as no illegality or un-sustainability or perversity
in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out."
30.
The writ petition is, therefore dismissed. Parties are
left to bear there own cost"
Since the issue involved in the present case is squarely
by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court, therefore, the present petition filed by the
petitioner does not subsist and is accordingly dismissed.
The impugned order dated 4.2.2010 is accordingly
upheld and the petitioner MCD is directed to comply with
the directions passed by the Tribunal in the said order."
9.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi followed the
judgment of Sh. Sultan Singh as mentioned
hereinabove and dismissed the Management W.P
(C) No. 5550/2010 titled Municipal Corporation of
Delhi Vs. Mahipal S/o Late Dalel Singh. Copy of the
said judgment is annexed as Annexure-C.
10.
That many of the similar situated workmen (Mail &
Chowkidar) who were performing their duty as acting
Chaudhary and they were granted the pay scale of
Chaudhary from the date when they were asked to
perform the duty of higher post of Industrial Tribunal
awarded the higher wages for the work of Chaudhary
from the date of their initially acting and performing
the duty of Chaudhary.
11.
That the management challenged the order dated
27.07.2011 of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court
in Writ Petition © No. 7947/2010 in the matter MCD
Vs. Sultan Singh & Ors before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India by Special Leave Petition has
dismissed and withdrawn on 9.4.2012. This workman
is also similarly doing the work of Chaudhary is
entitled similar benefits. Copy of the order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 9.4.2012 is also annexed as
Annexure-D.
12.
That the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court in
the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Ors decided
all the doubts and allegations made by the
management of MCD in their detailed judgment
holding the grant of higher wages of Chaudhary to
those Mail/Chowkidar who have been performing
the responsibility of the higher post from the date
when they were directed to work of Chaudhary and
treated them as Ad hoc Chaudhary.
13.
That after dismissal of said Special Leave Petition
the management did not comply the order of payment
of higher post salary to the Malis who had been
discharging the duty of Garden Chaudhary. The
Division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Writ Petition (Civil) 53/2012 titled Sultan Singh &
others vide its order dated 15.03.2013 directed the
management to pay the wages for higher post of
salary to be paid who were performing the duty of
3736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Garden Chaudhary. Copy of the said order is annexed
as Annexure—E.
14.
That, in compliance of the order of Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi dated 15.03.2013 in the matter of Sultan
Singh and Ors. Vs. W.P.(C) No. 5453/2013 the
Management of MCD allowed the equal pay for equal
work attached to the post of Garden Chaudhary in
compliance of the order of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi dated 15.03.2013 and the applicants were
allowed the payment when they were discharging
the duty of higher post (Garden Chaudhary). Copy
of the said order issued by the MCD is also annexed
as Annexure-F.
15.
That the action of the management in not granting
the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary of Rs. 3050-4590
w.e.f. 16.6.1997 and revised from time to time along
with all consequential benefits to Sh. Ajeet is unfair,
illegal as well as unjustified.
16.
That the managment is duty bound to pay the salary
to Sh. Ajeet in the scale of Chaudhary with effect
from 16.06.1997 along with all consequential benefits.
17.
The copy of sponsorship is annexed as Annexure-G
with the statement of claim as the workman is the
member of MCD General Mazdoor Union (Regd. &
Recognized) and copy of the Registration is annexed
as Annexure-H. Copy fo the letter to negotiate with
the management is annexed as Annexure-I and copy
of the list of office bearers is annexed as Annexure-J.
In view of the above, this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly
allow the salary of Garden Chaudhary as the workman has
been performing their duty in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-
4590 w.e.f. 16.6.1997 along with all consequential benefits.
When Management has not filed W.S. inspite of several
opportunities. Then this Tribunal on 24.07.2014 closed the
right to filing of W.S. by management and passed order to
proceed Ex-parte against management. As well as fixed
25.08.2014 for Ex-parte evidence of workman.
Workman in support of his case filed his affidavit on
25.08.2014.
Workman tendered his affidavit on 3.2.2015. His
statement is as follows:—
I tender my affidavit in evidence which is exhibit WW1/
A and which bears my signature at point A & B along with
the documents which are Ex. WW1.1 to Ex. WW1/10.
XXXXX None on behalf of management present to
cross-examined the witness. Hence cross-examination is
marked nil.
Thereafter, Ld. A/R for Sh. Ajeet, closed the evidence of
workman on the instruction of workman. As case was
proceeded ex-parte against management so I fixed 26.9.2014
for ex-parte arguments of workman.
On 20.11.2014 I have heard the oral arguments of
Sh. B.K. Prasad, Ld. A/R for the workman.
In the light of contention of Ld. A/R for the workman I
perused the pleadings of claim statement as well as evidence
by way of affidavit of workman exhibit WW1/A and annexed
documents WW1/1 to WW1/10.
Perusal of evidence makes it crystal clear that there is
only ex-parte evidence of workman. Which appears to be
reliable and credible. So this Tribunal has no option except
to decide the reference in favour of workman and against
management as well as pass award in favour of workman
and against management.
Reference is decided in favour of workman and against
management.
Ex-Parte Award is accordingly passed.
Management is directed to grant salary of Garden
Chaudhary to workman since 16.6.1997 along with all
consequential benefits.
Compliance has to be done by management within
2 months after expiry of period of available remedy against
the instant award.
Dated: 20.8.2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1790-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y ds izca/
k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 328@1999½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@287@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag]vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd, September, 2015
S.O. 1790.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenral Government
hereby Publishes the Award (Ref. No. 328/1999) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. CCL and their workman, received
by the Central Government on 03/09/2015.
[No. L-20012/287-1999 - IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3737
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
Present :
Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
Reference No.: 328/1999
Parties
: Shri Permanand Verma,
Pandwa Village, P.O. Rajhara Colliery,
District: Palamu.
Vs.
The Chairman-cum Managing Director,
M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House,
Ranchi-834001.
Ministry's Order No. L-20012/287/99-(C-I) dt.
24.11.1999
Appearances:
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. C.S. Pathak,
Rep.of
the
Workman
On behalf of the management
: Mr. Rajiv Kumar
Rep.for
the
Management
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 13th August, 2015
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise
of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the
I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/287/
99-(C-I) dt. 24.11.1999.
SCHEDULE
''Whether the action of the Management of M/s
C.C.L., in dismissing Sri Parmananad Verma, Cat. I
from the services of the Company is proper, justified
and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?''
On receipt of the Order No. No. L-20012/287/99-(C-I) dt.
24.11.1999 of the above mentioned reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference
Case No. 328 of 1999 was registered on 08.12.99 and
accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue
notices through the Registered posts to the parties
concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the
date fixed, and to file their written statements along with
the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,
notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties
concerned.
Both the parties made their appearances and filed their
pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union
and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.
Representatives appeared respectively, and contested the
case.
2. The case of workman Sri Parmanand Verma as stated
in his written statement is that he was properly and legally
appointed on due process as per the Order Dt. 04.01.1996
issued by the competent authority, the General Manager
(Pers. & Admn.) C.C.L., Darbhanga house, Ranchi Shri J.N.
Singh, as also circulated to all concerned with a direction
for police verfication at the earliest. Nothing was illegal or
improper atributable to the workman about the appointment
and procedure. The Director (Pers.), CCL, Ranchi, as per
letter No. DP/Sectt./Secret/33/538 dt. 17-07-1997 ordered
immediate suspension, charge sheeting and dismissal of
the workman and others. No action was taken by the Project
Officer. Later on further directive following the complaint
of Sri Amal Bhattacharjee, the Office bearer of the CITU
affiliated Union before the A.S. Prasad, CE (MS) on March
16,1998, the Project Officer, Open Cast, mecanically issued
the chargesheet cum suspension Order dt. 17/18.3.1998,
by reproducing the alleged charges as framed and finanlized
by the Vigilance Department. The Vigilance Department/
Director (P), CCL also decided the modus operandi of the
procedure of the enquiry by whom and how for final
decision. The alleged chrgesheet was issued without its
base of basic documents. The allegation of the Vigilance
Department as quoted by the Project Officer is the workman
"fraudulently managed to secure the employment in CCL
without approval of the Competent Authority" as referred
in the appointment Order dt. 4.1.1996, while he was
admittedly not an employee of the C.C.L. No ground forms
for any misconduct for initiation of any disciplinary action
under the alleged model standing Orders of Parej Open
Cast Project. Despite non-supply of the documents to the
workman as sought by him as per his specific letter dt.
23.03.98 in order to comprehend and submit his explanation
for the charge, the Project Officer as per his stereotype
order dt. 24/25.3.98 mechanically set up an alleged enquiry
by Sri A.S. Prasad, CE (MS) the complainant as the Enquiry
Officer and Sri U.S. Tripathy, Sri V.O, the Investigation
Officer as the alleged Presenting Officer without mention
of a provision of any Standing Orders of the C.C.L.
3. Further stated by the workman is that the project
Officer by pretending as the Disciplinary Authority acted
a mere tool under the remote control for alleged
disciplinary proceeding simply as an empty formality. On
receipt of the alleged Order constituting the enquiry,
workman promptly represented to the Enquiry Officer that
the alleged enquiry was premature and violative of the
principle of natural justice. He had also asked for the
copies of Standing Orders, Vigilance Report with the
statements of S/Shri J.N. Singh, G.M. (P&A), the
Appointing Authority, A.S. Prasad, Dy P.M. (Rectt.) and
3738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
others for his defence, but the Enquiry Officer took no
notice of his letter dt. 26.6.98, ruling out even
representation through a legal practioner, Trade Union
Official though permissible under the Certified Standing
Orders of CCL, or a retired employee. The Enquiry Officer
even at the first sitting of the enquiry refused to care for
the pleadings of the workman's aforesaid issues and
others, and predeterminedly but biasedly drew up the
enquiry proceeding ex-parte, taking his signature under
threat, though no minutes of the proceeding were drawn
in his presence. The workman was deliberately and
biasedly deprived by the Enquiry Officer of his right to
defence.
4. The workman also stated in his written statement that
the Enquiry Officer illegally allowed a highly qualified
legally trained Senior Vigilance Officer to represent the
Management in the enquiry. He illegally held the joint
enquiry by drawing the minutes of proceeding through the
Computer floppy individually, in spite of his objection to it.
Shri A. K. Sinha, the Manager (Vigilance), the Investigating
Officer, appeared as the Management witness with his
written statement which was promptly reproduced from
the previously recorded Computer floppy. His statement/
deposition was admittedly based on alleged informations
collected during the investigation/enquiry. The only
hearsay evidence is inadmissible. The workman was
deprived of cross-examination. After the alleged deposition,
certain documents filed by the Presenting Officer were
illegally marked by the Enquiry Officer as alleged Exhibits.
The Officer refused the request of the workman for
assistance of his co-worker Sri K.N. Singh Sri R. C. Das of
C.M.P.D.I. Ltd. in cross-examination, just as for summon to
aforesaid Sri J.N. Singh, the G.M. (P & A) working as Director
(Pers), WCL, Nagpur for his statement recorded
investigation.
5. Further stated it clearly shows the mala fide motivation
of the Enquiry Officer to deprive him all along of his right
for defence. Likewise, the Project Officer, the Appellate
Authority, and the Enquiry Officer as the alleged
Disciplinary Authority never dealt with the workman fairly
and judiciously the enquiry proceeding till its end. The
enquiry report which clearly manifests all the aforesaid
defects including the misconduct of the Enquiry officer.
Rule of a quasi judicial, is virtually his is ipse dixit enquiry
report, as it was not based on any evidence of the allegation,
Rather it was factually the report prepared on the dictates
of the Vigilance Officials and the Director (Pers.) which
was rent to the Project Officer. While furnishing the
workman with the alleged Enquiry Report vide letter dt.
9.12.98, the Project Officer did not express whether partially
or full accepted it or not. It seriously prejudiced the
workman; the workman had submitted his elaborate
comments dt. 25.12.1998 on the alleged enquiry report about
it as unacceptable by any quasi-judicial authority. Similarly
the order of dismissal dt. 16.01.1999 towards the workman
from the service of the CCL based on illegal and perverse
report of the Enquiry Officer is unsustainable on fact and
law. So it was neither legal nor justified. The workman is
entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and all
consequential benefits of seniority retrospectively.
6. The workman Shri Parmanand Verma in his rejoinder
has specifically denied all the allegations of the OP/
Management as false, baseless and misleading, further
alleging that the punishment of dismissal to the workman
merely on hearsay evidence is entirely illegal and void. In
fact, there was no allegation of misconduct during the
service.
7. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the OP/
Management is that the present reference in not
maintainable either in law or in facts. the workman
Parmanand Verma was charge sheeted for commission of
his misconduct:'
"Fraudulently managed to secure employment in the
CCL as Trainee Cat. I vide Appointment Letter No. PD/HD/
appt./LL.87-88/E-21 dt. 04.01.96 under the Land Looser
Scheme of Piperwar Area, CCL, without approval of the
competent Authority in as much as he claimed himself to
be the son of the owner of the Land bearing Khata Nos.
86,53,1,1,55,56; Plot Nos. 80,195,401,402,595,592 at village
Kanoda/Bahera, OP.S. Keredari, District-Chatra, which was
acquired by the CCL for mining operation, but on enquiry
made subsequently, it has been found that aforesaid
Permanand Verma is neither son nor a nominee of the owner
of above plots of land to get the employment in the C.C.I. It
has been given in the CCL to Kailash Mistry, son of Lakhan
Mistry, vide Appointment letter No. PD/MP/Apptt./LL/87-
88/360 dt. 24.03.1994. This proves that Permanand Verma
has entered into the services of the CCL by furnishing
wrong information relating to his claim for employment
and relationship with the Owner of the aforesaid plots of
lands."
The workman submitted his reply to the charge sheet
but his reply was found not satisfactory. Therefore the
Management appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct
the domestic enquiry into the aforesaid charge sheet. After
holding the domestic enquiry according to the principle of
natural justice, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry
report holding therein that the charges levelled against the
workman were proved. Thereafter the Disciplinary
Authority issued Show-Cause Notice along with the copy
of the Enquiry Report, giving the workman the opportunity
to defend himself. Subsequently, the Management
dismissed the workman as per the Dismissal order dt.
16.1.1999. Thus the dismissal of the workman is legal and
justified. It has been submitted on behalf of the management
for furnishing to adduce afresh evidence to prove the
misconduct against the workman, in case, the enquiry
conducted by the Enquiry Officer is held unfair and
improper.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3739
8. The O.P./Management in its simultaneous rejoinder
has categorically denied all the allegations of the workman
as incorrect, further alleging that after the report of the
Vigilance Department, the Management had issued the
workman the charge sheet based on the facts as revealed
during the investigation. The charge sheet was quite valid.
The document and the facts relied upon in framing the
charges against the workman were poroduced before the
Enquiry Officer during the departmental enquiry. Securing
fraudulently an employment is a misconduct. The workman
was charge sheeted by the Competent Disciplinary
Authority for it. The Enquiry Offficer had conducted the
domestic enquiry as per the rules and regulations of the
Company, and accordingly he had conducted the enquiry
in accordance with natural justice without violating any
provision of law. The workman was given ample
opportunity for inspection of relevant documents, cross-
examination of the Management witnesses and
presentation of his own defence before the Enquiry Officer,
but he himself deliberately tried to evade it in the enquiry.
The Enquiry Officer had given him full opportunity for
defence. He is not entitled to any relief: as in view of the
aforesaid facts, the dismissal of the workman is legal and
justified.
FINDING WITH THE REASONS
9. In the instant case, at the preliminary enquiry into the
fairness of the domestic enquiry, MWI Shri A.S. Prasad,
then Cheif Engineer as the Enquiry Officer was examined
and discharged on 28th Sept., 2004, following the non-
appearance of Mr. C.S. Pathak, the Union Representative
for cross-examination of the witness on 28th Sept., 2004,
while the aforesaid witness was present. Hence, the
Tribunal as per the Order No. 16 dt. 19.10.2004 held that
there was no scope to say the domestic enquiry conducted
by the Enquiry Officer (MWI A.S. Prasad.) was not fairly,
properly and in accordance with the principle of natural
justice. It appears further to have been held that the Enquiry
Officer assigned the reason for holding the workman
concerned guilty to the charge. The case record reveals
the workman had regular appearances and prior to the 18th
June, 2004, the date of aforesaid MWI's examination at
Preliminary issue, but he was discharged on account of
non-appearance of any body on his behalf, so it was closed
on that date. It also reveals that the prayer of the workman
(as per his petition dt. 6.6.2005), apparently highly belated
one, for recall of the MWI A.S.Prasad for his cross
examination was rejected by the Tribunal on 18.06.2008 as
per the Order No. 26 on the ground of its having no
jurisdiction to recall or review its own order. In result, it
came up for hearing the arguments of both the parties on
merits.
10. Mr. C.S.Pathak, the Learned Representative for the
workman Mr. Parmanand Verma, as per his written argument
as well, has to submit at pertinent two points: Appointment
and Dismissal of the workman. The first plea of the workman
is that he was appointed by Shri J.N. Singh, G.M. (P & A),
H.Qr, the Competent Authority through due process of
examination and interview in the year 1996 while no such
Scheme was prelevant, but not under the Land Looser
Scheme, yet he was dismissed from the service by the
Project Officer Concerned subordinate to the Competent
Authority without any approval over it. Mr. Pathak the Ld.
Representative for the workman had relied upon the case
of Delhi Transport Union Vs. B.B.L., Hajelay reported in
SCLJ Vol. 10 at page 110 wherein it has been held that the
dismissal of a workman, by an authority subordinate to
that by which he was appointed without delegation of
power as in this case of the workman is void, ab-initio on
that score. Further plea of Mr. Pathak for the workman is
that the OP/Management has failed to prove/satisfy with
any document the appointment of Shri Jagarnath Mistry
as the original appointee under the Land Looser Scheme.
Accordingly to M.Pathak, the reference of Land in the
Appointment Letter of the workman was a mistake of the
management for which the workman had personally met
with the responsible officer concerned for its rectificatuion,
but its rectification could not be done at the relevant time,
prior to which the Management made out a false case
against the workman, and even without the proof of charges,
his dismissal was fully illegal and unjustified; it is liable to
be set-aside, as the workman is entitled to his reinstatement
with full back wages and its consequential benefits.
11. Whereas the contention of Mr. Rajiv Kumar, the
Authorized Representative for the OP/Management as per
his written argument as well is that the aforesaid argument
as advanced on behalf of the workman is totally baseless,
because the workman was appointed as Trainee Cat. I as
per his appointment letter dtr. 4.1.1996 for the same lands
of Piparwar Area (Ext.M-4/12)+(ME-3) against which Shri
Jagarnath Mistry, the son of Lakhan Mistry, the real owner
of the Land acquired under specified Khata Nos. & Plots
Nos. at village: Bahera, Kichto, Kanoda, P.S. Keradari Distt:
Hazaribagh/Chatra under the Land Looser Scheme was
already appointed as Trainee Cat. I by the Competent
Authority on 24.03.1994 (Ext.4/15)=(ME-6). It was a regular
appointment as per the approval of competent authority as
per its base files (Ext.M.4/14)=(ME-5). So the plea of the
workman about his appointment not under the Land Looser
Scheme is prima facie fraudulent employment under the
alleged Land Looser Scheme in the alleged year 1996.
Further submitted on behalf of the OP/Management is
that for his aforesaid misconducts under Model Sanding
Order 17(i) and Sub-clause No. (a) and (o), the workman
was charge sheeted on 17/18.03.1998 (Ext.M-2.). The
workman denied the allegation as fictitious. Then the
Management as per the letter 9.2.98 (Ext.M-4) appointed
Sri A.S. Prasad, the Chief Engineer (M.S.) as the Enquiry
Officer and Shri U.K. Tripathy, Sr. Vigilance Officer, CCL as
the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer after duly
3740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
conducting the domestic enquiry in accordance with the
principle of natural justice submitted his report holding
therein the charge levelled against him duly proved (Ext.
M.5). On the 2nd Show Cause Notice (Ext.M.4) to which
the workman had replied by way of representation dt.
17.12.1998, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from
the his proved misconducts. It is also submitted on behalf
of the OP/Management that in the instant Reference at
preliminary hearing the domestic enquiry was held as fair.
The Ld. Representative for the Management has
emphatically submitted that in view of the gross
misconducts of the workman under the Model Standing
order-namely fraud or dishonesty in connection with the
employers business or property and giving false
information regarding one's name, age, father's name
qualification or previous service at the time of employment
under clause 17(i) and sub-clause Nos. (a) and (o) of the
Model Standing Order respectively, the workman was
dismissed by the Competent Authority from the service of
the Company as per the Order dt. 16.01.1999 of the
Management (Ext.M.6); as such the action of the
Management in doing so towards the workman is legal and
justified; thus the workman is not entitled to any relief.
12. After hearing the arguments of both the Ld.
Representatives of both the parties on merits, the important
points, I find are evident as under:
(i)
The plea of the Shri C.S. Pathak, the Representative
for the workman that the workman had requested the
Responsible Officer concerned for rectification of
the mistake in his appointment letter mentioning the
relevant Khats and Plots of the land in issue appears
to be an unpleaded evidence, so it is not admissible
and considerable for his case at the eleventh hour.
