dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1923-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973
¼1974 dk 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, O;kie }kjk lapkfyr fofHkUu ijh{kkvksa esa Hkz"Vkpkj
fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk 49½ dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu
fd, x, vijk/kksa dh fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946
¼1946 dk 25½ ds varxZr dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks }kjk dh tk jgh
tkap rFkk e/; izns'k ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk lañ ,Qñ,uñ
1@5@96@XX&ch ¼,d½@2220@2015 fnukad 28 tqykbZ] 2015 }kjk
vf/klwfpr fopkj.k U;k;ky;ksa esa vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu djus rFkk
mu ekeyksa ls mRiUu izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vihy@iqujh{k.k gsrq
fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrkvksa dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstdksa ds :i esa
fu;qDr djrh gS; uker% %—
¼1½ Jh lrh'k fnudj
¼2½ Jh uFkh ey N=hoky
¼3½ Jh jatu 'kekZ
¼4½ Jh ,lñ,lñ,pñ fjtoh
¼5½ Jh eqds'k dqekj feJk
¼6½ Jh iou dqekj ikBd
¼7½ Jh jek 'kadj frokjh
[Qkñ lañ 225@19@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1923.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby
appoints the following Advocates as Special Public
Prosecutors for conducting prosecution in the Trial Courts,
notified by the Government of Madhya Pradesh vide
Notification No. F.N. 1/5/96/XX-B(one)/2220/2015, dated
28th July, 2015, to try the cases relating to the offences
specified under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) in relation to various examinations,
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- 41 ]
ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 4—vDrwcj 10] 2015] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 12—vkf'ou 18] 1937
No. 41 ]
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 4—OCTOBER 10, 2015, SATURDAY/ASVINA 12—ASVINA 18, 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)
4102 GI/2015
(3991)
3992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conducted by Vyapam and investigated under the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946) by the
Central Bureau of Investigation and appeals or revisions
or other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto
namely:—
1.
Shri Satish Dinkar
2.
Shri Nathi Mal Chhatriwal
3.
Shri Ranjan Sharma
4.
Shri S.S.H. Rizavi
5.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra
6.
Shri Pawan Kumar Pathak
7.
Shri Rama Shankar Tiwari
[F.No. 225/19/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
'kqf)&i=
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1924-—21 vxLr] 2015 dh vf/klwpuk la[;k
20@2@2012&vkbZ,Q&II dks fuEukuqlkj i<+s tkus ds fy, la'kksf/kr
fd;k tkrk gS%
^^#X.k vkS|ksfxd daiuh ¼fo'ks"k mica/k½ vf/kfu;e] 1985 dh
/kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼5½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]
dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] U;k;ewfrZ egkjkt flUgk] v/;{k] vkS|ksfxd
vkSj foÙkh; iqufuekZ.k vihyh; izkf/kdj.k ¼,,vkbZ,Qvkj½ ds
dk;Zdky ds fnukad 15-08-2015 dks iwjk gksus ds ifj.kkeLo:i]
Jh vkjñ lhñ feJk dks vkS|ksfxd vkSj foÙkh; iqufuekZ.k vihyh;
izkf/kdj.k ¼,,vkbZ,Qvkj½ ds ofj"Bre lnL; gksus ds dkj.k mUgsa
inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls ,,vkbZ,Qvkj ds lekiu rd ;k
vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] vkS|ksfxd vkSj foÙkh; iqufuekZ.k
vihyh; izkf/kdj.k esa v/;{k ds :i esa dk;Z djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r
djrh gSA**
[Qkñ lañ 20¼02½@2002&vkbZ,Q&II ¼[kaM&III½]
,eñ ,eñ nkSyk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2015
S.O. 1924.—The Notification No. 20/2/2012-IF-II dated
21st August, 2015 is amended to read as under:
"Consequent upon completion of tenure of
Justice Maharaj Sinha, Chairman, Appellate Authority
for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR)
on 15.08.2015, the Central Government, in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 6
of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)
Act, 1985, hereby authorise Shri R.C. Mishra, being
the senior most Member in AAIFR, to act as
Chairman, AAIFR with effect from the date of
assumption of the charge of the post till abolition of
AAIFR or until further orders, whichever the event
takes place earlier".
