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.