(ii)
The materials available on the case record clearly
disclose that the workman had got fraudulently his
employment as Trainee Cat. I on the basis of only
note sheet and without any its base file and approval
of the Competent Authority in connection with the
same lands of real tenant Lakhan Mistry whose son
Shri Jagarnath Mistry was already appointed under
the Land Looser Scheme on 24.03.1994. The charges
against the workman under the relevant provisions
of the Model Standing Order appear to have been
clearly proved for his misconducts of serious nature,
so his dismissal for his grave misconducts towards
the OP/Management is quite proportionate to the
gravity of his intentional misconducts in getting his
fraudulent employment under the Management.
Under such circumstances, the workman deserves
not any relief under Sec.11 A of the I.D. Act, 1947.
In view of the aforesaid findings, it is, in the terms of the
reference, hereby responded and accordingly awarded that
the action of the Management of Mas C.C. Ltd. in dismissing
workman Sri Parmanand Verma, Cat. I from his services of
the Company is quite proper, justified and legal. Hence the
workman concerned is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1791-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 84@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@150@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2015
S.O. 1791.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2002) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 03/09/2015.
[No. L-20012/150/2002-IR (C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri Kishori Ram,
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
Reference No. 84 of 2002
PARTIES
: The Regional Secretary,
B.C.K.U., Kathara Area, PO: Kathara, Dist;
Bokaro & Regional Secretary,
NCOIA, Swang IB, PO: Swang' Dist; Bokaro
Vs.
The Project Officer,
Kathara Colliery M/s CCL, PO: Kathara,
Dist; Bokaro,
Order No. L-20012/150/2002-I.R.(C-I) dt.
07.10.2002.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3741
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. S.N. Ghosh,
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D.K. Verma
Ld. Advocate
State: Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th August, 2015.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise
of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/150/
2002-I.R. (C-I) dt. 07.10.2002.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Kathara
Colliery of M/s. C.C. Ltd., not to provide employment
to any of the dependents of the Late Deoki Gope is
justified? If not, which of the two claimants viz. Kumari
Shakunti, daughter of Smt. Atwa Devei second wife
of the workman or Sh. Hiralal Gope, son of the said
workman from his first wife is entitled to what relief?"
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/150/2002-I.R. (C-I)
dt. 07.10.2002 of the above mentioned reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference
Case No. 84 of 2002 was registered on 28.11.2002 and
accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue
notices through the Registered Posts to the parties
concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the
date fixed, and to file their written statements along with
the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,
notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties
concerned.
Bothe the parties made their appearances and filed their
pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union
and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Counsels
appeared respectively, and contested the case.
2. The cases of sponsoring Union Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union (CITU)/and NCODEA, Kathara, Bokaro, for their
own petitioners Kumari Shakunti and Hiralal Gope
respectively is that their father Late Deoki Gope was
appointed as a permanent workman at Kathara Colliery on
22.11.1961. He died on 21.9.98 during the tenure of his
service. Then his 2nd wife Smt. Atwa Devi who was
incapable to work and not entitled for employment
represented to the Management for providing an
employment to his daughter Kumari Shakunti. According
to the settled law, the wife of Deoki Gope is the first
dependent, in the event of here denial, the daughter or the
son of late workman is entitled for employment under the
provisions of the NCWA. The Management though on
principle agreed, yet had not provided an employment to
the dependent of late workman. After awaiting for
reasonable time on the assurance of the Management, the
dispute was raised for employment of Kumari Shakunti,
but due to its failure in conciliation, it resulted in the
reference for an adjudication. So the action of the
Management of Kathara Colliery of M/s CCL in not
providing an employment to any of the dependents of Late
Deoki Gope is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. Initially, the
name of Kumari Shakunti due to inadvertence was not
included, so her name has been included as per the
Corrigendum dt 2.2.2003 of the appropriate Government
after the representation for it. Thus, Kumari Shakunti is
entitled to her employment.
3. Likewise, Shri Hiralal Gope, the son of Late workman
Deoki Gope in his written statement filed through the
N.C.O.E.A has put his claim for his employment, as his
father, a permanent workman, working as Fitter Gr. I., had
prematurely but suddenly died in harness on 21.9.98. His
family members in lack of his only source of income fell in
crisis and hardship. Smt. Atwa Devi, the second wife of
Late Deoki Gope, was 49 years old on 21.09.98, at his death
time as per the entries made in his Service Excerpts., so she
being more than 45 years old was not entitled to any
employment. The petitioner Hiralal Gope on assurance of
the Management had submitted all the relevant papers and
documents in support of his claim for the employment, but
the Management failed to provide him any employment
according to the provisions of NCWA. Then the industrial
dispute was raised through his Union before the ALC ©,
Hazaribagh, but its failure in conciliation resulted in the
reference for an adjudication. The action of the
Management in not providing an employment to him is not
justified. Petitioner Hiralal Gope is retrospectively entitled
to an employment.
4. Whereas in challenge to it, the case of the OP/
Management is that neither the industrial dispute being
one under Sec. 2K of the I.D.Act, 1947 nor any of
petitioners Kumari Shakunti and Hiralal Gope is a workman
u/s 25 of the said Act nor the Sponsoring Union has any
locus standi to raise the industrial dispute for an
employment, as they have a dispute between them
decidable only by the Civil Court. The provisions of the
NCWA provides for an employment to the dependent of
the deceased employee only to meet the immediate crisis
ensuing his death. It does not provide for an employment
of the legal heir of the deceased employee. Late Deoki
Gope was appointed at Kathara Colliery on 22.1.1961, and
he had expired on 21.09.1998 in harness. The service record
of the deceased workman mentioned his family members.
1. Smt. Atwa Devi - wife, 2. Hirala Gope - son, 3. Kumari
Arati and 4. Kumari Shakunti - daughters. Hiralal Gope,
the son of the deceased workman, mentioned in his
application for employment that his father from his 1st
3742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
wife Kunti Devi had four children: Hiralal Gope, (also a
petitioner), Smt. Shanti Devi, Smt. Sohago Devi and Smt.
Uramila Devi. Kumari Shakunti also mentioned in her
application for employment that the deceased workman
from his second wife Smt. Atwa Devi had two daughters,
namely, Smt. Arti Devi and Shakunti Kumari herself. The
Controlling Authority in dispute under the payment of
Gratuity act had divided that the gratuity in the P.G. Case
No. 36/46/2001 equally between Smt. Hiralal Gope and
Smt. Atwa Devi, the son and the second wife of Late
Deoki Gope respectively. The OP/Management could not
process the papers of any of the both claimants for
employment. Lapse of sufficient time in the dispute
revealed no crisis in the family of Late workman. None of
the claimants is entitled to get employment in CCL due to
over delay for it. The provisions of NCWA already got
frustrated, so there is no scope for granting any relief to
any of them.
The OP/Management in their simultaneous rejoinder
have specifically denied the allegations of the petitioners
as incorrect, further alleging that petitioner Hiralal Gope
was not dependent upon the earning of the deceased
workman. The provision of NCWA for employment does
not provide for legal right to any of the dependents, none
of them is entitled to any relief.
FINDING WITH REASONS
5. In the instant reference, only WW1 P.K. Biswas, the
area Secretary of the NCOEA, Swang, Bokaro, Sponsoring
for petitioner Hiralal Gope has been examined. But not any
witness on behalf of either other petitioner Kumari Shakunti
or the OP/Management has been examined despite ample
oppourinity.
Mr. S.N. Ghosh, Learned Counsel for the Sponsoring
Union concerned has to submit that the death of deceased
workman Deoki Gope, a permanent workman at Kathara
Colliery working as a Fitter Gr. I on 21.9.1998, in harness is
an acknowledged fact (Ext.M.1). In the instant case it is
also beyond dispute that out of the two petitioners Kumari
Shakunti and Shri Hiralal, the daughter from 2nd wife widow
Atwa Devi and son respectively of the deceased workman,
aforesaid Shakunti also known as Shagunti Kumari who
was about 15 years old at the time of her father is now
married as per the Death cum Membrship Certificate of the
deceased workman Deoki Gope's family members (Ext.W.1).
So she is not entitled to an employment, but other petitioner
Hiralal Gope is the sole son of the deceased workman is
entitled to his employment under the provisions of the
NCWA, for which he had already admittedly applied before
the OP/Management for his employment on compassionate
ground, but the OP/Management did not give him any
such employment; then the Union Representative (WWI)
had validly raised the Industrial Dispute for it, as such the
claim of petitioner Hiralal Gope for his employment is quite
justified.
Whereas the contra contention of Mr. D.K. Verma,
Learned Counsel for the OP/Management is that the
provisions for employment provide for a dependent, but
here both of the petitioners still survive and contest for it
in the case of the workman's death in harness; that the
grant of it against the provision is contrary to the Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution; moreover, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that there is an exception for
compassionate employment to meet only the crisis arising
from the sudden death of the workman. It is further
contended that besides the provision is enforceable only
when other family members put in writing no objection to it
or unless the applicant undertakes to maintain them, but
the case has no such facts for consideration.
6. After hearing the arguments of both the aforesaid
counsels for the respective parties concerned, I find first
petitioner Kumari Shakunti Daughter of Smt. Atwa Devi,
the second wife of the deceased, failed to appear and
produce her evidence in support of her claim for her
employment. Moreover she who is also known as Sagunti
Kumari is now married to Sri Madhav Yadav of Gomia,
Bokaro (Jharkhand) on 08.07.2008 as per his marriage card
(marked 'X' for identification). Next to her, the second
petitioner Hiralal Gope, the sole son of the deceased
workman from his first wife comes under the I.I.No. 8 dt.
22.2.1996 under 3.3 "Employment to one dependent of the
worker who dies while in service clause 9.3.2." of the NCWA-
V which covers the instant case of the death of Late Deoki
Gope on 21.9.98. It is already indisputable fact that the
second petitioner Hiralal Gope, the son of the deceased
workman, in support of his claim has already duly applied
for his employment on compassionate ground in place of
his premature death of his father workman under the said
provision of the NCWA concerned. In such situation, the
survival of both the petitioners is immaterial.
In view of the aforesaid findings, it is, in the terms of the
reference, hereby held and accordingly awarded that the
action of the Management of Kathara Colliery of M/s
C.C.Ltd. not to provide an employment to any of the
dependents of Late Deoki Gope is/was unjustified. The
management ought to have serially as provided under the
provisions of the aforesaid NCWA-V considered to give
an employment to Kumari Shakunti, daughter to Smt. Atwa
Devi, second wife of the workman while she was unmarried,
if major at the relevant time, but now, after her marriage, she
got disqualified for it, then to the second petitoner Sri
Hiralal Gope, son of the said workman from his first wife.
Hence, petitioner Hiralal Gope, son of the premature
deceased workman, is entitled to an employment on
compassionate ground under the clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA-
V and its I. I.No. 8 clause 3.3.
7. Therefore the OP/Management is directed to
implement the Award in a month from the date of its receipt
following the publication of it by the Government of India
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3743
in the Gazette of India, even after relaxing, if any, the age of
petitioner Shri Hiralal Gope or in view of the date of his
application already made to the OP/Management for his
employment on compassionate ground, but on the
condition of the Undertaking of the petitioner Hiralal Gope
for the maintenance of his second Mother Atwa Devi during
her life time till her death with due human respect.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1792-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj bf.M;k
fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uñ 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
11@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@09@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20013@2@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2015
S.O. 1792.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi (filed
under Section 33-A in matter of I.D. No. 11 of 2014) as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Air
India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 03/09/2015.
[No. L-20013/2/2015-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section 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. 11 of 2014
Shri Rakesh Kumar,
R/o RZ-7A/29, Puran Nagar,
New Delhi-110 068
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman,
Air India Ltd. (erstwhile Indian Airlines Ltd.)
Indira Gandhi International Airport
New Delhi
2.
Senior Vice President,
Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.
A-63, IGI Airport Road, NH-08,
Mahipalpur (Hotel Taurus)
New Delhi-110 037
...Management
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised directly by the workman,
Shri Rakesh Kumar, under sub-sectin (33A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). It has been averred
therein that an industrial dispute was raised before the
Conciliation Officer on 22.06.2012 wherein demands relating
to equal wages as to that of the employees of Air India,
besides other benefits were raised. In the said industrial
dispute, claimant was a concerned employee. Conciliation
Officer entered into conciliation proceeding but no
settlement could be arrived at. Failure of Conciliation report
was sent by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate
Government on 12.08.2013. During pendency of the
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, services
of the claimant were dispensed with on 23.12.2012.
2. It is averred in the application that the workman was
employed by Respondent No. 2, Air India Sats Airport
Services Pvt. Ltd. on 09.12.2010 as Equipment Operator
and since then he had been serving the management
sincerely and honestly and had an unblemished record.
He was paid monthly wages of Rs. 10,000.00. On 13.07.2013,
brother in law of the workman sustained serious grievous
injuries in an accident while on duty and had to be admitted
to Spinal Injuries Centre Hospital and the workman was
orally allowed by the Respondent No. 2 to look after his
brother-in-law in hospital. Entire medical expenses were
also borne by Respondent No. 2.
3. He worked continuously upto 24.11.2012. His PIC
expired on 24.11.2012. After extending his PIC for three
days, the workman was forced to proceed on 15 days
privilege leave. Thereafter, despite repeated requests, the
management did not allow him to resume his duties. In
reply to his letter dated 07.01.2013 requesting for
resumption of duties, the management terminated his
services vide letter dated 02.01.2013 without any notice,
notice pay, enquiry compensation and other legal dues
and even without moving an approval application
simultaneously before the Conciliation Officer where an
industrial dispute was pending. The workers of the
establishment had raised an industrial dispute through the
union before the Regional Labour Commissioner regarding
general demands of increase in wages and allowances etc.
on 22.06.2012, in which the workman is concerned workman.
Prayer has been made to direct the management to reinstate
the workman with all consequential benefits as his
termination was in violation of the Mandatory provisions
of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, is in contravention of Section
33 of the Act.
3744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
4. Written statement was filed by Respondent No. 1,
Air India Ltd. averring therein that the workman was not
on their rolls. He was neither engaged nor disengaged by
them.
5. In the written statement filed by Respondent No. 2,
Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd., it has been averred
that the claimant has not approached the appropriate forum.
The workman was engaged for a fixed term and a letter to
this effect was also issued to him. As per the terms and
conditions, there was a stipulation that in case of
employee's absence from work for continuous period of 8
days without obtaining prior approval of the company or
over-staying the sanctioned leave beyond a period of 8
days, without prior permission, the workman's engagement
shall be liable to be terminated without notice. Stand has
also been taken that the management has neither violated
any terms and conditions of the employment inured to the
benefit of the workman during pendency of the industrial
dispute nor was he in any way connected with the industrial
dispute pending before the Conciliation Officer, hence there
was no necessity to seek any approval/premission under
Section 33 of the Act. The complainant had left on his own
without assigning or communicating any reason or
information. Therefore, the workman was relieved from
service on 02.01.2013.
6. On perusal of pleadings of the parties, following
issues were settled on 20.01.2015, and the case was listed
for evidence of the claimant:
(1)
Whether the termination order dated 24.02.2013 is
invalid ab-initio?
(2)
Whether there is any privity of contract between the
claimant and the management?
7. However, despite several opportunities, the claimant
could not be contacted by his authorized representative
despite his best efforts. Hence, evidence of the claimant
was closed. Management also did not want to lead any
evidence. Since the workman has not put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his 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: August 3, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1793-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chMCY;w,Q,l
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] uñ 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
67@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@09@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@19@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2015
S.O. 1793.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 67/2014 of the Central
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. BWFS and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 03/09/2015.
[No. L-11012/19/2014-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section 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. 67/2014
The General Secretary,
BWFS Karamchari Union (Regd.)
P.No. 54, Shahabad Mohamadpur,
New Delhi 110 061
...Workman
Versus
The Director,
M/s Bird Worldwide Flight Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi 110001
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-11012/19/2014-IR
(CM-I) dated 16.07.2014, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether stopping of work by the workman of the
management of Bird Worldwide Flight Services Pvt.
Ltd. (BWFS) at IGI Airport during the pendency of
conciliation proceedings can be construed as strike
and is just, fair and legal? To what relief the workmen
concerned are entitled to and from which date?
2. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the workman as well as the management. Despite several
opportunities, claimant failed to file his statement of claim.
Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3745
3. Since the workman has failed to file his statement of
claim, as such, this Tribunal is left 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 : August 13, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1794-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ jsyos 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
dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 08@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@47@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2015
S.O. 1794.—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 Central
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Eastern Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 04/09/2015.
[No. L-41012/47/2013-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
REFERENCE NO. 63 OF 2013
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of
Carriage & Wagon Workshop, Eastern
Railway
AND
Their workmen
Present:
Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCE:
On behalf of the :
None
Management
On behalf of the :
None
Workmen
State
: West Bengal
Industry: Railways.
Dated: 24th August, 2015
AWARD
By order No. L-41012/47/2013-IR (B-I) dated 28.11.2013
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 Eastern
Railway is justified for termination of services of
Sri Chandan Kumar De is legal and or justified?
To what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. When the case is taken up today for hearing none
appears on behalf of either of the parties. It appears from
the previous day's order that the concerned workman is
not willing to proceed with this case further as according
to him this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the
present reference. Considering the above, it appears that
no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter
pending.
3. In view of the above, the instant reference is disposed
of by passing a "No Dispute Award".
Dated, Kolkata,
The 24th August, 2015.
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1795-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k
eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@45@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2015
S.O. 1795.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2014) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No-1, Mumbai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 04/09/2015.
[No. L-41011/45/2014-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
3746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1
MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/19 OF 2014
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of
Central Railway
And
Their Workman
Appearances:
For the first party/Management
: Mr. Abhay
Kulkarni, Adv.
For the second party/Union
: None present.
State
: Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 27th day of July, 2015
AWARD
1. The present Reference has been made by the Central
Government by its order dated 27.5.2014 passed 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. The terms of Reference as per the
Schedule to the said order are as under:
"Whether the action of the management of Divl.
Engineer, Central Railway, Pune by not giving HRA
for the period from 17.6.2008 to 31.3.2010 and
withholding the increment with cumulative effect of
Shri Parasnath Ray is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. By the Order dated 30.6.2014, this Tribunal directed
for issuance of Notices to the parties, and the case was
directed to be put up on 8.8.2014. Notices were accordingly
issued to the parties by Registered Post AD.
3. Pursuant to the Order dated 30.6.2014, the case was
put up on 8.8.2014. On 8.8.2014, the Tribunal noted in its
Order that the notice issued to the first party/Management
and the notice issued to the second party/Union had been
duly served, and the respective Acknowledgement Cards
had been received back. Mrs. Pooja Kulkarni, Advocate
was present for the first Party/Management. However, none
was present for the second party/Union. In the
circumstances, by the Order dated 8.8.2014, the case was
adjourned to 23.9.2014 for filing Statement of Claim on
behalf of the second party/Union.
4. Pursuant to the Order dated 8.8.2014, the matter was
put up on 23.9.2014. On the said date, i.e. 23.9.2014, Mrs.
Pooja Kulkarni, Advocate was present for the first party/
Management. However, none was present on behelf of the
second party/Union. In the circumstances, by the Order
dated 23.9.2014, the case was adjourned to 17.11.2014 for
filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/
Union.
5. Pursuant to the Order dated 23.9.2014, the matter was
put up on 17.11.2014. Mrs. Pooja Kulkarni, Advocate was
present for the first party/Management. However, none
was present on behelf of the second party/Union. In the
circumstances, by the Order dated 17.11.2014, the case was
adjourned to 7.1.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf
of the second party/Union.
6. Pursuant to the Order dated 17.11.2014, the matter
was put up on 7.1.2015. Mrs. Pooja Kulkarni, Advocate
was present for the first party/Management. However, none
was present on behelf of the second party/Union. In the
circumstances, by the Order dated 7.1.2015, the case was
adjourned to 23.1.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on
behalf of the second party/Union.
7. Pursuant to the Order dated 7.1.2015, the matter was
put up on 23.1.2015. On the said date, i.e. 23.1.2015,
Mrs. Pooja Kulkarni, Advocate was present for the first
party/Management. However, none was present on behelf
of the second party/Union. In the circumstances, by the
Order dated 23.1.2015, the case was adjourned to 10.2.2015
for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/
Union.
8. Pursuant to the Order dated 23.1.2015, the matter was
put up on 10.2.2015. On the said date, i.e. 10.2.2015,
Mrs. Pooja Kulkarni, Advocate was present for the first
party/Management. However, none was present on behelf
of the second party/Union. In the circumstances, by the
Order dated 10.2.2015, the case was adjourned to 17.3.2015
for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/
Union.
9. Pursuant to the Order dated 10.2.2015, the matter was
put up on 17.3.2015. On the said date, i.e. 17.3.2015, none
was present for the first party/Management nor was anyone
present on behelf of the second party/Union. In the
circumstances, by the Order dated 17.3.2015, the case was
adjourned to 14.4.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on
behalf of the second party/Union.