[F.No. 20(02)/2002-IF-II (Vol. III)]
M. M. DAWLA, Under Secy.
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1925-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, g®] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, g®%&
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
Hkkñekñ la ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½ o"kZ
1-
6500007198
20150803
eSllZ izse bathfu;fjax
xgjs dqvksa ds fy,
IS 14220 % 1994
,lñ ,Qñ lañ 630@2]
fuEetuh; iEilsV
dLrwjh uk;du iky;e]
oMoYyh iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj & 641 041
2-
6500007299
20150805
eSllZ tkW; vkyqDdkl bafM;k
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ /kkrq,a]
IS 1417 % 1999
izkbZosV fyfeVsM]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk
229@230] dqeju jksM]
,oa eqgjkadu
Vkmu gkWy ds lkeus] fr#Iiqj & 641 601
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
3993
3-
6500007404
20150806
eSllZ lks;y baMLVªhl
lkQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,
IS 8472 % 1998
,l ,l lañ 319] Jh jkeuxj
vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi
,DLVsU'ku] ,Q lh vkbZ jksM]
ihyesMq] dks;EcÙkwj & 641 004
4-
6500007505
20150806
eSllZ lks;y baMLVªhl
xgjs dqvksa ds fy,
IS 14220 % 1994
,l ,Q lañ 319]
fuEetuh; iEilsV
Jh jkeuxj ,DLVsa'ku]
,Q lh vkbZ jksM]
ihyesMq] dks;EcÙkwj & 641 004
5-
6500007606
20150812
eSllZ lhlu ,Dok
iSdstcan is; ty
IS 14543 % 2004
njoktk lañ 570&A] vfoukf'k jksM]
¼iSdstcan feujy ty
ihñ ,uñ iky;e]
ds vykok½
dks;EcÙkwj & 641 037
6-
6500007707
20150819
eSllZ tkW; vkyqDdkl bafM;k
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
IS 1417 % 1999
izkbZosV fyfeVsM]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk
229@230] dqeju jksM]
,oa eqgjkadu
VkmugkWy ds lkeus]
fr#Iiqj & 641 601
7-
6500007808
20150819
eSllZ baVj xksYM tsEl izkbZosV fyfeVsM
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
IS 1417 % 1999
vkgwtk VkWoj
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk
42] Vhñ ohñ Lokeh jksM ¼if'pe½]
,oa eqgjkadu
vkjñ ,lñ iqje]
dks;Ecrwj & 641 002
[lañ lh,eMh@13%11]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1925.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant
Name and Address (Factory) of
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
No.
No.
Date
the Party
Sec. Year
1.
6500007198
20150803
M/s. Prem Engineering
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220 : 1994
SF No. 630/2, Kasturi
Pumpsets
Naicken Palayam,
Vadavalli Post,
Coimbatore - 641 041
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
Hkkñekñ la ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½ o"kZ
3994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
6500007299
20150805
M/s. Joy Alukkas India
Gold and Gold Alloys,
IS 1417 : 1999
Private Limited
Jewellery/Artefacts -
229/230, Kumaran Road,
Fineness and Marking
Opp. Townhall,
Tiruppur - 641 601
3.
6500007404
20150806
M/s. Soyal Industries
Centrifugal Regenerative IS 8472 : 1998
SF No. 319, Sri Ramnagar
Pumps for clear, Cold
Extension,
Water
FCI Road, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore - 641 004
4.
6500007505
20150806
M/s. Soyal Industries
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220 : 1994
SF No. 319, Sri Ramnagar
Pumpsets
Extension,
FCI Road, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore - 641 004
5.
6500007606
20150812
M/s. Season Aqua
Packaged Drinking Water IS 14543 : 2004
D No. 570-A, Avinashi Road,
(other than Packaged
P.N. Palayam,
Natural Mineral Water)
Coimbatore - 641 037
6.
6500007707
20150819
M/s. Joyalukkas India
Gold and Gold Alloys,
IS 1417 : 1999
Private Limited
Jewellery/Artefacts -
229/230, Kumaran Road,
Fineness and Marking
Opp. Townhall,
Tiruppur - 641 601
7.
6500007808
20150819
M/s. Inter Gold Gems Pvt. Ltd.
Gold and Gold Alloys,
IS 1417 : 1999
Ahuja Tower,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
42, T.V. Swamy Road(W),
Fineness and Marking
R.S. Puram,
Coimbatore - 641 002
[No. CMD/13:11]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1926-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%&
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk
LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds varxZr
jí gksus dh
lañ
lh ,e@,yñ
oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
frfFk
1-
6500004697 eSllZ jsbuVªh chojstl
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan feujy ty ds vykok½
07@08@2015
la 6@154&D] dqIiqphiky;e]
IS 14543% 2004
vYyykiq#e jksM] dkjSiqnqj xk¡o]
ohjkikUMh iksLV] fr#Iiqj&641 605
[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%13]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
Sl.