10. As 14.4.2015 was declared as a holiday on account
of "Birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar", the Tribunal by the
Order dated 15.4.2015 directed the matter to come up on
26.5.2015.
11. Pursuant to the Order dated 15.4.2015, the case was
put up on 26.5.2015. On the said date, i.e. 26.5.2015,
Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, Advocate was present for the first
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3747
party/Management. However, none was present on behelf
of the second party/Union. In the circumstances, by the
Order dated 26.5.2015, the case was adjourned to 11.6.2015
for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/
Union.
12. Pursuant to the Order dated 26.5.2015, the case was
put up on 11.6.2015. On the said date, i.e. 11.6.2015,
Mrs. Pooja Kulkarni, holding brief for Mr. Abhay Kulkarni,
Advocate was present for the first party/Management.
However, none was present on behelf of the second party/
Union. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 11.6.2015,
the case was adjourned to 27.7.2015 for filing Statement of
Claim on behalf of the second party/Union.
13. Pursuant to the Order dated 11.6.2015, the case is
put up today.
Vakalatnama of Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, Advocate has been
filed today on behalf of the first party/Management.
Mrs. Pooja Kulkarni, holding brief for Mr. Abhay
Kulkarni, learned counsel for the first party party/
Management is present. However, none is present for the
second party/Union.
No Statement of Claim has been filed on behalf of the
second party/Union.
14. From the above narration of facts, it is evident that
despite service of notice, none has put in appearance on
behalf of the second party/Union despite repeated
adjournments having been granted in the matter.
15. No Statement of Claim has so far been filed on behalf
of the second party/Union.
16. In view of the above, it is evident that there is no
pleading or evidence filed on behalf of the second party/
Union in respect of the Claim as contained in the aforesaid
Reference.
17. No Relief, therefore, can be granted to the second
party/Union in regard to the Claim as contained in the above
Reference.
18. The Reference made to this Tribunal is consequently
answered by stating that no relief can be granted to the
second party/Union in regard to the Claim as contained in
the Reference.
19. Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1796-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mh ,e vkj lh ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k
fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@68@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2015
S.O. 1796.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 3/2012) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No-1, Delhi as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of DMRC and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 04/09/2015.
[No. L-41011/68/2011-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section 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. 3/2012
The General Secretary
General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,
I-441, Karampura,
New Delhi-15
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Chief Manager,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Shastri Park,
New Delhi
2.
The Project Manager,
M/s ITD-ITD-CEM-JV, Lokesh,
DMRC Project Delhi Contract No. BC-24,
Site near Mundka Railway Station, Nangloi,
Delhi
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-41011/68/2011/
IR(B-I) dated 09.12.2011, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s ITD-
ITD-CEM-JV (Sub-contractor Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation, New Delhi) engaged on contract
No. BC-24 by the DMRC, New Delhi in terminating the
services of (1) Shri Raj Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Shyam
3748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Narayan, (2) Shri Nanak Chand S/o Shri Mahender
Singh and (3) Shri Dharmender Singh S/o Shri Amar
Singh with effect from 05.03.2009, 22.03.2009 and
21.01.2009 respectively, is legal and justified? To what
relief the workmen/union is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the workman as well as the management. Claim statement
was filed on behalf of Shri Nanak Chand and
Shri Dharmender. The third claimant, namely Shri Raj Kumar
Mishra was not willing to file his claim statement. Claim
statement was demurred by the managements. Later on,
amended claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimant
union to which amended written statement was filed by the
management. On perusal of pleadings, following issues
were framed by my learned predecessor and the case was
fixed for evidence of the parties:
(1)
Whether there existed any privity of contract
between the claimants and the management No. 1?
(2)
Whether there existed any relationship of employer
and employee between the claimants and
management No. 2?
(3)
Whether claimants were engaged by M/s Kamal Kant
Tripathi, sub-contractor?
(4)
As in terms of reference.
3. Claimants thereafter moved an application under
section 18(3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
pleading therein that M/s Kamal Kant Tripathi and
M/s Manoj Kumar Tripathi, sub-contractors may be added
in arrays to the management. It was claimed in the
application that management No. 2 had stated in their written
statement that claimants were engaged by the aforesaid
sub-contractors. In view of the facts pleaded in the written
statement, aforesaid sub-contractors were to be arrayed as
parties to the present dispute and notice of the application
was given to the managements, who had no objection in
case the application is granted, hence M/s Kamal Kant
Tripathi and M/s Manoj Kumar Tripathi were added in
arrays of parties. However, notices issued M/s Kamal Kant
Tripathi and Manoj Kant Tripathi were received back with
the report that no such person is available now at the given
address. Claimant union was time and again directed to
furnish fresh address of M/s Kamal Kant Tripathi and Manoj
Kant Tripathi. However, since the last several dates of
hearing, i.e. 11.02.2014, 13.03.2014, 21.04.2014 17.06.2014,
18.07.2014, 29.08.2014, 10.10.2014, 27.11.2014, 15.01.2015,
26.02.2015 and 16.04.2015, neither the claimants nor
authorized representative on their behalf appeared on behalf
of the claimant union so as to pursue their case. Thus, it is
clear that the claimant union is not interested in adjudication
of the reference on merits.
3. Since the claimants have neither put in 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, exept 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: August 5, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1797-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izca/k ra=- ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k pSUubZ
ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼79@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 04@09@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2015
S.O. 1797.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 79/2014) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of state Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 04/09/2015.
[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 30th July, 2015
Present:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 79/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause 2(A) (2) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as
amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010) between the
Management of State Bank of India and their workman)
BETWEEN
Ms. D. Suganthi
: 1st Party/Petitioner
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3749
AND
1. The Deputy General Manager :
2nd Party/1st
(B & O), Appellate Authority,
Respondent
State Bank of India
Administrative Unit,
Kurinji Complex
State Bank Road
Coimbatore-641018
2. The Regional Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd
(Region-II)
Respondent
Disciplinary Authority,
State Bank of India
Administrative Unit,
Kurinji Complex
State Bank Road
Coimbatore-641018
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s Balan Haridas,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd
:
M/s S. Ravindran,
Respondent
Advocates
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken on file under 2(A) (2)
(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by
Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner was working as a Special Assistant in
the State Bank of India. The entire service of the
petitioner but for the incident in question is without
any blemish. The Second Respondent had issued
Charge Memo dated 06.06.2012 containing seven
charges to the petitioner. The petitioner had given
her explanation and denied the charges. The
respondent had ordered domestic enquiry. The
Enquiry Officer, on conducting enquiry, found that
the charges against the petitioner other than Charge
No. 2 are proved. The action of the Enquiry Officer in
taking the documents on record is in violation of the
principles of natural justice. The documents were
not proved in the manner known to law. The petitioner
had not committed any misconduct as alleged in the
Charge Memo. The petitioner was discharged from
service with superannuation benefits and without
disqualification for future employment on the basis
of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The punishment
is without any justification. An order may be passed
holding that the punishment imposed by the Second
Respondent on the petitioner by order dated
21.06.2013 is illegal and arbitrary, set aside the same
and direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner
with back wages, continuity of service and other
attendant benefits.
2. The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
While the petitioner was working as an Assistant in
Erode Branch of the Respondent she was maintaining
a Savings Bank Account with No. 30356808102. On
inspection carried out after she was transferred to
Udagamandalam branch it was found that monetary
transactions in the petitioner's SB A/c were abnormal.
On verification of transactions in other branches were
the petitioner worked, viz, Agraharam, Erode and
Arachalur huge transactions and irregularities
committed in the petitioner's SB Account were found
out. A SB Account is predominantly for the personal
use of the individual and is not intended for an
commercial transactions. The bank employees are
also entitled to open SB Account for their personal
use. The employees are not expected to allow their
position in the bank to be misused to third parties
who want to conceal their commercial transaction
from the eyes of law. The petitioner had transferred
huge sums from the TASMAC account to her
account on seven instances and it amounts to
misconduct. The petitioner's account reflected
transaction of huge sums of money, disproportionate
to her earnings. On 06.06.2012 Charge Sheer was
issued to the petitioner listing seven charges which
would amount to major misconduct under the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. Charges
1, 4, 6 and 7 were the details of 55 transactions
between May 2008 to April 2011 wherein the
petitioner allowed certain third parties to use the SB
Account as the medium for the commercial
transaction. The petitioner's conduct of wrongly
debiting a school account and crediting a sum of
Rs. 2,600/- to her account comes under Charge No. 2.
As per the fifth charge the petitioner unauthorizedly
held Rs. 10,000 in respect of SB Account of one
Subramaniam. The petitioner did not deny the
transactions mentioned in the annexure to the Charge
Sheet. The explanation given by the petitioner was
not satisfactory. A domestice enquiry was held. The
petitioner was represented by a union member. The
Enquiry Officer found charges 1, 4, 6 and 7 fully
proved and Charges No. 3 and 5 partly proved. After
hearing the petitioner she was awarded penalty of
discharge from service with superannuation benefits
and without disqualification from future employment.
These is no valid ground to interfere with the
punishment awarded to the petitioner. The order of
termination of the petitioner is to be upheld.
3750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
3. The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement
adopting the Counter Statement of the First Respondent.
4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement.
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
Ext. W1 to Ext. W 16 and Ext. M 1 to Ext. M 97.
6. The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the Respondents are justified in terminating
the petitioner from service?
(ii)
What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
7. The petitioner had joined the service of First
Respondent Bank in the Year 1987. At the time she was
proceeded against for alleged misconducts, she was
working as a Special Assistant. After she was transferred
from Erode Branch, an inspection seems to have been carried
out consequent to which the alleged misconducts were
detected.
8. Ext. W1 is the Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2012
issued to the petitioner seeking explanation for the
irregularities that were allegedly noticed in her transaction.
In this Show Cause Notice the irregularities allegedly
committed by the petitioner at different branches where
she worked are referred to. At GH road branch she is said
to have remitted cash as well as effected transfer
transactions from her account to third party accounts in
which the amount aggregated Rs. 5,00,700/- On 14.06.2008
she is said to have debited Rs. 5,000/- from the account of
one Muhammad Mustafa and credited it to the account of
Heera Enterprises. At Agraharam Branch during the period
of May 2007 to February 2008 and during the period from
August 2008 to December 2009 she is said to have made a
cash withdrawal of Rs. 1000/- by debit of the current
account of one Muhammad Hanifa Sahib and Sons without
voucher and reversed the debit entry by transferring the
amount by debit to her own current account, has allegedly
prepared a composite voucher for Rs. 2,600/- for debiting
her account and for crediting to her another account
whereas she actually debited the account of a school. On
seven occasions she is said to have received remittances
for credit of TASMAC account but credited the amount to
her own account and subsequently reversed the account
and credited to TASMAC account. She is also said to have
transfer transactions from her account to third party
accounts aggregating Rs. 1,66,190/- While at Erode branch
the petitioner is said to have transferred Rs. 10,000/- from
her account to one Subramanian without any voucher, then
set hold for the same without any authority and
subsequently debited his account and transferred the
amount to her own account by removing the hold. At
Arachalur Branch the petitioner is said to have remitted
cash as well as effected transfer transactions from her
account to third party accounts aggregating Rs. 1,49,475/-.
It is stated in the Show Cause Notice that the credit
summation of her accounts were disproportionate to her
know source of income.
9. The petitioner submitted an explanation, the copy of
which is marked as Ext. W2. In her explanation the petitioner
has not denied any of the transactions mentioned in the
Show Cause Notice. On the other hand she had tried to
explain the transaction. As the explanation was found
unsatisfactory, Charge Memo which is marked as Ext. W3
dated 06.06.2012 was issued to the petitioner. Ext. W4 is
the explanation given by her to the Charge Memo. In this
also she has tried to explain the transactions and did not
deny any of them.
10. In the enquiry proceedings the Management had
produced copies of the transactions regarding which
irregularities were alleged against the petitioner. The
documents were marked on the side of the Management
without examining any Officials connected to the
documents. On the side of the petitioner, Mohammad
Mustafa whose name figures in the Show Cause Notice
was examined. The petitioner herself did not give any
evidence. Some documents were marked on her side.
11. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that
the documents are marked in a manner not known to law. It
has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that is the
absence of proof of these documents, they could not be
relied upon at all. The counsel has referred to the decision
of the Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National
Bank and others reported in 2009 2 SCC 570 in this respect.
It was held here that the purported evidence collected
during investigation by the Investigating Officer could not
be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceedings.
It was a case where the management merely tendered the
documents and did not prove the contents thereof by
examining the relevant witnesses. On the other hand it has
been argued by the counsel for the Respondent that in
disciplinary proceedings. Evidence Act is not applicable
and proof of the case is based on preponderance of
probability. The counsel has referred to the dicision of
Justice Krishna lyer in State of Haryana and another vs.
Rattan Singh reported in 1982 1 LLJ 46 in this respect. The
counsel has also referred to the decision in General
Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank vs. Daya Singh reported
in 2010 4 LLN 37 where it was held that the relevant entries
being in the handwriting of the concerned workman, the
workman should have produced evidence against the
documentary evidence produced by the Bank. He has also
referred to the decision in State Bank of India and others
vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey reported in 2013 2 LLJ 1 SC
where it was held that if the charges are borne out from the
documents kept in the normal course of business no oral
evidence is necessary to prove those charges. He has also
referred to the decision reported in AIR 1997 SC 2274 where
it was held that there is absolute burden on the Management
to prove the case. According to the counsel it is for the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3751
petitioner to prove her case in view of the explanation
submitted by her. He has maintained that the document
produced proves the charges and it is for her to prove
otherwise.
12. In answer to the arguments of the counsel for the
Respondent that it is only the preponderance of probability
that it is to be considered, the counsel for the petitioner
has referred to the decision CHAIRMAN, PANDYAN
GRAMA BANK, VIRUDHUNAGAR VS. PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER reported in
2010 for LLN 824 wherein it was held that the concept of
preponderance of probability does not mean that the
charges could be held to have been proved on mere
surmises or conjectures or speculations, Surmises,
conjectures or speculations can never take the place of
proof at all. Proof by means of preponderance of probability
denotes the standard which lies somewhere below the
standard of proving criminal charge beyond reasonable
doubt and slightly different from the standard of proof of
any fact in civil case applying the technical rules of the
Evidence Act, it was held. Thus, in the light of above
decisions it could be seen that proof by applying the
principle of preponderance of probability does not mean
that it could be stretched to an extent where there is no
proof at all and need not go to the extent of absolute proof
in a criminal case or even that much proof required in a civil
case. It is somewhere in between. In any case, there could
not be any doubt that there should be sufficient proof to
arrive at a conclusion that the charges alleged are true.
13. As could be seen there is no case for the petitioner
that the documents produced and marked on the side of
the Management and marked before this Tribunal as Ext.
M1 to Ext. M89 are not regarding the transaction referred
to in the Show Cause Notice and the Charge Memo. On the
other hand it could be seen from her explanation that the
Show Cause Notice as well as the Charge Memo that she
has not denied any of the transactions referred to. She has
admitted those transactions and has explained the purpose
and the circumstances under which the transactions were
made. In the absence of denial of the transactions by the
petitioner the transactions referred to in Ext.M1 to Ext. M89
marked before the Enquiry officer are to be taken as proved
to the extent of the admission made by the petitioner i.e.
that she has entered into such and such transactions.
14. The argument that has been advanced on behalf of
the Respondents is that the transactions having been
admitted by the petitioner, there was no question of the
Management proving the charges by examining any
witnesses. According to the counsel for the Respondents,
the admission coupled with the evidence given by Mohd.
Mustafa, the witness examined by the petitioner sufficiently
established the charges. On the other hand, it has been
argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the
transactions alleged will not constitute any irregularity or
misconduct at all and that in any case the Management
has not proved the charges by adducing sufficient
evidence. To appreciate the argument advanced on either
side the charges are to be examined one by one. The second
charge having been found not proved by the Enquiry Officer
himself there is no necessity to consider this charge in this
discussion.
15. Charge No. 1, 4 and 6 can be considered together,
these being of the same nature. As per the first charge the
petitioner has remitted cash as well as effected transfer
transactions from her accounts to third party accounts
aggregating Rs. 3,87,040/- while she was at Agraharam
Branch as shown in the annexure to the Charge Sheet. As
per the fourth charge she had remitted cash as well as
effected transfer transactions to third party accounts
aggregating Rs. 1,49,670/- as detailed in Annexure-C of the
charge. As per the sixth charge she had remitted cash as
well as effected transfer transactions from her accounts to
third party accounts aggregating Rs. 1,49,475/- as detailed
in Annexure-D to the charge.
16. I have already referred to the fact that the petitioner
has not disputed these transactions. The documents
pertaining to transactions produced by the Respondent
were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to enter a finding
that the charges are proved. Even though nobody has
been examined on the side of the Management the
documents pertaining to the transactions can be relied upon
in view of the very admission of the petitioner that those
transactions were entered into by her. She has stated in
Ext.W4-the explanation to the Charge Memo that the
transactions were for the purchase of UPS, tiles and other
items. Regarding certain items she has explained that they
were in favour of her mother sister, close friends, etc.
17. It has been argued by the counsel for the Respondent
that the transactions having been admitted, the charges
are to be taken as proved in the absence of any evidence
on the part of the petitioner. Though the petitioner has not
examined herself. She has examined Mohd. Mustafa, the
proprietor of Heera Enterprises in whose favour several of
the transactions are. This witness is a former employee of
the State Bank of India and was a colleague of petitioner's
father as could be seen from his evidence. There is the
evidence by this witness that he had supplied building
materials to the petitioner. This version of the witness is in
consonance with the explanation given by the petitioner in
Ext.W2 that she has constructed a house and has
purchased building materials. There is nothing to
disbelieve the version of Mohd. Mustafa.
18. After all what is the charge against the petitioner?
The charge states that these transactions would amount
to misconduct under Para-5(J) of the Memorandum of
Settlement dated 10.04.2002. Clause-5 of Memorandum of
Settlement describes certain acts and omissions as gross
misconduct. Clause-5(J) states that doing any act prejudicial
3752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
to the interests of the bank or gross negligence or
negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious
loss will come under gross misconduct. The transactions
referred to under charges 1, 3 and 6 could not certainly be
described as gross negligence or negligence involving or
likely to involve the Bank in serious loss. There is no case
at all that any loss was caused to the Bank on account of
the above transactions. Now the question is whether these
are transactions prejudicial to the interests of the Bank.
True the petitioner has entered into several transactions
through her Savings Bank Account. I have stated earlier
that the transactions about which documents are produced
are proved to the extent of admission by the petitioner. It is
not enough for the Management to prove that such and
such transactions were carried out by the petitioner. The
Bank is also to establish that these transactions turned out
to be prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and has affected
the Bank adversely. The Respondent has not stated how
these transactions came to be prejudicial to the interests of
the Bank. It has not stated in what way the petitioner acted
against the interests of the Bank. So these transactions
cannot be termed prejudicial or against the interests of the
Bank under Clause-5(J) of the Memorandum of Settlement.
In this respect the counsel for the petitioner has referred to
the decision of the Madras High Court in GUNASEKARAN
VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA in Writ Petition No. 13601/
2014. The allegation in the above case against the General
Secretary of the SBI SC and ST Employees Welfare
Association as well as STATE BANK AMBEDKAR
TRADE UNION was that he distributed handbills to the
general public making allegations against the Bank apart
from his other acts. The High Court has held that the
intention of the petitioner was not to tarnish the image of
the institution and his action cannot be termed as an activity
which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and therefore
charge under Clause-5(J) of the Memorandum of Settlement
is not made out. This finding was challenged by the State
Bank and the Division Bench had upheld the decision of
the single bench in Writ Appeal No. 3267/2015 and other
cases. In the present case also there is nothing to show
that the act of the petitioner in effecting the transactions
has been in any way prejudicial to the interests of the
Bank. So I find that a charge under Clause-5(J) of the
Memorandum of Settlement will not even lie against the
petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has entered a finding against
the petitioner only on the basis that these transactions
having been carried out by the petitioner the charges could
be taken as proved. He did not try to find out if the
transaction were in any way prejudicial to the interests of
the Bank. The findings under these charges are to be
revoked.
19. Charge No. 7 being one that flows from charges 1, 4
and 6, this can be considered next. The charge is that the
credit summation in the accounts of the petitioner for the
year 2008, 2 009 and 2010 were Rs. 15,64,403/-, Rs. 11,52,860
and Rs. 11,91,269/- respectively and were disproportionate
to her known source of income. The Management has not
produced any proof as to what were the sources of income
of the petitioner. Only if it is established it can be found out
whether the credit summation is disproportionate to the
known source of income. The Management merely seems
to have calculated the amount that came to the account of
the Bank to advance a charge that it is disproportionate to
her known source of income. The petitioner has stated in
her explanation that her husband also is a salaried person,
that she has received arrears under different heads during
the period and all these amount came to her account.
However, the question of proving all this arises only after
the Respondent proves that her account showed amount
disproportionate to her known source of income. In the
absence of such proof, merely based on the transactions
revealed through the documents it could not be concluded
that the petitioner had gathered amount disproportionate
to her known source of income. The Enquiry Officer's
finding in this respect also is fallacious and is to be
overturned.
20. The third charge was found partly proved by the
Enquiry Officer. The charge is that on seven occasions
between 08.02.2008 and 09.12.2009 the remittances received
by the petitioner over the counter for credit of TASMAC
account were credited to her own account and subsequently
reversed and credited to TASMAC account, in five
occasions on the same day, and in two occasions on the
next day, as detailed in Annexure-B. It is apparent from the
very explanation given by the petitioner as per Ext.W2 that
the allegation is true. She has stated in the explanation that
rather than making remittance to the account of TASMAC,
she has erroneously posted the same into her account.
According to her she immediately identified the mistake
and reversed the same mostly on the same day and the
details have been recorded in her error book. The annexure
shows that on 12.08.2009, 29.08.2008, 08.05.2009 and
09.12.2009 she had made remittances which were due to
TASMAC account to her own account but had reversed
them and remitted to the correct account i.e. TASMAC
account on the same day. On 08.02.2008 two remittances
were made in her own account rather than to the account
of TASMAC and these were reversed on the next day by a
single transaction. Thus, the very hold on the account for
which she had no authority. She had herself released the
account from the hold when she was in a position to debit
the account and remit the amount to her own account.
Thus this charge also is proved against the petitioner.
However, this could not come under the definition of gross
misconduct. It will come under minor misconduct under
Clause-7(C) which is neglect of work and also Clause-D i.e.
any breach of any rule or any business of the Bank or any
instruction for the running of any department. There is no
case for the Respondent that Subramani, the concerned
account holder raised any objection and the act of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3753
petitioner happened to be prejudicial to the interests of the
Bank in this manner. So this is also only a minor misconduct.
22. The petitioner has started service in the Respondent
Bank in the year 1987. There is no case for the Respondent
that she had been involved in any misconduct or any
irregularity earlier. The petitioner does not deserve the
punishment of dismissal from service for the minor
misconducts committed by her. The punishment of dismissal
is disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. The
Respondent had not acted judiciously in terminating the
petitioner from service on the charge of gross misconduct.
She is entitled to be reinstated in service. The Respondent
is at liberty to impose proper punishment on the petitioner
for the minor misconducts under Charge Nos. 3 and 5.
Accordingly an award is passed as follows:
(i)
The punishment of "discharge from service with
superannuation
benefits
and
without
disqualification from future employment" on the
petitioner is set aside.
(ii)
The Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner
in service with back wages, continuity of service
and other benefits.
(iii)
The Respondent is at liberty to impose the required
punishment on the petitioner for the offences proved
under Charge Nos. 3 and 5.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 30th July, 2015.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
31.01.2012
Show Cause Notice
Ext.W2
15.03.2012
Explanation of the Petitioner
Ext.W3
06.06.2012
Charge Memo
Ext.W4
22.06.2012
Explanation to the Charge Memo
Ext.W5
—
Enquiry Proceedings
Ext.W6
06.12.2012
Letter of the Respondent
enclosing enquiry report
Ext.W7
15.12.2012
Petitioner's comments on the
enquiry report
Ext.W8
06.02.2013
Personal hearing notice
Ext.W9
16.03.2013
Order of Punishment
Ext.W10
30.04.2013
Appeal
Ext.W11
07.05.2013
Personal hearing notice in appeal
Ext.W12
21.05.2013
Representation given in the
personal hearing
Ext.W13
21.06.2013
Order of the Appellate Authority
Ext.W14
25.07.2013
Petition under Section-2A of the
ID Act
Ext.W15
28.01.2014
Reply filed by the Respondent
Bank
Ext.W16
17.02.2014
Rejoinder filed by the petitioner
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
13.05.2008
Xerox copy of Rs. 5,000/- debit/
credit slip voucher
Ext.M2
14.06.2008
Xerox copy of Rs. 40,000/- debit/
credit slip voucher
Ext.M3
17.06.2008
Xerox copy of the debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 13,590/-
Ext.M4
18.06.2008
Xerox copy of the debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 2,000/-
Ext.M5
18.07.2008
Xerox copy of the credit/debit
voucher for Rs. 30,000/-
Ext.M6
25.07.2008
Xerox copy of the credit/debit
voucher for Rs. 10,000/-
Ext.M7
25.07.2008
Xerox copy of the credit/debit
voucher for Rs. 20,000/-
Ext.M8
25.07.2008
Xerox copy of the credit/debit
voucher for Rs. 30,000/-
Ext.M9
28.03.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 2,000/-
Ext.M10
28.03.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 2,000/-
Ext.M11
21.04.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 6,000/-
Ext.M12
21.04.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 15,000/-
Ext.M13
—
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 3,100/-
Ext.M14
06.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 3,000/-
Ext.M15
07.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 1,850/-
Ext.M16
25.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 4,500/-
Ext.M17
22.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 10,000/-
Ext.M18
22.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 40,000/-
Ext.M19
27.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 20,000/-
Ext.M20
14.06.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 49,000/-
Ext.M21
14.06.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 9,000/-
3754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Ext.M22
27.06.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 10,000/-
Ext.M23
27.06.2008
Xerox copy of the voucher for
Rs. 1,000/-
Ext.M24
17.07.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 50,000/-
Ext.M25
18.07.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 30,000/-
Ext.M26
—
Account Statement of Suganthi
Ext.M27
19.08.2010
Copy of letter to Branch Manager,
SBI by Subramani
Ext.M28
02.03.2011
Xerox copy of the debit voucher
for Rs. 1,40,000/-
Ext.M29
03.03.2011
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 1,40,000/-
Ext.M30
09.04.2011
Xerox copy of the debit voucher
for Rs. 4,875/-
Ext.M31
09.04.2011
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 4,875/-
Ext.M32
01.05.2008
Xerox copy of the SB A/c
Statement of Suganthi
To
Duraisamy
31.07.2008
Ext.M33
29.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 3,000/-
debit/credit slip voucher
Ext.M34
14.05.2008
Xerox copy of Rs. 50/000/- debit/
credit slip voucher
Ext.M35
03.07.2008
Xerox copy of debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 15,000/-
Ext.M36
04.06.2008
Xerox copy of the debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 3,800/-
Ext.M37
14.06.2008
Xerox copy of the debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 5,000/-
Ext.M38
19.06.2008
Xerox copy of the debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 2,000/-
Ext.M39
21.06.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 10,000/-
Ext.M40
17.07.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 50,000/-
Ext.M41
17.07.2008
Xerox copy of the debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 1,000/-
Ext.M42
18.07.2008
Xerox copy of the voucher for
Rs. 30,000/-
Ext.M43
18.07.2008
Xerox copy of the debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 10,000/-
Ext.M44
21.07.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 400/-
Ext.M45
07.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 1,850/-
Ext.M46
07.05.2008
Xerox copy of the debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 7,000/-
Ext.M47
07.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 1,850/-
Ext.M48
06.05.2008
Xerox copy of the debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 20,000/-
Ext.M49
06.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 3,000/-
Ext.M50
—
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 4,000/-
Ext.M51
03.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 3,500/-
Ext.M52
—
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 3,100/-
Ext.M53
02.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 500/-
Ext.M54
14.06.2008
Xerox copy of the debit/credit slip
voucher for Rs. 40,000/-
Ext.M55
14.06.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 9,000/-
Ext.M56
14.06.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 40,000/-
Ext.M57
14.06.2008
Xerox copy of the credit and debit
slip voucher for Rs. 2,000/-
Ext.M58
13.06.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 5,500/-
Ext.M59
14.06.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 49,000/-
Ext.M60
—
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 700/-
Ext.M61
16.04.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 24,500/-
Ext.M62
16.04.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 8,001/-
Ext.M63
16.04.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 3,000/-
Ext.M64
24.04.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 15,000/-
Ext.M65
21.04.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 6,000/-
Ext.M66
16.04.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 500/-
Ext.M67
16.04.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 500/-
Ext.M68
15.04.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 24,500/-
Ext.M69
28.03.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 2,000/-
Ext.M70
28.03.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 2,000/-
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3755
Ext.M71
28.03.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 2,000/-
Ext.M72
29.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit and debit
slip voucher for Rs. 3,000/-
Ext.M73
27.03.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 20,000/-
Ext.M74
28.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit and debit
slip voucher for Rs. 5,000-
Ext.M75
22.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 38,000/-
Ext.M76
22.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 10,000/-
Ext.M77
22.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 40,000/-
Ext.M78
14.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit and debit
slip voucher for Rs. 50,000/-
Ext.M79
13.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit and debit
slip voucher for Rs. 5,000/-
Ext.M80
13.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit and debit
slip voucher for Rs. 50/-
Ext.M81
14.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 100/-
Ext.M82
15.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 4,500/-
Ext.M83
16.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 4,500/-
Ext.M84
13.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit and debit
slip voucher for Rs. 50,000/-
Ext.M85
13.05.2008
Xerox copy of the credit and debit
slip voucher for Rs. 50,000/-
Ext.M86
05.02.2011
Xerox copy of the debit voucher
for Rs. 1,27,705/-
Ext.M87
17.02.2011
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 1,27,705/-
Ext.M88
08.03.2011
Xerox copy of the debit voucher
for Rs. 4,725/-
Ext.M89
08.03.2011
Xerox copy of the credit voucher
for Rs. 4,725/-
Ext.M90
—
Copy of the error register of BP
Agraharam Branch
Ext.M91
08.10.2012
Letter of the Enquiry Officer by
the Management of Heera
Enterprises
Ext.M92
06.06.2012
Enquiry Proceedings
Ext.M93
—
Written statement of Management
representatives
Ext.M94
03.11.2012
Written Statement of employee
representatives
Ext.M95
28.02.2013
Letter to the petitioner appear for
personal hearing
Ext.M96
13.03.2013
Personal hearing proceedings
Ext.M97
21.05.2013
Personal hearing proceedings
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1798-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
/kuckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼102@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@100@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2015
S.O. 1798.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 102/2004) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/09/2015.
[No. L-12012/100/2004-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
Present :
Shri Kishori Ram,
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
Reference No. 102 of 2004
Parties
: Sri Mithai Lal Verma,
Road No. 6, Ram Nagar, PO: Sonari,
Jamshedpur,
Vs.
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India.
Zonal Office, Kali Babu Street, Ranchi.
Order No. L-12012/100/2004-IR(B-I) dt.
17.08.2004
Appearances:
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. D. Mukherjee
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. S.N. Goswami
Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Banking
Dated, Dhanbad, the 11th August, 2015
3756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise
of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the
I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this
tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-12012/100/
2004-IR(B-I) dt. 17.08.2004.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of State
Bank of India in dismissal from services of Sh. Mithai
Lal Verma is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned applicant is entitled to?"
On receipt of the Order No. L-12012/100/2004-IR(B-I) dt.
17.08.2004 of the above mentioned reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference
Case No. 102 of 2004 was registered on 15.09.2004 and
accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue
notices through the Registered Posts to the parties
concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the
date fixed, and to file their written statements along with
the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,
notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties
concerned.
Both the parties made their appearances and filed their
pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The
petitioner/Union and the O.P./Management through their
own Ld. Counsels appeared respectively, and contested
the case.
2. The case of workman Sri Mithai Lal Verma as
represented in his written statement is that he had joined
the service of the State bank of India as Messenger cum
Guard in the year 1974. But despite his service record
unblemished, he was issued the chargesheet No. DGM/
DPS/R/Gen./No. 51 on 4.2.94 by the Zonal Office, Ranchi,
for some false and baseless allegations (Xerox copy of the
charge sheet Annexure A). He replied the chargesheet on
3.2.94 (Zerox Copy of the chargesheet Annexure A). He
replied the chargesheet on 2.3.94 (Xerox copy of the Reply-
Annex-B), denying all allegations. The official of the Mango
Branch of the Bank under the grab of completing the
formalities had obtained from the workman his alleged
confession letter on 18.4.93, but it was not mentioned in
his charge sheet. In stead of properly holding in
investigation into the matter despite his denial, the OP/
Management decided to hold a domestic enquiry against
him as a scapegoat in order to save the errant officials/
clerk of the Bank. Accordingly the alleged domestic enquiry
was motivatedly held against him, holding guilty, though
the Management had utterly failed to prove his guilt. As
the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry held the charge No. 1
proved based on his alleged confessional letter, but not
the charge No. 2 proved, conclusively, holding that the
workman never stated before him about his written
confession and witnessing by three employees of the Bank.
It is also alleged by the workman in respect of the charge
No. 1 that the Enquiry Officer was not satisfied with the
presentation of the case, as presented by the P.Ws. the
Enquiry Officer had also not tried to examine the Shambhu
Pd., the complainant, for confirmation of the contents of
his letter (PEX-4) which was not signed by any person. In
spite of all these lacuna, the Officer-in-Charge held him
guilty of the charge 1 on that ground of his alleged
confession statement, without taking into account the
burden of proof which was upon the Presenting Officer.
Further it is alleged on behalf of the workman moreover,
the analysis of the deposition of alleged witnesses about
the alleged confessional letter in the criminal case against
him also raises serious doubts over the genuineness of the
confessional letter (Xerox Copy of the Certified Copied of
the Judgment passed in GR Case No. 1494/94-Annexure -
C). Since the present workman being less illiterate and
innocent could not protest the aforesaid alleged
confessional statement in course of enquiry, though the
Enquiry Officer did not consider the veracity of the
confession letter in true spirit, yet the workman in course
of his personal hearing before the Dy. G.M. had responded
to the Question No. 6 that he was poor and had accepted
his guilt with a request to forgive him as he would not
commit any mistake in future and the same was not
voluntarily, rather on the assurance of the Bank Officials.
The workman could not get any proper legal advice for his
reply due to financial crisis. The alleged confession other
than in his reply to the chargesheet has no meaning in
legal parlance, as the judgment of the Judical Magistrate
1st Class, Jamshedpur passed in the aforesaid criminal case
clearly affirms the innocence of the workman and no
commission of any offence or misconduct as alleged by
the Bank Management. As such the workman is entitled
for due relief, as the chargesheet was one year delayed
after the occurrence; no copies of the alleged documents
of Shambhu Pd., and other documents were supplied to
him; the finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse; and
the punishment of the dismissal to the workman was highly
disproportionate to the alleged charges.
3. The workman in his rejoinder has specifically denied as
incorrect, alleging the instant Reference is maintainable as the
Industrial Dispute u/s 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act., 1947.
The workman had neither committed any forgery nor
misappropriated any money of the Bank fraudulently to the
tune of Rs. 11,031.35 in the year 1992-93 nor any misconduct
under Shastry Award. The workman had participated in the
enquiry, yet he was not allowed opportunities for his defence,
amounting to complete violation of principle of natural justice.
The Order of his dismissal by the Management is illegal
motivated and unjustified. Thus it is liable to set aside and the
workman is entitled to reinstatement with his full back wages
and continuity of his service accompained with all
consequential benefits.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3757
4. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the
Reference on the ground of its vagueness and bad in the
eye of law. Hence no Industrial Dispute, the contra case of
the O.P./Management is that the workman, who was the
permanent employee of the State Bank of India, in the year
1992-1993 has committed forgery and fraudulently
misappropriated the Bank's money Rs. 11,031.35, which
was detected subsequently in the year 1994. His aforesaid
conduct was a grave misconduct under Shastry Award. In
result, he was issued the chargesheet dt. 04.02.1994, to
which he submitted his reply dt. 02.03.1994. On finding his
explanation unsatisfactory by the Disciplinary Authority,
the Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the
departmental enquiry into it. On the notices of the enquiry,
the departmental enquiry was held in the presence of the
workman long with his co-worker who was given full
opportunity for his defence by way of cross examination.
The Enquiry was conducted in accordance with principle
of natural justice. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority,
holding the workman guilty of one of the two charges
levelled against him. On supply of a copy of the Enquiry
Report, the explanation of the workman to it was considered
duly. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority had gone
through the enquiry proceedings and relevant papers, and
then he (Disciplinary Authority) agreed with/considered
the findings of the Enquiry Officer; then after giving the
workman another opportunity for his defence in his
personal hearing, the Disciplinary Authority after the
application of his mind dismissed the workman from the
service of the Bank w.e.f. 9.2.1998 in view of the gravity of
the misconduct which was legal and justified.
5. Further case of the OP/Management in its
simultaneous rejoinder has categorically denied all the
allegations of the workman as false and baseless, alleging
that the judgment of a Criminal Court of Law has got no
impact on the domestic enquiry on the basis of which the
Disciplinary action was taken in accordance with the settled
principles of Law. The proceedings of the Department and
the Court of the Criminal Jurisdiction are different; hence
any verdict of acquittal passed by a Criminal Court is no
ground to vitiate the findings arrived in the Departmental
proceedings. In that light, workman Mr. Verma had withdrew
his petition bearing No. CWJC 366/1999 (R) which was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
with a liberty for him to prefer an appeal against the
dismissal. The appeal filed by Shri Verma was also rejected
by the Appellate Authority as per the order dt. 14.12.2002.
The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principle
of natural justice as well as the procedure laid down in
Shastry/Desai Award/Bipartite Settlement. The claim
statement of the workman has no merits, as the workman
had admitted the charge in the personal hearing before the
Disciplinary Authority on 27.01.1998, prior to which he had
also pleaded on 23.11.2002 for condonation of his guilt.
Therefore, the charge levelled against him stood proved
by self confession. The Bank being a repository of Public
Trust & Money can not carry its business with the persons
like the workman of doubtful integrity as one aspects
Highest order of honesty and integrity, admittedly small
amount deposited by the Bankers Customers do not find
their ways into the Chuffers of the Bank, but land up in the
pocket of the employee, to say that the charge is not serious
or the embezzlement as unintentional would be
understatement. The dismissal of the workman by the Bank
Management in view of the gravity of his proved
misconduct is quite justified and legal. In such
circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief
whatsoever.
Findings with Reasons
6. In the instant reference, at the preliminary issue as to
the fairness of the domestic enquiry, on the examination of
MWI Ajay Kumar Gupta, the Manager JOR, as the Enquiry
Officer and WW Mithai Lal Verma, the workman, the
Tribunal as per its Order No. 41 dt. 28.08.13 held the
domestic enquiry proper and in accordance with principle
of natural justice.
In result, it came up for the hearing of arguments of
both the parties on merits. The argument advanced on
behalf of the workman Mithai Lal Verma is that at the
relevant time, he was working as the Messenger cum Guard
who had no power for cancellation of Draft or for opening
on account of a customer, so the charge sheet for that
issued against him was illegal. It is an acknowledged fact,
as submitted on behalf of the workman, as also stated by
Ajay Kumar Gupta (MWI) that an applicant like Sambhu
Prasad (the customer) is required to apply for the
cancellation of the Draft under his own signature. The
application for cancellation of the Draft is verified by an
Authorized Officer after the verification of it to his
satisfaction, the cancellation of the Draft is effected.
Likewise Banker cheque or an Account is encashed only
by the A/c Holder through the withdrawal from under his
signature following its due verification by the Officer
concerned. The indisputable statement of the MWI reveals
that though non appearance of Shambhu Pd. yet the
appearance of Om Prakash Gupta, one of the complainants
before him (MWI) beyond his recall, his enquiry report
refers the statement of Shambhu Prasad and other
(complainants). In such circumstances as submitted by
the workman, the allegations as levelled against the
workman stood unproved, as no evidence could be
adduced by the Management; as such the dismissal of the
workman on the ground alone is illegal and void abinitio;
thus the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back
wages in the ends of justice.
7. On the other hand just contrary to it, the contention
of Shri S.N. Goswami, Learned Counsel for the OP/
Management is that initially workman Mithai Lal Verma,
3758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
the Messenger cum Guard of the Bank Management was
chargesheeted for fraudulently obtaining the payment of
Rs. 2000/- by cancellation of Mango Branch Draft
dt. 13.11.1992 favouring Shri Shambhu Prasad drawn on
Chiriya Branch and 2nd charge fraudulently obtaining the
payment of undeliverd Bank Cheque dt. 28.03.1992 for Rs.
9031.35 by opening a S/B Account in the name of beneficiary
Om Prakash Narayan on different dates between 07.11.1992
to 23.11.1992 for misappropriation of Bank's money total
11,031.35, causing serious loss to the Bank amounting to
serious aspersions on his integrity and bonafide, resulting
prejudice to the interest of the Bank. Both the acts of the
concerned workman were gross misconducts under Sec.
521(4)(j) of Shastry/Desai Award as per rule. On finding his
reply dt. 02.03.1994 (Ext. M.2) unsatisfactory, the domestic
enquiry was hold by Mr. A.K. Gupta, the Enquiry Officer as
per the letter dt. 20.06.1994 (Ext.M.5).
After many notices of enquiry from 9.1.95 to 17.1.97 (Ext.
M. 6 series), the workman M.L. Verma appeared on the inquiry
on 24.1.1995 as per the enquiry proceeding (Ext. M.7);
thereafter the workman with his Defence Counsel P.K. Gupta
all along appeared in the enquiry. After due enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report dt. 12.06.1997
(Ext. M. 8), holding the workman guilty of his misconduct
under charge I only. The workman had also replied to the
A.G.M. the Disciplinary Authority as per his letter
Dt. 10.07.1997 (Ext. M.9). On the Show Cause Notice
dt. 9.1.1998 (Ext. M.10) to the workman for the proposed
punishment of dismissal for it the Disciplinary Authority,
Accordingly the response of the workman dt. 27.01.1998
(attached with the Show Cause) under his own signature, he
was dismissed without Notice in the terms of Para 521 (5)(a)
of Shastry/Desai Award as per the order dt. 9.2.98 of the
Disciplinary Authority (Ext. M.11). It is also contended on
behalf of the OP/Management that the workman even in his
appeal dt. 18.08.02 before the G.M. concerned (Ext. M.12)
had voluntarily and uncoercively accepted his own guilt.
Then at last the appeal of the workman was rejected by the
Appellate Authority as per Memo No. 14.12.02 (Ext. M.13).
8. Further contention of the Ld. Counsel Shri S.N.
Goswami for the OP/Management is that the acquittal of
the workman by Criminal Court could not debar the
employer/bank from exercising their jurisdiction in
accordance with its rules and regulations in force, as the
criminal and departmental proceedings as it is the settled
law of the land, are different, so his acquittal in the criminal
case for the aforesaid fraudulent acts of the same charge
does not ipso facto absolve him from his liability under the
Disciplinary Jurisdiction of the Bank. Mr. Goswami has
emphatically argued, relying on the case of Avinash
Sadhashiv Bhosle Vs. Union of India and other reported in
2012 FIR 564-(SC), that employers/staff/officers of the Bank
are required to exercise higher degree of honesty and
integrity. It deals with money of the depositors and
customers and to take possible steps to protect the interest
of the Bank and to discharge the duty with outmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence and not to do nothing
which is unbecoming of a Bank. As such the punishment
of acquittal Awarded to the workman by the Disciplinary
Authority for his aforesaid gross misconduct was legal
and justified.
In view of the aforesaid arguments, have perused the
materials available on the case record and found that
argument of Mr. S.N. Goswami outweights that of the
workman whose case has not at all any merits worth
considering.
9. In result, it is, in the terms of the Reference, hereby
responded and accordingly awarded that the action of the
management of State Bank of India in dismissal of the
workman Shri Mithai Lal Verma from his service is quite
legal and justified in view of the nature of his gross
misconduct under charge I of fraudulently obtaining the
payment by cancelling Mango Branch Draft dt. 13.11.1992
for Rs. 2000/- concerning Shri Sambhu Prasad drawn on
Chiriya Branch at the relevant time. Hence the concerned
applicant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1799-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsokl 'kkgtgkiqj
{ks=h; xzkehu cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 124@99½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@09@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@104@98 & vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2015
S.O. 1799.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 124/99) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/09/2015.
[No. L-12012/104/98-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3759
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/124/99
General Secretary,
Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
Karmik Association,
11-A, Amarkuti, Station Road,
Dewas (MP)
....Workman/Union
Versus
The Chairman,
Dewas Shajapur, Kshetriya Gramin Bank
DSKG, Head Office,
Madan Mansion, Station Road,
Dewas (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of July, 2015
1. As per letter dated 12.3.99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
104/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:—
"Whether the action of the management of Chairman,
Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank in reducing
the basic pay of Shri Shobaram S/o Durgprasad Goel
from Rs. 1600 to Rs. 950 w.e.f. 8.2.96 and also not paid
the arrears of suspension period from 20.12.93 to
8.2.96 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled for?"
2. After receving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman failed to submit statement of
claim. Workman is proceeded exparte on 4.4.2011.
3. Management of 2nd party filed Written Statement.
Case of 2nd party is that despite of directions of the Tribunal.
Workman has failed to submit statement of claim. Workman
was appointed as clerk cum cashier in Bank. He was working
at Agar Malwa branch of the Bank. Chargesheet was issued
to workman on 2.5.94. The charges relating to amount
deposited by Account Holder Shri Shivram Rs. 2150/- was
not recorded in pass book and ledger. The amount was
deposited in Bank on 8.12.93. Unauthorized absence of
workman from 6.12.93 to 7.12.93-misbehaviour with the
account holders, staff and public, misappropriation of
Rs. 15/- from Saving Account No. 1218 of Kayumiyan. At
the time of inspection by General Manager on 20.12.93
during cash verification found less amount of Rs. 40292/-.
Chargesheet was issued to workman. Enquiry Officer
Sandeep Bhatnagar was appointed as Enquiry Officer and
Shri N.A. Keveshi as Management's Representative. Shri
B.D. Tiwari was defence Assistant. The punishment were
imposed after recording evidence and findings submitted
by Enquiry Officer. Pay of workman was reduced from
Rs. 1600 to 950. The punishment is legal. Workman not
participated in the reference.
4. Management's witness Shri Radhakrishna Gupta
filed affidavit of evidence. The witness of management
was not cross-examined. Copies of Enquriy Proceedings
are produced. As workman failed to participate in reference
proceeding, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
5. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Chairman,
Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank in
reducing the basic pay of Shri Shobaram S/o
Durgprasad Goel from Rs. 1600 to Rs. 950 w.e.f.
8-2-96 and also not paid the arrears of
suspension period from 20.12.93 to 8.2.96 is
not proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1800-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
p.MhxM+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 197@1990½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-09-2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@179@90&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I)]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2015
S.O. 1800.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 197/1990)
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 State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04.09.2015.
[No. L-12012/179/90-IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
3760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNUXRE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 197/1990
Reference No. L-12012/179/90-IR(B-3) dated 04.12.1990
Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal
C/o General Secretary,
S.B.I. Staff Congress,
3135, Sector 22-D,
Chandigarh.
.... Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India, Region-II,
Regional Office, Post Box No. 13,
Court Road, Lower Lakkar Bazar,
Shimla-171002.
.... Respondent
APPEARANCE
For the workman
: Shri R.P. Rana, Advocate
For the management
: Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on 28.08.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification L-12012/179/90-IR(B-3) dated 04.12.1990 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India in treating the workman Shri Sanjeev
Aggarwal, cashier at Taruwal Branch, H.P., as having
voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank w.e.f
7.8.1988 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Parties appeared, the workman filed claim
statement asserting therein that he was appointed clerk-
cum-cashier at Taruwal Branch after having passed the
recruitment test at Shimla. Workman fell sick in the month
of August, 1988 and he had to go on leave from that date.
He submitted leave application and also the medical
certificate from Phil-delphi hospital Ambala Cantt. where
he was treated for back-che problem. Leave applications
along with medical certificate were submitted to the bank.
Workman after being fit went to Taruwal branch for joining
duties on 25.3.1989 along with the medical certificate issued
by the Phil-delphi Hospital Ambala Cantt. In the way the
workman met with an accident and informed the branch
management who reached the clinic of Dr. Jagjit Singh at
Ponta. Workman took first aid and accordingly the
application for further leave was submitted by the workman
for whole of the period from 24.3.1989 to 4th of June, 1989
the workman was advised rest by the doctors. The
necessary medical certificate along with leave applications
were submitted by the workman to the management bank.
On 5.6.1989 workman reported for duty at Taruwal branch
but he was not allowed and advised that he has been treated
as having voluntarily retired from service. Workman also
submitted in his claim statement that during the period he
has met with the accidence received a letter dated 22.4.1989
from the Regional Manager. Workman replied that letter.
The Regional Manager did not consider the reply of the
workman that when he went to join the duties he was not
allowed to join duties. Workman also stated in his claim
statement that there can not be any voluntary retirement
unless opted for by the workman. The intention of the
workman to serve with the bank is clear from the facts that
he submitted the leave applications along with medical
certificates from time to time and there was no reason for
treating him as voluntarily retired. The workman can not
said to be unauthorisedly absent because he submitted
the leave application along with medical certificates from
8.8.1988 to 4th of June, 1989 and there cannot be any
voluntary retirement without the request of the employee
and cannot be voluntary abandonment unless there is
unauthorized absence. The management bank at no time
question the validity of the medical certificates. The
workman regularly submitted that the workman went to
join duties on 25.3.1989 and had to remain on leave due to
accident. The management's action is illegal and unjustified.
The workman prayed that the action of the management in
treating the workman as having voluntarily retired be
declared illegal, unjustified and act of unfair labour practice
and workman may be declared to be continuing in service
and be reinstated with retrospective effect with full back
wages, seniority and all other consequential benefits.
3. The management opposed the claim statement and
filed written statement. In written reply the management
submitted that workman remained absent from service w.e.f.
8.8.1988 to 25.3.1989 unauthorisedly without sanction of
any leave. The workman however sent medical certificate
along with leave application by ordinary post which was
received at the branch on 5th of May 1989 after his name
had been struck off from the pay roll of the bank for
voluntarily abandoned the service of the bank. For the
interventing period from 8.8.1988 to 25.3.1989 the
management bank sent letter dated 26.10.1988 by registered
post advising him to join his duty within three days and
explain the reasons for his absence from duty. Workman
was further advised to produce a certificate from Chief
Medical Officer about his illness and also fitness certificate
before joining his duty. Workman failed to join duty within
stipulated period and failed to submit medical certificate
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3761
from Chief Medical Officer. Thereafter, the workman sent
another registered notice dated 23.1.1989 calling upon the
workman to report for duty. He was further advised vide
this letter that if the workman failed to reports for duty
within 30 days from the date of notice, it shall be presumed
that he has voluntarily retired from service on the expiry of
the notice. Workman again failed to report for duty within
the notice period. Another branch letter dated 22.4.1989
was sent to the workman by ordinary post by UPC and
registered AD in which he was advised that he has been
deemed to have voluntarily retired from service 8.8.1988. It
was further advised to pay one month's pay and allowance
in lieu of notice, which he failed to give before voluntarily
retiring from the service of the bank. The workman failed to
pay wages in lieu of notice till date and he is liable to pay
the same to the bank. The plea of the workman that he
could not join duty because of illness and in support
thereof he submitted leave application dated 11.4.1989,
25.3.1989 and 10.4.1989. The application for grant of leave
on medical ground is dated 11.4.1989 which is sent after
his name has been struck off from the roll of the bank for
having voluntarily abandoned the service of the bank
despite letters, reminders and notices sent to him during
the period of his absence from time to time. After his
application dated 11.4.1989, there was no communication
from the workman till 9.6.1989, thus workman remained
absent from duty for more than 90 days unauthorisedly
and as per the agreement, the respondent bank has rightly
treated him as voluntarily having vacated the job. With
these averments management requested for dismissal of
the claim petition of the workman.
4. In evidence, workman filed his own affidavit as
Ex. W1. He also relied on documents Ex. W2 to W 10. The
workman also produce affidavit of Dr. K.G. Gupta who filed
his affidavit Ex. W11. In rebuttal the management filed
affidavit of Shri S.P. Sood Dy. Manager SBI Region-II, Zonal
Office Shimla as Ex. M 1 who also relied on documents
Ex. M 2 and M 3. The management produced another
witness Shri P.K. Sandliya Branch Manager SBI Taruwal
Branch who filed his affidavit Ex. M 3 and relied on extract
of Bipartite settlement Clause XVI as Ex. M 5.
5. After hearing the parties, this Tribunal vide its award
dated 16.7.2002 rejected the claim of workman holding that
action of the management in voluntarily retiring the
workman from the service of the bank .w.e.f. 8.8.1988 is
justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief. The
workman against this award dated 16.7.2002 moved CWP
No. 1775 of 2002 in Hon'ble High Courts of Himachal
Pradesh. The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide
its judgment dated 28.5.2007 rejected the Civil Writ petition.
Workman moved before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble
Himachal High Court in LPA No. 126 of 2007. The Hon'ble
Division Bench vide judgment dated 30.7.2015 allowed the
letter Patent Appeal of the workman and set aside the
impunged judgment and the award dated 16.7.2002 of this
Tribunal and directed this Tribunal to decide the matter
afresh within two months from 1.8.2015. In compliance of
the order dated 30.7.2015 passed in LPA No. 126 of 2007,
the reference was registered on its original number. Parties
appeared and during the hearing stated that they do not
want to lead evidence in addition to evidence already on
record.
6. In view of the above, I have heard arguments of the
parties, gone through the evidence and record.
7. MWI S.P. Sood, Deputy Manager State Bank of
India, Zonal Office, Shimla stated in his cross-examination
that "I am dealing with this case from the date of my joining
i.e. 15.5.1993. Unauthorized absence is not a misconduct. I
can not say whether all the leave applications sent by the
workman were submitted to the Zonal Office by the Branch
Manager. No order of termination was passed."
8. The extract of Bipartite Settlement Clause XVI has
been produced by the management on record (Ex. M 5)
which reads as under:
"XVI VOLUNTARY CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT
BY THE EMPLOYEES:
In supersession of clause 2 of the Settlement dated
8th September, 1983 the following shall apply:—
Where an employee has not submitted any
application for leave and absents himself from work
for a period of 90 or more consecutive days without
or beyond any leave to his credit or absent himself
for 90 or more consecutive days beyond the period
of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently
extended or where there is satisfactory evidence that
he has taken up employment in India or the
management is satisfied that he has not present
intention of joining duties, the management may at
any time, thereafter give a notice to the employee's
last known address calling upon the employee to
report for duty within 30 days of the notice, stating,
inter alia, the ground for the management coming to
the conclusion that the employee has no intention
of joining duties and furnishing necessary evidence,
where available. Unless the employee reports for
duty within 30 days or unless he gives an explanation
for his absence satisfying the management that he
has not taken up another employment or avocation
and that he has no intention of not joining duties,
the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily
retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the
said notice. In the event of the employee submitting
a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report
for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of
the expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice
to the bank's right to take any action under the law or
rules of service....."
3762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
9. The management sent notice dated 26.10.1988
(Ex. W3) calling upon the workman to join within three
days and notice dated 23.1.1989 (Ex. W4) again calling the
workman to report for duty within 30 days. Thereafter notice
dated 22.4.1989 (Ex. W6) was sent wherein it was no where
mentioned that the workman is not interested to join duty.
Hon'ble High Court in the judgment dated 30.7.2015 passed
in LPA No. 126 of 2007 at page 11 has clearly recorded the
findings that in the notices, it is no where recorded that
bank authorities have recorded its satisfaction. Thus, the
compliance of Clause XVI of Bipartite Settlement (Ex. M5)
referred above has not been complied with by the bank
management. Particularly in the present case when the
workman explained that he was ill and getting treatment
from Dr. K.G. Gupta Mission Hospital Ambala cantt.
Dr. K.G. Gupta submitted his affidavit wherein he has
mentioned that Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal developed pain in
the backbone and lumber region while he was working at
Taruwal Branch of SBI and he remained under his treatment
from 8.8.1988 continuously and before that intermittently
he was advised complete bed rest. He further stated in his
affidavit that in the year 1989 he was found fit to resume
duty .w.e.f. 25.3.1989. On 26.3.1989 Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal
reported in the Hospital having multiple injuries on his
body. He told that while on the way to Taruwal he met with
an accident and got first-aid treatment from Dr. J.S. Jagga.
Dr. Gupta in his affidavit also mentioned that he took the
workman under his treatment and issued further certificate
for sanctioning of medical leaves. Workman Sanjeev
Aggarwal in his affidavit mentioned that he went to Taruwal
to join duty on 25.3.1989 but he met with an accident while
on the way and got himself medically treated by Dr. Jagjit
Singh who gave him first aid required. Workman also
mentioned in his affidavit that he again submitted the leave
application accompanied by the medical certificate issued
by the Philodelphia Hospital where he was treated for the
injuries caused due to accident. From the above it has no
where shown that workman expressed his intention to quit
the job or to seek voluntary retirement. In these
circumstances, the management was required to comply
with the Clause XVI of the Bipartite settlement reproduced
above which the management failed to comply with.
10. The management cited 2009 (4) RSJ page 652
Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Anita Nandrajog.
The facts and circumstances of the case law cited are quite
different from the facts and circumstances of the case in
hand, therefore, not applicable.
11. The management cited 2005(3) RSJ page 136 Viveka
Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman J&K Bank Ltd. and others and
2000(5) SCC Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary,
Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another. The above
case laws have already been considered by the division
Bench of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in LPA
No. 126 of 2007 decided on 30.7.2015.
12. The management cited another case law reported
in (2001) ISCC page 214 Punjab & Sind Bank and others Vs.
Sakattar Singh. The facts and circumstances of the above
case law are quite different from the facts of the case in
hand, hence the principle laid down is also not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, it is held that the management failed to comply
with the clause XVI of the Bipartite Settlement while passing
the order of voluntary Cessation of employment of the
workman Sanjeev Aggarwal w.e.f. 7.8.1988. It is also admitted
case of the parties that no enquiry was conducted against
the workman for his absence. In view of the above the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service without
back wages. Consequently, the management is directed to
reinstate the workman within one month from the date of
publication of the award.
14. The reference is answered accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent o the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
28.08.2015
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1801-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr]
fnYyh uxj fuxe] ¼nf{k.k½ ubZ fnYyh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] fnYyh ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 111@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 03@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@74@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2015
S.O. 1801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 111/2013)
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 Commissioner, MCD (South), New Delhi
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 03/09/2015.
[No. L-42011/74/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3763
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NO. 1,
KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID NO. 111/2013
Shri Ramesh Chand,
S/o late Shri Shrichand,
Through MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No. 95, Barrack No. 1/10,
Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi
.... Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South),
9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110 002
.... Management
Reference under Section 10 sub-section (2A) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) was received
from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and
Employment vide it orders No. L-42011/74/2013-IR(DU)
dated 22.07.2013 for adjudication of the industrial dispute
with the following terms:—
"Whether the action of the management of MCD in
not granting pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 with effect
from 01.01.1997 and revised from time to time alon
gwith all consequential benefits to workman
Shri Ramesh, S/o late Shri Shrichand, officiating
Chaudhary is fair and justified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?"
2. Both the parties were put to notice and the workman
Shri Ramesh Chand filed his statement of claim, wherein it
is alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary
with effect from 01.01.1997 by the competent officers of
Horticulture Department. He was posted in Green Park under
South Zone to work under Director of Horticulture. However,
he has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from
time to time. His qualification is 10th pass (Agriculture)
through no such qualification is prescribed for promotion
to the post of Garden Chaudhary. The workman has got
payment of salary in the lower pay scale of mali, i.e.
Rs. 2550-3200 revised from time to time and has been denied
the scale of Chaudhary, i.e. Rs. 3050-4590 for his performing
the duty of Chaudhary with effect from 02.01.1998. Action
of the management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and
amounts to unfair labour practice.
3. It is also averred in para 6 of the statement of claim
that Hon'ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai Chand
vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has
disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis
who are working on the post of Chaudhary vide its
judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of
the Hon'ble Court. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.
ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort.)/DA-VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005
(Annexure B). There is also reference to the judgement of
Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the matter of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan Singh wherein
also plea of the MCD regarding non-payment of wages of
Chaudhary to malis who are doing working of Chaudhary,
was turned down by the Hon'ble High Court in judgement
dated 27.07.2011.
4. It is also averred that similar situated workmen (Mali
and Chowkidar) who were performing duty of Chaudhary
were granted pay scale of Chaudhary from the date when
they were asked to perform duty on the higher post and
management has challenged the order dated 27.07.2011 of
the Labour Court in the matter of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as
well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by Special
Leave to Appeal No. S20069/2011 and the plea by MCD all
the time has been dismissed by both, before the High Court
as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Workman herein is
also similarly situated and doing work of Chaudhary and
as such entitled to same benefits.
5. Management has demurred claim of the workman
by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, present dispute
is not an industrial dispute and no demand notice has been
served upon the management, MCD General Mazdoor
Sangh has not locus standi to raise the present dispute as
the said union is not a recognized of the management. In
para 5 of the preliminary objection, it is admitted that the
workman herein was engaged on the post of mali on daily
wage basis and was later on regularized on the same post
of mali in the pay scale Rs. 750-940 (pre-revised) + usual
allowances. There is prescribed procedure for promotion
to the post of Garden Chaudhary and there must be
sanctioned/vacant post of Garden Chaudhary to which
the workman can lay claim when he has passed trade test
conducted by the department. Claimant has not passed
the said trade test nor is he performing duties of Garden
Chaudhary. No such office order has been issued by the
competent authority. It is further alleged that the workman
herein is not entitled for any relief on account of delay and
laches and reliance is also put on judgements of the Apex
Court in the case of 'Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs.
K.P. Madhavankutty & ors' [2002 (2) SC 4] and State Co-op
Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam [(2005) 5 SC 91].
Management, or merits, have denied material averments
and reiterated that the workman herein appeared in the
trade test conducted by Education Consultant India Limited
on behalf of the management, in which the workman had
secured 140th rank. It is, further submitted that only
50 employees were promoted to the post of Chaudhary,
who were having requisite qualification as well as secured
3764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
rank upto 50. It is also denied that the workman herein was
performing duties of Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1997.
Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the workman herein
is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
6. Against this factual background, the Tribunal, on
the basis of pleading of the parties, framed the following
issues:—
(i) Whether a stale claim has been referred the
adjudication? It yes, its effects.
(ii) Whether dispute has not acquired status of
an industrial disputes for want of service of
demand notice on the management?
(iii) Whether dispute has not acquired status of
an industrial dispute for want of espousal?
(iv) As in terms of reference.
Findings on Issue No. (i)
7. Admittedly, in the present case, reference has been
made under Section 10 sub-section (2A) of the Act for
adjudication. It is now well settled position in law that
when a reference has been made for adjudication to the
Tribunal or Labour Court, as the case may be, it is paramount
duty of the court to decide the same on merits, irrespective
of the pleas taken by the management. The dispute in the
case in hand cannot be said to be stale for the simple reason
that there is no previous adjudication of the matter between
the parties from a competent court nor that there is
inordinate delay in approaching this Tribunal by the
workman.
8. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager (2014) Lab.
I.C. 4266 = (2014) 10 SCC 301 that a reference for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal can be made by the
appropriate Government at any time and provisions of
Limitation Act does not apply. There are clear observations
in the above judgement that industrial dispute is to be
decided by the Tribunal or Labour Court on merits,
irrespective of the pleadings on limits. Therefore, ratio of
law in the case of 'Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P.
Madhavankutty & ors' (supra) and State Co-op Land
Development Bank Vs. Neelam (supra) is not applicable to
the case in hand as there is no inordinate delay nor workman
is guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the workman
and against the management.
Findings on Issue No. (ii) and (iii)
9. Both these issues are being taken up together for
the purpose of discussion as well as disposal as they are
inter-related. It is clear from the preliminary objections taken
in the written statement by the management that the
management has raised objections that no demand notice
has been served upon the management nor the MCD
General Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the
present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of
the management. To my mind, there is no requirement of
law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union.
In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs.
Kripa Shankar Jaiswal AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein
also objection was taken on behalf of the management that
the union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act
on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by
observing as under:—
“Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial
dispute it is not a require condition that it should be
sponsored by a recognized union or that all the
workmen of an industrial establishment should be
parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of
conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a)
and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such
binds all the workmen though an unregistered union
or only some of workmen may have raised the
dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2)
by the Conciliation Officer does not affect the
jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only
purpose is to apprise the establishment that the
person who is coming is the conciliation officer and
not a stranger. Any contravention of section 12(6) in
not submitting the report within 14 days may be a
breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer;
it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which
terminated as provided in section 20(2) of the Act.”
10. Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the
management that the present dispute is no sponsored or
espoused by substantial number of workmen. It is fairly
settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by
the union would not deprive the workman of the relief to
which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law.
Such view appears to have been taken in the case of Nazrul
Hassan Siddiqui vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial-cum-
Labour Court Bombay (1197) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above
cited case also contention was raised by the management
that the dispute does not fall within the definition of
'industrial dispute' and the same has not been referred or
supported by substantial section of workmen. High Court
rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC
777), which it was observed as under:—
“We have already noticed that an industrial dispute
can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union
even though neither of them represent the majority
of the workmen concerned; in other words, the
majority rule on which the appellant's construction
of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter
of the reference under Section 10 of the Act. Even a
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3765
minority group of workmen can make a demand and
thereby raise an industrial dispute which in a proper
case would be referred or adjudication under
Section 20.”
11. In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed
above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by the union is
not sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms
of Section 10 of the Act. Consequently, both these issues
are decided in favour of the workman and against the
management.
Finding on Issue No.4
12. Now, the main issue which requires determination
in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is entitled
for grant of pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 as revised from time
to time along with consequential benefits. It is clear from
pleadings of the parties that initially the workman herein
was appointed as mali on daily wage basis and later on he
was regularized on the same post of mali in the pay scale of
Rs. 750-940 (pre-revised) along with usual allowances. This
fact has been admitted even by the management in para 5
of the preliminary objections.
13. There is also ample evidence on record that the
workman herein was performing duty as officiating
Chaudhary. It is clear from perusal of document dated
12.08.2004 (List of Chaudharys working in Udhyah Vibhag)
Ex. WW1/1 that name of the workman, Shri Ramesh Chand
finds mention at serial No. 31 and working as Chaudhary
since January, 1997. Workman, in order to prove his case,
has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. WW1/A, wherein
material averments contained in statement of claim has been
reiterated. It is specifically alleged in the affidavit that he
was doing work of acting Chaudhary with effect from
01.01.1997. There are also averments in his affidavit that
one Shri Jai Chand has also been granted pay-scale of
Chaudhary by the management of MCD and Sultan Singh
and others Vs. MCD, who were doing work of acting
Chaudhary, vide Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, i.e.
in the case of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Others and
necessary orders for implementation of the said Judgement
were issued by MCD vide order dated 04.06.2013. There is
no cross examination of the workman/deponent that he
has appeared as WW1 and has tendered in evidence a
copy of his identity card, which is Ex. WW1/4. It is evident
from perusal of the Identity Card that against the column
'Designation', there is mention of workmen Chaudhary,
Horticulture. The workman has also tendered in evidence
extracts of attendance registers Ex. WW1/9 for August,
2013, Ex.WW1/10 for September, 2013 and ex.WW1/11 for
October, 2013, which shows that the workman Shri Ramesh
Chand was performing duties of Chaudhary. Workman has
also tendered in evidence extract of attendance Ex. WW1/5,
Ex.WW1/6, ExWW1/7, and Ex.WW1/8, which shows that
he was performing functions of Chaudhary.
14. There is no merit in the stand taken by the
management in its reply, that the workman here is not entitled
for promotion to the post of Chaudhary inasmuch as he
has not qualified the requisite test for the same and in the
test conducted by the department, his name figures at serial
No.140. The said test is alleged to be conducted by
Education Consultant India Ltd. on behalf on the
management. To my mind, this plea is devoid of any merit
inasmuch as similarly situated other workers who were
performing duties of Chaudhary, i.e. acting Chaudhary have
been granted pay-scale of Garden Chaudhary after
judgement dated 27.07.2011 rendered by the Hon'ble High
Court in the case of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD
Vs. Mahipal (WP 5550 of 2010). Operating portion of the
judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon'ble Division
Bench is as under:—
"28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances
it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have
always been that they should be paid the difference
in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary
as they were made to work on the post of Garden
Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied
that they worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took
the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture)
was not competent to ask the respondents to work
as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents
cannot be appointed to the post of Garden
Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules.
There is no doubt that respondents are not claiming
appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on
account of having worked on ad-hoc basis on the
post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that
some of them not having the requisite qualifications
are entitled for relaxation.
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances,
therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
failed to make out any such grounds which will impel
this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under article 226
of the Constitution to set aside the orders of the
Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October,
2010 as no illegality or un-sustainability or perversity
in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.
30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties
are left to bear their own cost."
15. It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD
before the Hon'b'le Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special
leave S20069/2011 MCD Vs. Sultan Singh and other which
was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon'ble High Court in
Sultan Singh case strongly deprecated the stand taken by
the management that the workmen were not possessing
requisite qualification or have not qualified the test etc. It
was clarified that since the workmen were discharging
duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, as such, workmen
were entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and
competent authority need not look into anything else except
3766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
the fact that the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary.
Therefore, stand taken by the management that the
workman herein could not qualify the test conducted by
Education Consultant India Limited is without any merit
and has no relevance so far as question of grant of salary
against the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.
16. It is not out of place to mention here that even if
the workman herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case
referred above, judgement of the Hon'ble High Court is
binding on the management and management is required
to implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is
judgement in rem, and all similar situated workmen are
required to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement
of the Hon'ble High Court, which have become final. There
is no question of even plea of delay and laches when
management had not led any evidence to prove the same.
The Hon'ble High Court has decided an abstract
proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as
officiating/acting Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages
of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working
on a higher post, on ad-hoc or temporary basis, even such
workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless
rules or regulations specifically provides owtherwise. I find
support to this view from Secretary Vs. Lieutenant Governor
Port Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon'ble
Apex Court while considering that question of grant of
benefits to similary situated employees who were not party
to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as
under.
"The moot question which requires determination is
as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal
and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of
earlier judgement of the Tribunal, which had attained finality
as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles
that can be culled from the judgements, cited both by the
appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up
as under:—
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the Court, all other
identically situated persons need to be treated
alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. This principle needs to be applied in
service matters more emphatically as the
service jurisprudence evolved by this Court
from time to time postulates that all similarly
situated persons should be treated similarly.
Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely
because other similarly situated persons did
not approach the Court earlier, they are not to
be treated differently.
(2) However, this principle is subject to well
recognized exceptions in the form of laches
and delays as well as acquiescence. Those
persons who did not challenge the wrongful
action in their cases and acquiesced into the
same and woke up after long delay only
because of the reason that their counterparts
who had approached the Court earlier in time
succeeded in their efforts, then such
employees cannot claim that the benefit of the
judgement rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They
would be treated as fence-sitters and laches
and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would
be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in
those cases where the judgement pronounced
by the Court was judgment in rem with
intention to give benefit to all similarly
situated persons, whether they approached
the Court or not. With such a pronouncement
the obligation is cast upon the authorities to
itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly
situated person. Such a situation can occur
when the subject matter of the decision
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme
of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma
& Ors. Vs. Union of India (supra). On the other
hand, if the judgment of the court was in
personam holding that benefit of the said
judgment shall accrue to the parties before
the Court and such an intention is stated
expressly in the judgment or it can be
impliedly found out from the tenor and
language of the judgment, those who want to
get the benefit of the said judgment extended
to them shall have to satisfy that their petition
does not suffer from either laches and delays
or acquiescence."
17. In view of the discussions made herein above, it is
held that the workman is entitled to the pay scale of Garden
Chaudhary with effect from January, 1997 and as a corollary,
management is liable pay the difference of wages of mali
vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the
workman herein was performing duties and functions of
Garden Chaudhary till 03.03.2014, the date he was promoted
as Garden Chaudhary. 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
Dated : September 1, 2015
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3767
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1802-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] ¼1947 dk 14½
dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr] fnYyh uxj
fuxe ¼nf{k.k½] ubZ fnYyh 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;] uañ 1] fnYyh ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 109@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 03@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@73@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2015
S.O. 1802.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 109/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. 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 Commissioner, MCD (South), New Delhi
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03/09/2015.
[No. L-42011/73/2013 - 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. 109/2013
Shri Suresh,
S/o late Shri Hari Ram,
Through MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No. 95, Barrack No. 1/10.
Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi
.... Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corproation of Delhi (South),
9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi 110 002
.... Management
Reference under Section 10 sub-section (2A) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) was received
from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and
Employment vide it orders No. L-42011/73/2013-IR(DU)
dated 22.07.2013 for adjudication of the industrial dispute
with the following terms:—
“Whether the action of the management of MCD in
not granting pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 with effect
from 01.01.1997 and revised from time to time
alongwith all consequential benefits to workman Shri
Suresh, S/o late Shri Hari Ram, officiating Chaudhary
is fair and justified? To what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?”
2. Both the parties were put to notice and the workman
Shri Suresh filed his statement of claim, wherein it is alleged
that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect
from 02.01.1998 by the competent officers of Horticulture
Department. He was posted in Green Park under South
Zone to work under Director of Horticulture. However, he
has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time
to time. His qualification is 10th pass (Agriculture) though
no such qualification is prescribed for promotion to the
post of Garden Chaudhary. The workman has got payment
of salary in the lower pay scale of mali, i.e. Rs. 2550-3200
revised from time to time and has been denied the scale of
Chaudhary, i.e. Rs. 3050-4590 for his performing the duty
of Chaudhary with effect from 02.01.1998. Action of the
management is alleged to be illegal and unjustified and
amounts to unfair labour practice.
3. It is also averred in para 6 of the statement of claim
that Hon'ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai Chand
Vs. Municipal Corproation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has
disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis
who are working on the post of Chaudhary, vide its
judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of
the Hon'ble Court, Municipal Corproation of Delhi
(Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.
ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005
(Annexure B). There is also reference to the judgment of
Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the matter of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sultan Singh wherein
also plea of the MCD regarding non-payment of wages of
Chaudhary to malis who are doing working of Chaudhary,
was turned down by the Hon'ble High Court in judgement
dated 27.07.2011.
4. It is also averred that similar situated workmen (Mali
and Chowkidar) who were performing duty of Chaudhary
were granted pay scale of Chaudhary from the date when
they were asked to perform duty on the higher post and
management has challenged the order dated 27.07.2011 of
the Labour Court in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh as
well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by Special
Leave to Appeal No. S20069/2011 and the plea by MCD all
the time has been dismissed by both, before the High Court
as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Workman herein is
also similarly situated and doing work of Chaudhary and
as such entitled to same benefits.
3768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
5. Management has demurred claim of the workman
by taking preliminary objections, inter-alia, present dispute
is not an industrial dispute and no demand notice has been
served upon the management, MCD General Mazdoor
Sangh has not locus standi to raise the present dispute as
the said union is not a recognized of the management. In
para 5 of the preliminary objection, it is admitted that the
workman herein was engaged on the post of mali on daily
wage basis and was later on regularized on the same post
of mali in the pay scale Rs. 750-940 (pre-revised)+usual
allowances. There is prescribed procedure for promotion
to the post of Garden Chaudhary and there must be
sanctioned/vacant post of Garden Chaudhary to which
the workman can lay claim when he has passed trade test
conducted by the department. Claimant has not passed
the said trade test nor is he performing duties of Garden
Chaudhary. No such office order has been issued by the
competent authority. It is further alleged that the workman
herein is not entitled for any relief on account of delay and
laches and reliance is also put on judgements of the Apex
Court in the case of 'Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P.
Madhavankutty & Ors' [2002(2) SC 4] and State Co-op
Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam [2005 (5) SC 91].
Management, on merits, have denied material averments
and reiterated that the workman herein appeared in the
trade test conducted by Education Consultant India Limited
on behalf of the management, in which the workman had
secured 99th rank. It is, further submitted that only 50
employees were promoted to the post of Chaudhary, who
were having requisite qualification as well as secured rank
upto 50. It is also denied that the workman herein was
performing duties of Chaudhary with effect from 16.07.1997.
Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the workman herein
is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
6. Against this factual background, the Tribunal, on
the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following
issues:
(i) Whether a stale claim has been referred for
adjudication? If yes, its effects.
(ii) Whether dispute has not acquired status of
an industrial dispute for want of service of
demand notice on the management?
(iii) Whether dispute has not acquired status of
an industrial dispute for want of espousal?
(iv) As in terms of reference
Findings on Issue No. (i)
7. Admittedly, in the present case, reference has been
made under Section 10 sub-section (2A) of the Act for
adjudication. It is now well settled position in law that
when a reference has been made for adjudication to the
Tribunal or Labour Court, as the case may be, it is paramount
duty of the court to decide the same on merits, irrespective
of the plea taken by the management. The dispute in the
case in hand cannot be said to be stale for the simple reason
that there is no previous adjudication of the matter between
the parties from a Competent Court nor that there is
inordinate delay in approaching this Tribunal by the
workman.
8. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager (2014) Lab.I.C.
4266=(2014) 10 SCC 301 that a reference for adjudication to
the Industrial Tribunal can be made by the appropriate
Government at any time and provisions of Limitation Act
does not apply. There are clear observations in the above
judgement that industrial dispute is to be decided by the
Tribunal or Labur Court on merits, irrespective of the
pleadings on limits. Therefore, ratio of law in the case of
'Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors'
(supra) and State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs.
Neelam (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand as
there is no inordinate delay nor workman is guilty of delay
and laches in approaching the court. Accordingly, this
issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the
management.
Findings on Issues Nos. (ii) and (iii)
9. Both these issues are being taken up together for
the purpose of discussion as well as disposal as they are
inter-related. It is clear from the preliminary objections taken
in the written statement by the management that the
management has raised objections that no demand notice
has been served upon the management nor the MCD
General Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the
present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of
the management. To my mind, there is no requirement of
law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union.
In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs.
Kripa Shankar Jaiswal [(AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1] wherein
also objection was taken on behalf of the management that
the union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act
on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by
observing as under:—
“Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial
dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should
be sponsored by a recognized union or that all the
workmen of an industrial establishment should be
parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of
conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a)
and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such
binds all the workmen though an unregistered union
or only some of workmen may have raised the
dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2)
by the Conciliation Officer does not affect the
jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only
purpose is to apprise the establishment that the
person who is coming is the conciliation officer and
not a stranger. Any contravention of Section 12(6) in
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3769
not submitting the report within 14 days may be a
breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer;
it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which
terminated as provided in Section 20(2) of the Act.”
10. Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the
management that the present dispute is no sponsored or
espoused by substantial number of workmen. It is fairly
settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by
the union would not deprive the workman of the relief to
which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law.
Such view appears to have been taken in the case of Nazrul
Hassan Siddiqui Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial cum
Labour Court Bombay (1997) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above
cited case also contention was raised by the management
that the dispute dies not fall within the definition of
'industrial dispute' and the same has not been referred or
supported by substantial section of workmen. High Court
rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC
777), which it was observed as under:—
“We have already noticed that an industrial dispute
can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union
even though neither of them represent the majority
of the workmen concerned; in other words, the
majority rule on which the appellant's construction
of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter
of the reference under Section 10 of the Act. Even a
minority group of workmen can make a demand and
thereby raise an industrial dispute which in a
proper case would be referred or adjudication under
Section 20.”
11. In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed
above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by the union is
not sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms
of Section 10 of the Act. Consequently, both these issues
are decided in favour of the workman and against the
management.
Findings on Issue No.4
12. Now, the main issue which requires determination
in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is entitled
for grant of pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 as revised from time
to time along with consequential benefits. It is clear from
pleadings of the parties that initially the workman herein
was appointed as mali on daily wage basis and later on he
was regularized on the same post of mali in the pay scale of
Rs. 750-940 (pre-revised) alongwith usual allowances. This
fact has been admitted even by the management in para 5
of the preliminary objections.
13. There is also ample evidence on record that the
workman herein was performing duty as officiating
Chaudhary. It is clear from perusal of document dated
12.08.2004 (List of Chaudharys working in Udhyah Vibhag)
Ex.WW1/6 that name of the workman, Shri Suresh Kumar,
finds mention at serial No. 38 and working as Chaudhary
since January 1998. Workman, in order to prove his case,
has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein
material averments contained in statement of claim has been
reiterated. It is specifically alleged in the affidavit that he
was doing work of acting Chaudhary with effect from
02.01.1998. There are also averments in his affidavit that
one Shri Jai Chand has also been granted pay scale of
Chaudhary by the management of MCD and Sultan Singh
and others Vs. MCD, who were doing work of acting
Chaudhary, vide judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, i.e.
in the case of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Others and
necessary orders for implementation of the said judgement
were issued by MCD vide order dated 04.06.2013. There is
no cross examination of the workman/deponent that he
has appeared as WW1 and has tendered in evidence a
copy of his identity card, which is Ex.WW1/1. It is evident
from perusal of the Identity Card that against the column
'Designation (Padh)', there is mention of Karyavahak
Chaudhary, Udhyan Vibhagh. The workman has also
tendered in evidence extracts of attendance registers
Rx.WW1/2 for November 2013, Ex.WW1/3 for September
13, which shows that the workman Suresh was performing
duties of Karyavahak Chaudhary, i.e. officiating Chaudhary.
Workman has also tendered in evidence extract of
attendance Ex.WW1/5, which shows that he was performing
functions of officiating Chaudhary.
14. There is no merit in the stand taken by the
management in its reply, that the workman here is not
entitled for promotion to the post of Chaudhary inasmuch
as he has not qualified the requisite test for the same and in
the test conducted by the department, his name figures at
serial No. 99. The said test is alleged to be conducted by
Education Consultant India Ltd. on behalf on the
management. To my mind, this plea is devoid of any merit
inasmuch as similarly situated other workers who were
performing duties of Chaudhary, i.e. acting Chaudhary have
been granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after
judgement dated 27.07.2011 rendered by the Hon'ble High
Court in the case of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD
Vs. Mahipal (WP 5550 of 2010). Operating portion of the
judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon'ble Division
Bench is as under:
“28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances
it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have
always been that they should be paid the difference
in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary
as they were made to work on the post of Garden
Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied
that they worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took
the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture)
was not competent to ask the respondents to work
as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents
cannot be appointed to the post of Garden
3770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules.
There is no doubt that respondents are not claiming
appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on
account of having worked on ad-hoc basis on the
post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that
some of them not having the requisite qualifications
are entitled for relaxation.
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances
therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
failed to make out any such grounds which will impel
this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution to set aside the orders of the
Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October,
2010 as no illegality or un-sustainability or perversity
in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.
30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties
are left to bear their own cost.”
15. It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD
before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special
leave S20069/2011 MCD Vs. Sultan Singh and Others which
was also dismissed as withdrawn Vide order dated
09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon'ble High Court in
Sultan Singh case strongly deprecated the stand taken by
the management that the workmen were not possessing
requisite qualification or have not qualified the test etc. It
was clarified that since the workmen were discharging
duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, a such, workmen
were entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and
competent authority need not look into anything else except
the fact that the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary.
Therefore, stand taken by the management that the
workman herein could not qualify the test conducted by
Education Consultant India Limited is without any merit
and has no relevance so far as question of grant of salary
against the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.
16. It is not out of place to mention here that even if
the workman herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case
referred above, judgement of the Hon'ble High Court is
binding on the management and management is required
to implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is
judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are
required to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement
of the Hon'ble High Court, which have become final. There
is no question of even plea of delay and laches when
management had not led any evidence to prove the same.
The Hon'ble High Court has decided an abstract
proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as
officiating/acting Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages
of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working
on a higher post, on adhoc or temporary basis, even such
workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless
rules or regulations specifically provides otherwise. I find
support to this view from Secretary Vs. Lieutenant Governor
Port Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon'ble
Apex Court while considering that question of grant of
benefits to similarly situated employees who were not party
to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of UP Vs.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as
under:—
The moot question which requires determination is
as to whether in the given case, approach of the
Tribunal and the High Court was correct in extending
the benefit of earlier judgement of the Tribunal, which
had attained finality as it was affirmed the Supreme
Court. The legal principles that can be culled from
the judgments, cited both by the appellants as well
as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the Court, all other
identically situated persons need to be treated
alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. This principle needs to be applied in
service matters more emphatically as the
service jurisprudence evolved by this Court
from time to time postulates that all similarly
situated persons should be treated similarly.
Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely
because other similarly situated persons did
not approach the Court earlier, they are not to
be treated differently.
(2) However, this principle is subject to well
recognized exceptions in the form of laches
and delays as well as acquiescence. Those
persons who did not challenge the wrongful
action in their cases and acquiesced into the
same and woke up after long delay only
because of the reason that their counterparts
who had approached the Court earlier in time
succeeded in their efforts, then such
employees cannot claim that the benefit of the
judgement rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They
would be treated as fence-sitters and laches
and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would
be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in those
cases where the judgment pronounced by the
Court was judgment in rem with intention to
give benefit to all similarly situated persons,
whether they approached the Court or not.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3771
With such a pronouncement the obligation is
cast upon the authorities to itself extend the
benefit thereof to all similarly situated person.
Such a situation can occur when the subject
matter of the decision touches upon the policy
matters, like scheme of regularization and the
like [(see K.C. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India
(supra)]. On the other hand, if the judgment of
the Court was in personam holding that benefit
of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties
before the Court and such an intention is stated
expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly
found out from the tenor and language of the
judgment, those who want to get the benefit
of the said judgment extended to them shall
have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer
from either laches and delays or acquiescence.
17. In view of the discussions made herein above, it is
held that the workman is entitled to the pay scale of Garden
Chaudhary with effect from January 1998 and as a corollary,
management is liable pay the difference of wages of mali
vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the
workman herein was performing duties and functions of
Garden Chaudhary. 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] 7 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1803-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 59@08½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22015@6@2008&vkbZvkj¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th September, 2015
S.O. 1803.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/08)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of Western Coalfields Limited,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07.09.2015.
[No. L-22015/6/2008-IR(C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/59/08
Shri S.S. Verma,
General Secretary,Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),
Regional Office, Ambada,
PO Ambada,
Distt. Chhindwara
.... Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Kanhan Area of WCL,
PO Dungaria,
Distt. Chhindwara
.... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of July, 2015
1. As per letter dated 16-4-2008 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section - 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
22015/6/2008-IR (C-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
“Whether the action of the management of WCL in
not promoting Shri Rikhab Chand Wohra in the post
of Senior Clerk (Special Grade) retrospectively
w.e.f. 1-4-1988 with consequential benefit is legal and
justified? To what relief is the workman entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 1 to
7 through General Secretary, Koyla Sharmik Sabha (HMS).
Case of Ist party workman is that he is member of HMS
Union. Said Union is recognised. Workman was appointed
on 1-4-70 as Clerk Grade II in clerical cadre erstwhile Newton
Chickley Colliery. All the Private owned collieries were taken
over by the Government of India in terms of Coal Mines
Nationalisation Act 1973. New company namely Coal India
Limited was formed. Thereby the workman become
employee of WCL subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. He was
working as Clerk Grade-II. He was promoted to Clerk Grade I
on 27-3-84. General Manager, Kanhan Area of WCL
circulated provisional seniority list of clerical Grade I on
12-1-96. Name of Ist party workman was appearing at
Sl. No. 11 in said seniority list. His date of appointment,
date of promotion to clerical Grade I is mentioned in said
seniority list. Workman submits that he alongwith certain
juniors were working on the post of Senior Clerk in Special
Grade I were promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in Special
Grade of Rs. 2061-118-3008-130-4048 under NCWA-V vide
order dated 28-9-96. In seniority list name of Shri A.K.
3772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Bannerjee is placed at Sl. No. 11 below the name of the
applicant. Lateron all promotes were given notional
seniority in cadre of senior clerk special Grade w.e.f. 1-4-88
as per order 27-1-97, 31-3-98 & 6-10-2000.
3. Workman submits that as per seniority list, it is
clear that Shri A.K. Bannerjee, U.C. Vishwakarma,
H.C. Yaduvanshi, Majhar Khan, K.K. Nair, Rajkumar
Shrivas, Parvez Pantheki and Vipin Verma were juniors to
him in the cadre. They were allowed notional seniority from
1-4-88 as Senior Clerk special Grade. Workman was left out
for unknown reasons. Workman has given details of the
appointment and promotions of those employees. In
para -7 the details of promotions are as under:—
Sl.
Name
Date of
Date of
Date of
Seniority
No.
Shri
appointment
Clerk Grade
Clerk Grade
Number
II
I
1.
A.K. Bannerjee
1-11-1973
3-3-1976
27-3-1984
11
2.
U.C. Vishwakarma
3-6-1975
3-6-1975
21-9-1984
16
3.
H.P. Yaduvanshi
24-7-1972
1-4-1976
1-12-1984
17
4.
Mazhar Khan
20-6-1975
1-3-1980
1-12-1984
18
5.
K.K. Nair
20-3-1974
1-12-1976
9-6-1984
NA
6.
Rajkumar Shrivas
11-9-1975
1-10-1980
Through
Through
Form H
Form H
7.
Parvez Pantheki
1-1-1976
1-1-1977
-do-
-do-
8.
Vipin Verma
14-3-1979
—
13-10-1987
29
Workman further submits that he was repeatedly
approaching management submitting representations. That
no response was received to his representations from
management. The dispute was raised before ALC,
Chhindwara. After conciliation proceedings, they were
proceeded ex parte, failure report was submitted and dispute
has been referred. Workman submits that again he was
superseded by Mr. Bannerjee, Ramkumar Shrivas and
Dhaniram when they were promoted as office
superintendent (T&S) Grade I vide order dated 3-6-05.
Workman submits his name was at Sl. No. 11 in the seniority
list circulated on 12-1-96. Shri A.K. Bannerjee was placed
below his name in the list of Sr. Grade Clerk Special Grade.
That workman was entitled for promotion as Sr. Clerk but
his juniors are considered. Workman claims seniority for
post of Sr. Clerk Special Grade from 1-4-88 with
consequential benefits.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/3
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits workman
Shri R.C. Wohra is given promotion as per rules of the
company. The dispute under reference pertains to applicant
workman is entitled to promotion from Clerk Grade I to
Sr. Clerk in Special Grade w.e.f 1-4-88. 2nd party submits
that promotion cannot be claimed as of right. Workman
mentioned names of 8 employees namely Shri A.K.
Bannerjee, U.C. Vishwakarma, H.C. Yaduvanshi, Majhar
Khan, K.K. Nair, Rajkumar Shrivas, Parvez Pantheki and
Vipin Verma juniors are given notional seniority from
1-4-88. They are not impleaded as party to the dispute.
Therefore the dispute cannot be upheld. That workman
was member of Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS) is not disputed.
He was promoted as clerk Grade I on 27-3-84 is also not
disputed. 2nd party agrees that General Manager Kanhan
Area circulated provisional seniority list of Clerk Grade I.
Name of workman was above the name of Shri A.K. Bannerjee
but it is clarified that Shri A.K. Bannerjee was also promoted
to the post of Clerk Grade I on 27-3-84. He cannot be called
junior to the workman. It is further contented that promotion
of clerk Grade I are done at unit level. All names mentioned in
provisional seniority list by Ist party workman of his
statement of claim were not emplolyees of same unit.Those
employees were working in different units.The seniority
cannot be determined just by names appearing below or
above but has to be verified with the dated of promotions.
That promotion from Clerk Grade I to Sr. Clerk Special Grade
is done at Area level considering eligible candidates working
in different areas. The claim of workman was considered
along with other candidates. He was promoted vide order
dated 28-9-96.Ist party worman has no dispute w.r.t. DPC,
Workman feels aggrieved by the notional seniority given to
the juniors w.e.f. 1-4-88 to Mr. A.K. Bannerjee and K.K. Nair.
The national seniority has no monetary implications as
mentioned in order dated 6-10-00. The concerned demployees
are not entitled to monetary benefits arising out of notional
seniority. The dispute is belatedly raised cannot be
considered. Management never denied opportunity of
promotion to the workman. He was considered for further
promotions in the year 1005-06. That Shri R.C. Vohra has
retired from service after attaining age of superannuation on
20-6-00. 2nd party submits that as dispute is belatedly raised,
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3773
5. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/9
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. That junior
employees are given notional Seniority from 1-4-88.
Workman has retired from service if he is given promotional
benefits or notional seniority from 1-4-88, no other employee
would be affected. The act of management giving notional
seniority to Shri A.K. Mukherjee and K.K. Nair from 1-4-88
is arbitrary. Those junior employees are given undue benefit
to become senior to the working granting them monetary
benefits from 1-1-97 as per office order dated 26-12-00. That
his case was never considered for promotion in 2005-06
though he completed 8 year service giving increment under
SLU is not covered as promotion.
6. Considering pleading on record, the point which
arise for my consideration and determinatin are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of WCL in not
promoting Shri Rikhab Chand
Wohra in the post of Senior
Clerk (Special Grade)
retrospectively w.e.f. 1-4-1988
with consequential benefit
is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. The term of reference pertains to denial of
retropsective promotion on the post of Sr. Clerk special
Grade from 1-4-88. 2nd party management has raised
objection that dispute is raised belatedly after long lapse
of time is not tenable. As per order Exhibit M-1 dated
6-10-10, Shri K.K. Nair and Shri A.K. Banerjee promoted as
Sr. Clerk Special Grade on 3-4-92, 28-9-96 were allowed
notional seniority from 1-4-88. The workman was aggrieved
by said notional seniority given to the workman as per
order on 6-10-10. The dispute cannot be said highly belated.
As per Exhibit M-2, workman has retired from service on
5-12-07. As per Exhibit M-3, order issued on 10-12-01 by
General Manager Ajay Kumar, the promotion should be
made effective from prospective date.
8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions in statement of claim that he was appointed
on Clerk Grade II on 1-4-1970. After Nationalization of Coal
Mines, he had become employee of WCL subsidiary of
Coal India Ltd. on 27-3-87, he was posted as Clerk Grade I.
Seniority List of Clerk Grade I was issued on 12-1-1996, his
name was at Sl. No. 10, as per order dated 28-9-96, he was
promoted to the post of Sr. Clerk Special Grade along with
some juniors. In seniority list, Shri Bannerjee was placed at
Sl. No. 11. He was granted notional seniority from 1-4-88.
Workman was not considered. Workman was also not
considered for promotion to the post of Office
superintendent (T&S) Grade I. He was superseded as per
order dated 3-6-05. Juniors Mr. Bannerjee, Ram Kumar
Shrivas and Dhaniram were promoted in pay scale Rs. 4650-
7802. In his cross-examination, workman says the promotion
of post of clerk Grade I is made area wise and not unit wise.
Clerk Special Grade and OS are promoted Area wise. In
1982, seniority list of clerk Grade II was not prepared area
wise. The area wise list was prepared in 1990. On 12-1-96,
seniority list of special grade was issued. As per seniority
list of Clerk Grade I, he was promoted to the post of
Sr. Clerk Special Grade. Seniority List was prepared in 2003,
its copy is not produced on record. Workman claims
ignorance what was the basis for promotion to the post of
OS. He also claims ignorance of the cadre scheme. He
denies that seniority list of Sr. Clerk Special Grade was
never prepared. Ist party workman reaffirms that Shri A.K.
Bannerjee, U.C. Vishwakarma, H.C. Yaduvanshi, Majhar
Khan, K.K. Nair, Rajkumar Shrivas, Parvez Pantheki and
Vipin Verma were juniors to him and they were granted
notional seniority from 1-4-88. Workman was member of
HMS Union. Other employees were members of INTUC
Union. In the matter of promotion INTUC Union had
entered in settlement with management. His dispute about
promotion was not raised by the Union. He has not
produced copy of his representations dated 20-10-03,
11-11-03, 15-3-03. In Exhibit W-6, it is mentioned that his
juniors were promoted.
9. Management witness Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey
filed affidavit of his evidence. That workman was appointed
on 1-3-1970. He was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade I
on 27-3-84. Shri A.K. Bannerjee and others were promoted
as Clerk Grade I, that prmotion of clerk Grade I is done at
unit level. All employee mentioned in provisional seniority
list donot belong to same unit. Those employees were
working is different units of the areas. Seniority cannot be
determined by names appearing below or above. That
seniority list is correctly treated as their provisional
seniority list. The promotion of Clerk Grade I to Senior
Clerk special Grade is done at Area level. Management's
witness in his cross examination says that on 2-4-86, he
was appointed at Pathakhera. In 1998, he was working at
Kanhan Area. Presently he is working as Personal Manager,
In his cross-examination, documents Exhibit W-1 to W-5
are admitted in evidence.
10. The evidence of management's witness doesnot
show area wise seniority was considered by giving notional
seniority to Shri A.K. Bannerjee and K.K. Nair. Rather
documentary evidence shows notional seniority was given
to those employees from 1-4-88 as per the settlement
between management and INTUC for the post of Sr. Clerk
Special Grade. The order is clear that those employees were
promoted to the post of Sr. Clerk Special Grade. On 3-4-92,
28-9-96, workman was promoted to the post of Sr. Clerk
Special Grade. When workman was promoted on same date
3774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
as Shri K.K. Nair was promoted, there is absolutely no
logical basis for giving notional seniority to Shri K.K. Nair
and A.K. Bannerjee. While management entered in
settlement with INTUC Union for promotion of both the
employees as per order dated 6-12-2010, the Ist party
workman was discriminated. Management did not take into
consideration seniority of Ist party workman while entering
in settlement with INTUC. It is clear that while giving
notional seniority to Shri Bannerjee and K.K. Nair, cadre
scheme was not followed, DPC was not called. There was
no recommendation by DPC for giving national seniority
to Shri A.K. Bannerjee and Shri K.K. Nair therefore the
action of the management not giving notional seniority to
the workman is illegal.
11. 2nd party further contented that Shri A.K.
Bannerjee and Shri K.K. Nair were not given monetary
benefits while giving benefit of notional seniority is not
correct. The order dated 27-1-97 issued by Area Personnel
Manager shows that except fitment benefits, those
employees would not be entitled to other monetary
benefits. Thus fitment benefit is allowed to those employees
while giving notional seniority for the post of Sr. Clerk
Grade I. Those benefits were not extended to the workman.
2nd party has not produced seniority list of Sr. Clerk Special
Grade. No evidence is adduced by management's witness
whether the notional seniority list of clerk Grade I was
accepted or it was cancelled. In absence of such evidence,
Provisional seniority list needs to be accepted. For reasons
discussed above, the denial of notional seniority to the
workman from 1-4-88, workman is discriminated and his co-
employees A.K. Bannerjee, K.K. Nair are shown favour.
Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of WCL in not
promoting Shri Rikhab Chand Wohra in the
post of Senior Clerk (Special Grade)
retrospectively w.e.f. 1-4-1988 is not proper and
legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to give deemed national
seniority for the post of Sr. Clerk Special Grade
to workman from 1-4-88 and consequential
benefits may also be given to the workman.
(3) Parties to bear their respective costs.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1804-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhvkbZ,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;] dksydÙkk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@11@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th September, 2015
S.O. 1804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Coal India Limited, Coal India
Limited Contractors Workers Union, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 07/09/2015.
[No. L-22012/11/2013-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 21 of 2013
PARTIES
Employers in relation to the management of
Coal India Limited
AND
Their workmen
PRESENT :
Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCE
On behalf of the
: Mr. N.K. Roy, Ld. Counsel for
Management
Coal India Ltd.
None for M/S Albartos Security
Service.
On behalf of the
: Mr. S. Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel.
Workman
State
: West Bengal.
Industry
: Coal
Dated : 19th August, 2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-22012/11/2013-IR(CM-II) dated
03.04.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3775
the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:—
“Whether the demand of Coal India Limited
Contractor Workres' Union for regularization of
service of Sri Biswanath Das Roy and 31 others (Copy
enclosed and marked as annexure-I) from the date of
their joining by the management of M/s. Coal India
Limited, Kolkata who are working as Security
Personnel continuously under various contractors
since long and now under M/s. Albartos Security
Service, Contractor depriving them from their
legitimate claims, is legal and or justified? If not, to
what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”
2. When the case is taken up today for hearing, Ld.
Counsel for both the parties are present and the witness
on behalf of the union is also present. The witness,
Shri Rama Prasad Biswas during cross-examination has
stated that he is the President of the sponsoring union and
the union does not want to proceed with this case further.
3. Heard both the parties.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
as well as the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the parties
it appears that the union at whose instance the present
reference has been initiated does not want to proceed with
the case. In view of the above facts and circumstances,
this Tribunal has neither any scope nor any reason to
proceed with this reference further as no fruitful purpose
will be served in keeping the matter pending.
5. In view of the above, present reference is disposed
of by passing a "No Dispute Award".
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
KOLKATA
Dated : The 19th August, 2015.
ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1805-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] ifV;kyk 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;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
lañ 917@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
07@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@116@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2015
S.O. 1805.—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.
917/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Patiala and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 07/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/116/2003-IR (DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
PRESENT :
SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 917/2005
Registered on 13.09.2005
Sh. Surinder Kumar,
C/o Sh. M.R. Dhiman,
H.E. 1232. Phase-1,
Mohali, Distt. Ropar.
.... Petitioner
Versus
The District Manager,
Telecom (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited)
Patiala.
.... Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. M.R. Dhiman, Adv.
For the Management
: Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on: 17.7.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/116/
2003-IR(DU) Dated 19.04.2004, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
“Whether the action of the management of
Dy. General Manager, Telecom, Patiala in terminating
the services w.e.f. 20.09.2000 of Sh. Surinder Kumar
S/o Rattan Chand, Ex-T.S. just and legal? If not to
what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?”
3776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
The workman submitted statement of claim to which
written reply was filed by the management. The facts
emerging are that the workman was casual labourer with
the respondent management and was granted temporarily
status in the year 1990. He served the respondent
department from 01.09.1983 to 31.05.1990.
According to the workman he suffered Psychiatric
problem in the year 1994 and when he recovered, he was
directed to appear for medical-examination before Civil
Surgeon, Patiala, who after his examination, found him fit
for duty and sent a letter dated 30.05.1994 to the respondent
management. It is further pleaded that workman again fell
sick in the year 2000 twice and remain admitted in Indira
Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, and Government Rajindra
Hospital, Patiala.
After recovery from the sickness, he reported for duty
on 20.09.2000, but was not allowed to resume the duty. He
made written representations, but of no fact.
According to the respondent management the
workman did not inform about his absence and his
application for condonation of his absence for the period
26.12.1991 to 24.12.1994 was declined by the Competent
Authority, vide letter dated 05.05.1995 (Annexure-A1).
Workman himself was not able to perform the duty and
remained absent from duty. His services were not terminated
by the department. He raised the dispute after a lapse of
long time and no relief can be granted to him on account of
delay.
Parties were given opportunities to lead evidence.
Workman Surinder Kumar appeared in the witness-
box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as set out in
the statement of claim.
He filed documents Annexures P1 to P6.
On the other hand, department has examined
Sh. Sukhwant Singh, who filed his affidavit supporting the
case of the respondent.
I have heard Sh. M.R. Dhiman, AR for the workman
and Sh. G.C. Babbar, counsel for the management.
It was argued by the authorized representative of the
workman that as per the admission of the management, the
workman continuously worked with the department from
01.09.1983 to 31.05.1990, and his services were terminated
without conducting any inquiry and therefore, the same is
bad in law and he be reinstated in service with back wages.
I have considered the contention.
There is not denial of fact that workman worked with
the department from 01.09.1983 to 31.05.1990 and was
granted temporary status in 1990. It is the case of the
respondent management itself that workman was neither
retrenched nor his services were terminated.
Workman has pleaded that since the management did
not allow him to join the duty, the same tantamount to
retrenchment which is illegal.
A scheme called "Casual Labourers (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the
Department of Telecommunications 1989" was issued by
the department granting temporary status to casual
labourers with certain benefits to the labourers and making
provision for retrenchment/termination of services of such
labourers. Clause 8 and 9 of the Scheme which deals with
retrenchment/termination read as follow:—
Clause 8: "Despite conferment of temporary status,
the services of a casual labourer may be dispensed with in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground of non-availability of
work. A casual labourer with temporary status can quit
service by giving one month's notice.
Clause 9: If a labourer with temporary status commits
a misconduct and the same is proved in an enquiry after
giving him reasonable opportunity, his services will be
dispensed with. They will not be entitled to the benefit of
encashment of leave on termination of services."
Thus the services of casual worker on whom temporary
status has been conferred can be dispensed with as per
provision of Industrial Disputes Act on the ground of non-
availability of the work and if guilty of misconduct, after
conducting a inquiry and giving him reasonable oppotunity.
In the present case the workman remained absent from
1990 to 1994 and again thereafter, though he pleaded that
he remained sick as stated above. The respondent
management has pleaded that the services of the workman
were neither retrenched nor his services were terminated.
Thus the competent authority did not pass any order as
envisaged under Clause 8 and 9 of the scheme stated above.
In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the services of
the workman were terminated. It was simply pleaded that
since he was not allowed to joint the duty, his services be
deemed to be retrenched, but since the authorities did not
pass any order as per Clause 8 and 9 of the scheme, it
cannot be said that his services were terminated at any
point of time.
Being so the reference is answered directing the
management to pass appropriate orders for retaining or
terminating services of the workman as envisaged under
Clause 8/9 of the above said scheme. The management
shall pass the order within four months of the publication
of the award, failing which the management shall be liable
to pay wages to the workman from the date of award subject
to his entitlement on account of age etc.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3777
ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1806-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] fglkj 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;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ lañ 94@2014½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
07@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@81@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2015
S.O. 1806.—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. 94/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Hisar and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 07/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/81/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
PRESENT :
SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 94/2014
Registered on 02.02.2015
Sh. Harish Kumar,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o Vill.-Bhaini Badshahpur,
Hisar-125001.
.... Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Red Square Market Railway Road,
Main Office, Hisar-125001.
.... Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Ex Parte.
For the Management
: Sh. D.R. Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 28.7.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/81/
2014-IR(DU) Dated 31.12.2014, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section
(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited Hissar in terminating the
services of Sh. Harish Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash
w.e.f. 10.11.2013 is valid, just and legal? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and
from which date?”
The workman did not file statement of claim and he
was proceeding against ex parte, vide order date 27.4.2015.
Since the workman did not put forward his claim and
therefore, Court is left with no option except to decide the
reference against the workman and ordered accordingly.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1807-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM fglkj 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;] uñ 2] paMhx<+ ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 93@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@80@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2015
S.O. 1807.—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.
93/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the
Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Hissar and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 07/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/80/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
3778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
PRESENT :
SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 93/2014
Registered on 2.2.2015
Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Chiranji Lal
R/o Mill Gate, Vinod Nagar,
Gate No. 7B, Hisar-125001.
.... Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Red Square Market Railway Road,
Main Office, Hisar-125001
.... Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Ex parte
For the Management
: Sh. D.R. Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 28.7.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/80/
2014-IR(DU) Dated 31.12.2014, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section
(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
reffered to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited Hisar in terminating the
services of Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Chiranji Lal
w.e.f. 10.11.2013 is valid, just and legal? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and
from which date?”
The workman did not file statement of claim and he
was proceeding against ex parte, vide order date 27.4.2015.
Since the workman did not put forward his claim and
therefore, this Court is left with no option except to decide
the reference against the workman and ordered accordingly.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1808-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVj QkWj MsoyiesaV
vkWQ ,MokaLM daI;wfVax ¼lh Md] eksgkyh½ 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]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@27@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2015
S.O. 1808.—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. 5/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the
Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Centre for
Development of Advanced Computing, C-DAC, Mohali
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 07/09/2015.
[No. L-42011/27/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
PRESENT :
SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. 5/2015
Registered on 5.5.2015
The General Secretary,
C-DAC Employees Welfare Union (Regd.),
A-34, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII,
Mohali (Chandigarh)-140110.
.... Applicant
Versus
The Director,
Centre for Development of Advanced
Computing, (C-DAC, Mohali),
A-34, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII,
Mohali (Chandigarh)-140110.
.... Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. Madan Singh
For the Management
: Smt. Uma Gupta
AWARD
Passed on 5.8.2015
Vide Order No. L-42011/27/2015-IR(DU) Dated
20.04.2015 the Central Government in exercise of the powers
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3779
conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub-section
2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short
Act) has referred the following Industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management in imposing
the modified penalty dated 12.07.2014 of withholding
the increment of two years is just fair and legal? If
not, to what relief the workman be given and from
which date?”
The workman appeared through authorized
representative who did not submit statement of claim. The
authorized representative made a statement which is
recorded separately to withdraw the reference.
In view of his statement, the reference is answered
against the workman.
Copy of the award be sent to the authority concerned
for information and necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1809-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr bysDVªkWfuDl
fyfeVsM] iapdqyk 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;] uñ 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
217@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@09@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&14011@22@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2015
S.O. 1809.—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.
217/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the
Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Bharat Electronics
Ltd., Panchkula and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 07/09/2015.
[No. L-14011/22/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
PRESENT :
SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 217/2011
Registered on 22.9.2011
Bharat Electronics Panchkula Employees Union
405, Industrial Area Phase-III,
Panchkula, Haryana (India),
through its
Presidents/General Secretary.
.... Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
Bharat Electronics Ltd.
405, Industrial Area, Phase-3,
Panchkula (Haryana)
.... Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. C.L. Sharma, Adv.
For the Management
: Sh. Vasu Gambhir, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 10.07.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-14011/
22/2010 [IR (DU)] Dated 8.9.2011, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section
(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the demand of the Bharat Electronics
Employees Union, Panchkula (Haryana) against the
management of Bharat Electronics Limited, Panchkula, for
punishment to Sh. Sultan Singh ordered to lowering present
grade WG-V to WG-IV with reduction of basic pay upto
5 stage w.e.f. 1.8.1999 and not given one promotion
(practically two promotion), is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled to and what directions are
necessary in the matter?"
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim to which written reply was filed.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief are
that workman Sh. Sultan Singh is an employee of the
respondent-management. An incident took place on
20.6.1998 and the workman was served with a charge-
sheet-cum-suspension order dated 27.8.1998 which read
as follows:—
CHARGE-SHEET-CUM-SUSPENSION ORDER
“That on 26.8.1998 after completion of the general
shift when Sh. Ram Karan, Staff No. 013502, Helper
was coming out of the factory's outer gate along
with Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Staff No. 014385 at the later's
scooter, he (Sh. Sultan Singh) stopped Sh. Ram Karan
3780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
at the outer gate and attacked on him with a hockey
stick which he snatched from one co-assailant who
were outsiders. When Sh. Ram Karan ran towards
the factory he (Sh. Sultan Singh) followed Sh. Ram
Karan along with outsider assailants and assaulted
Sh. Ram Karan Inside the outer gate. He also directed
the outsider assailants to beat Sh. Ram Karan. When
the security personnel and other employees
separated them he (Sh. Sultan Singh) threatened
Sh. Ram Karan “Be aaj to bach gaya hai, tu kab tak
bachega.”
As a result of his violence action as stated obove,
Sh. Ram Karan received injuries, the peace and tranquility
of the outer gate area was disturbed and the employees felt
insecured.
His above mentioned acts constitute misconduct
under Standing Order No. 25.7, 25.16 and 25.19 of the
certified Standing Orders of the Company.
The workman submitted reply. It was not found
satisifactory and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to
conduct the inquiry. The management as well as the
workman led evidence before the inquiry officer, who on
completion of the inquiry, submitted the report concluding
that charges are proved against the workman vide his
report dated 8.6.1999. On the basis of the said report, the
workman was served with a show cause notice and after
considering the reply, punishment was awarded to him vide
order dated 9.8.1999 by reducing him to lower grade from
WG-5 to WG-4 reduction of basic pay upto 5 stages w.e.f.
1.8.1999.
Now, the workman has challenged the inquiry on the
ground that it was Ram Karan and his companions who
attacked him outside the factory premises and when he
approached the police, he was informed that a case had
already been registered against him. He also lodged an FIR
against Ram Karan and others. However both the parties
affected a compromises in the Court on 19.4.2007. It is
further pleaded that in an earlier incident dated 13.1.1998,
workman was given beatings by Ram Karan and others
and the management only inflicted a minor punishment on
Ram Karan. Now again, the inquiry was conducted against
him in violation of rules and regulations and he was not
supplied the list of documents and witnesses along with
the charge-sheet which is vague and indefinite. That the
inquiry report is not based on any evidence and the
witnesses examined before Inquiry Officer have given
contradictory statements and are not to be believed. He
was not allowed to examine all the defence witnesses and
the inquiry officer disbelieved the statement of Geeta Singh
without any reason. That it was Ram Karan and others
who assaulted him on 26.8.1998 and in the absence of any
convincing evidence, the findings of the Inquiry Officer
against the workman are not sustainable.
The workman earlier challenged the punishment order
in the Civil Court which was dismissed and in appeal it was
held by learned Additional District Judge that the matter is
to be moved under the Industrial Disputes Act.
It is prayed that the punishment order which is based
on illegal inquiry proceedings be set aside and he be granted
all the consequential benefits.
On the other hand, the management has pleaded in its
written statement that management received a complaint in
writing from Ram Karan along with an FIR dated 26.8.1998
for being beaten by the workman in the factory premises
and the matter was also reported by the Security Guard
namely Bharat Singh. Consequently, a charge-sheet was
issued to the workman and a proper and legal inquiry was
conducted. The workman was given due opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses as well as to lead its defence
evidence. The inquiry Officer after considering the
evidence rightly concluded that charges are proved against
the workman and no ground is made out to interfere with
the same.
Earlier the case was fixed for evidence of the parties
but on 1.2.2014, it was stated to hear the arguments
regarding the fairness of the inquiry.
I have heard Sh. C.L. Sharma, counsel for the workman
and Sh. Vasu Gambhir, counsel for the management and
carefully perused the inquiry file.
As per the allegations, the workman along with others
assaulted Ram Karan on 26.8.1998 near the outer gate of
the factory. In order to sustain the charge, the management
has examined Rakesh Kumar, Bharat Singh and Ram Singh
who were cross-examined on behalf of the workman. The
Inquiry Officer in his detailed report dated 8.6.1999
discussed the evidence led before him and relying on the
statements of the said witnesses, came to the conclusion
that charges are proved against the workman.
Rakesh Kumar, Bharat Singh and Ram Singh have
supported the case of the management and if minor
discrepancies have occurred in their statements, the same
is no ground to set aside the inquiry report and it cannot
be said any stretch of imagination that inquiry officer acted
in a biased manner as argued.
A perusal of the inquiry report shows that initially the
management has examined Sh. Rakesh Kumar and Bharat
Singh and thereafter the inquiry proceedings were closed.
It was thereafter that Ram Karan was recalled and examined.
A lengthy argument was advanced that inquiry officer
was not competent to examine Ram Karan. Suffice it to say
that during the pendency of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer
has the right to examine any witness at any stage to find
out the truth of the allegations. Ram Karan is the
complainant and if he was not examined earlier, the Inquiry
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3781
Officer did not commit any illegality or irregularity by
examining him at the later stage. As much as due
opportunity was given to the workman to cross-examine
him. Therefore, examination of Ram Karan at a later stage
do not vitiate the proceedings. It was argued that the
statement of Geeta Singh was not properly appreciated by
the Inquiry Officer who also did not examine two of the
witnesses cited by the workman in his defence. In the
Inquiry report, it is specifically mentioned why the Inquiry
Officer did not examine two other witnesses namely Tarun
Seth and Subhash Mukherjee being not an employee of
the management and has also given reason for disbelieving
the statement of Geeta Singh and it cannot be said that the
Inquiry Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction or the findings
recorded by him are not based on any evidence. The Inquiry
Officer discussed the evidence led before him in detail while
coming to the conclusion that charges are proved against
the workman and it is nowhere pointed out that any
procedure or rule was not followed by the inquiry officer
while conducting the inquiry. The workman was given due
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as well as to
lead his evidence. The pleading that workman was not
supplied with the list of witnesses and documents is not
sustainable as is evident from the record that these were
supplied. Thus, the inquiry was conducted in the presence
of the workman who was allowed to cross-examine the
witnesses as well to lead defence evidence and no
provisions of law has been violated by the Inquiry Officer
while conducting the inquiry and therefore the inquiry is
held to be fair and proper.
While arguing the case, both the counsels also made
submissions regarding the punishment awarded to the
workman and being so, there was no necessity to adjourn
the case for hearing them whether the punishment awarded
is justified or not or is disproportionate to the alleged
misconduct.
The learned counsel for the management carried me
through Section 11A of the Act and submitted that this
Court can only interfere in a case of discharge or dismissal
of the workman and in the present case only punishment
of lowering the workman in wage group with stoppage of
five increments was imposed and therefore the punishment
is not covered under Section 11 A of the Act and this Court
cannot interfere with the punishment awarded. He has
further argued that earlier also when the workman had a
quarrel with Ram Karan, and disciplinary action was taken
against him and since it was a second act on the part of the
workman, the punishment has rightly been awarded. It may
be added that in Punjab National Bank Vs Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur reported in 2002 (1)
RSA 163, while dealing with the power of the Labour Court
under Section 11-A of the Act; it was observed in para 12
of the judgement as follow:—
Para 12—In our opinion, a reading of Section 11-A
would show that the power of the Industrial Tribunal is
without limitation. In our opinion, it can interfere when the
punishment awarded is disproportionate to the proved guilt.
Thus, this court can interfere when the punishment
awarded is disproportinate to the proved guilt and it is not
always necessary that there should be a dismissal or
discharge from service as argued. The workman was
charged under Order No. 25.7, 25.16 and 25.19 of the
Standing Orders of the management which are as follows:—
25.7. Threatening, intimidating, molesting, abusing or
assaulting or causing bodily injury to worker or officer of
the company inside the Unit premises or outside such
premises, where such an act related to the employment or
working of the establishment.
25.16. Any act subversive of discipline irrespective
of whether committed inside or outside the Unit Premises.
25.19. Fighting or quarrelling with any worker, officer
or other person within the unit premises or outside where
such conduct is connected with employment or woking of
the company.
A perusal of the said provisions clearly shows that
Order No. 25.7 is applicable when the Act is related to the
employment or working of the establishment and similarly
when the fighting or quarrelling with any worker is
connecteds with the employment or working of the company
under Rule 25.19. In the present case the fight between the
co-workers took place outside the factory gate, though it
may have ended inside the premises, as it has come on the
statements of the witnesses that Ram Karan entered the
factory premises in order to save himself and was chased
by the workman and others. It is also the case of the
parties that the incident took place after the completion of
the shift. Thus, the incident has no concern or connection
with the employment or working of the establishment and
therefore the said Standing Orders has no application.
However, Standing Order No. 25.16 provides for
indiscipline irrespective of whether the same was committed
inside or outside the unit premises. Thus, if the co-workers
indulged in fighting outside the premises, they are guilty
of indiscipline and misconduct.
Though, the workman has pleaded that it was Ram
Karan and others who assaulted him, but in view of the
definite findings of the Inquiry Officer that it was he who
along with others assaulted Ram Karan; the stand of the
workman cannot be believed. As much as he himself relies
on a compromise effected between the parties in a court
which goes a long way the incident has in fact taken place.
Now, the question is whether quarrelling with a co-
worker in any circumstance is sufficient to award the
punishment as awarded in the present case i.e. lowering to
grade from WG-5 to WG- 4 with reduction of basic pay
upto 5 stages with effect from 1.8.1999. On the face of it the
punishment awarded seems to be double punishment. The
3782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
learned cousel for the management carried me through
Standing Order No. 26.1. to submit that both the penalties
i.e. lowering of the wages and the stopping of the
increments can be passed. The relevant portion of Standing
Order No. 26.1 read as follows:—
26.1 Any workman who is found to have committed
any misconduct or violation or infringement of the
provisions of any of these Standing Orders may be
punished by the management by imposition of any one or
combination of the following penalties, depending upon
the nature, gravity and other circumstances of the case:
(i) Oral/written warning or warning;
(ii) Withholding of increment or increments in the
exsting scale of pay with or without cumulative
effect;
(iii) Suspension without wages/salary for a period
not exceeding seven days at a time;
(iv) Reduction to the next lower stage or any other
lower stage including the lowest stage in the
existing grade/scale of pay.
(v) Reduction to the next lower stage or any other
lower grade/scale of pay including the lowest
one.
(vi) Discharge of removal from service;
(vii) Dismissal from service without notice or
payment in lieu of notice.
Its opening para, provides for imposing of any one or
combination of the penalties mentioned above but it
depends on the gravity of misconduct committed by the
workman and it is not in every case that all the penalties as
find mention in the said order can be imposed. The workman
only had a quarrel with a co-worker for some or the other
reason but he still is a workman of the respondent
management who is a public sector undertaking. Every
management is expected to take maximum out of its workers
and not to unnecessarily punish them. Worker can give his
best to the management only if kept well and without any
mental tension. But in the present case the workman was
given two penalties i.e. reduction of wages as well as
stoppage of increments, which is not desirable for a minor
incident which started outside the factory premises but
ended inside the premises. In the circumstances, the
penalty awarded is quite harsh and by using the powers
under Section 11A of the Act, the penalty is to be modified
for reduction of basic pay upto two stages w.e.f. 1.8.1999
and the punishment order dated 9.8.1999 stands accordingly
modified.
In result, it is held that the punishment awarded to
Sh. Sultan Singh for lowering him to present grade of
WG-V to WG-IV with reduction of basic pay upto 5 stages
w.e.f. 1.8.1999 vide order dated 9.8.1999 is not legal and
jusitfied and the penalty to be imposed is reduction of
basic pay upto 2 stages w.e.f. 1.8.1999 and the said
punishment order stands accordingly modified. Let hard
and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for information and further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1810-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksbEcVksj eq#xu
feYl 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[;k 107@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&42011@62@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2015
S.O. 1810.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), of the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 107/2015)
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 Coimbatore Murugan Mills and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 07/09/2015.
[No. L-42011/62/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 26th August, 2015
PRESENT :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 107/2015
(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 Coimbatore Murugan Mills and their
workmen)
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 12] 2015@Hkknz 21] 1937
3783
BETWEEN
The Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner Union
Coimbatore Distt. Textile
Workers Union (HMS)
Thyagi N.G.R. Mahal,
2212 Trichy Road,
Singanallur
Coimbatore-641005
AND
The General Manager
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Coimbatore Murugan Mills
Mettupalayam Road,
Post Box No. 7004,
Coimbatore-641043
APPEARANCE
For the 1st Party/
:
Absent
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
Absent
Management
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-42011/62/2015-IR(DU)
dated 03.07.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:—
“Whether the suspension of Smt. Amuthavallai and
deduction of wages of 5 days by the Management of
Coimbatore Murugan Mills as claimed by the
Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union is justified
or not? If not, to what relief the workman/union is
entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 107/2015 and issued notices to both
sides.
3. Though both parties have received notice, both of
them did not enter appearance. The matter had come up
hearing for the first time on 04.08.2015. Since the parties
failed to appear on this date, the case was adjourned to
this date for their appearance and other steps. However,
today also both parties have not appeared. The petitioner
does not seem to be interested in pursuing the case.
Because of the non-appearance of the petitioner and in the
absence of any material the reference is only to be answered
against the petitioner.
In the result the reference is answered against the
petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witness Examined
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
On the Petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1811-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZthlh,vkj ,aM
vkFklZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 74@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&42012@100@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2015
S.O. 1811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 74/2015)
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 IGCAR & others and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
07/09/2015.
[No. L-42012/100/2015-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Monday, the 24th August, 2015
PRESENT :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 74/2015
3784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2015/BHADRA 21, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
(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 M/s Voltas Ltd. and their workman)
BETWEEN
Shri N. Kathirvel
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Director
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
IGCAR (Principal
Employer)
Kalpakkam-603012
2. Mr. Marudhavanan
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Manager,
M/s Voltas Ltd.
No. 624, Anna Salai
Chennai-600018
APPEARANCE
For the 1st Party/
:
None
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
Shri B. Sekar, Advocate
1st Management
For the 2nd Party/
:
Shri T.R. Sathiamohan,
2nd Management
Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/100/2015-IR(DU)
dated 26.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:—
“Whether the action of the Management of
M/s Voltas Limited in terminating the service of
Shri N. Kathirvel w.e.f. 29.08.2012 is illegal, arbitrary
and violation of Section-25F of ID Act? To what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 74/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. The Respondents have entered appearance through
their counsel.
3. Though notice was issued to the petitioner
repeatedly in the given address, notice was returned
un-served with the endorsement that he is not available in
the address.
4. In the absence of the appearance of the petitioner it
is not possible to adjudicate the matter on merits.
The reference is closed and is answered against the
petitioner.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witness Examined
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd
:
None
Management
Documents Marked
On the Petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.