Licence
Grant
Name and Address (Factory) of
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
No.
No.
Date
the Party
Sec. Year
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
3995
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1926.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below
have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:—
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence No.
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with relevant
Date of
No.
CM/L-
Indian Standard covered by the
Cancellation
licence cancelled/suspension
1.
6500004697
M/s. Raintree Beverages
Packaged Drinking Water (other
07/08/2015
No. 6/154-D, Kuppuchipalayam,
than Packaged Natural Mineral
Allalapuram Road, Karaipudur Village,
Water)
Veerapandi Post,
IS 14543: 2004
Tirupur-641 605
[No. CMD/13:13]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head
fof/k vkSj U;k; ea=ky;
¼fof/k dk;Z foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1927-—dsanzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksfèr 1987½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] fofè vkSj U;k; ea=ky;]
fofè dk;Z foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.k ds vèhu fuEufyf[kr
dk;kZy; dks] ftlds 80% ls vfèd deZpkjho`an us fganh dk
dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS%&
1- vk;dj vihyh; vfèdj.k] iq.ks U;k;ihB] iq.ks
[Qkñ lañ bZ&11011¼3½@2015&jkñHkkñ¼foñdkñ½]
Vhñ ,uñ frokjh] vij lfpo
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
(Department of Legal Affairs)
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1927.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central
Government hereby notifies the following Office under the
administrative control of the Department of Legal Affairs,
Ministry of Law and Justice, where more than 80% staff
have acquired the working Knowledge of Hindi:
1. Income Tax appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench, Pune.
[F. No. E-11011(3)/2015-O.L.(L.A.)]
T. N. TIWARI, Addl. Secy.
lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;
¼bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1928-—dsaæ ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk 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] bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx ds varxZr
vkus okyh jk"Vªh; bysDVªkWfudh ,oa lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku ¼ukbfyV½
uked Lok;Rr laLFkk ds lh&134] iqudkWe Hkou] vkS|ksfxd {ks=]
Qst+&VIII] lsDVj&72] ,lñ,ñ,lñuxj] eksgkyh fLFkr dk;kZy;] ftlds
80% ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj
fy;k gS] dks vfèlwfpr djrh gSA
[lañ 7¼2½@2005&fgñvñ]
jktho dqekj] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Electronics & Information Technology)
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1928.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the National Institute of Electronics and Information
Technology (NIELIT) centre, an autonomous society of
the Department of Electronics & Information Technology,
located at C-134, PUNCOM Building Industrial Area, Phase-
VIII, Sector-72, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, whereof more than
80% staff have acquired the working Knowledge of Hindi:
[No.7 (2)/2005-H.S.]
RAJIV KUMAR, Jt.Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1929-—dsaæ ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk 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] bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx ds iz'kklfud
fu;a=.k ds varxZr vkus okys izxr lax.ku fodkl dsUnz ¼lh&MSd½
uked Lok;Ùk laLFkk ds iq.ks fo'ofo|ky; ifjlj] x.ks'kf[kaM] iq.ks
fLFkr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80% ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk
dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vfèlwfpr djrh gSA
[lañ 7¼2½@2005&fgñvñ]
jktho dqekj] la;qDr lfpo
3996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1929.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-
DAC), an autonomous society under the administrative
control of the Department of Electronics & Information
Technology, located at Pune University Campus,
Ganeshkhind, Pune, whereof more than 80% staff have
acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No.7 (2)/2005-H.S.]
RAJIV KUMAR, Jt.Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1930-—dsaæ ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk 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] bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx ds lEc)
dk;kZy; ekudhdj.k ijh{k.k rFkk xq.koÙkk izek.ku funs'kky; ds
d`f"k egkfo|ky; ifjlj] f'kokth uxj] iq.ks fLFkr vèhuLFk dk;kZy;]
bysDVªkWfudh ijh{k.k rFkk fodkl dsUnz] ftlds 80% ls vfèd
deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks
vfèlwfpr djrh gSA
[lañ 7¼2½@2005&fgñvñ]
jktho dqekj] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1930.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the Electronics Test & Development Centre, a Subordinate
Office of Standardization Testing & Quality Certification
Directorate, an attached office of the Department of
Electronics & Information Technology, located at
Agriculture College Campus, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, whereof
more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge
of Hindi.
[No.7 (2)/2005-H.S.]
RAJIV KUMAR, Jt.Secy.
;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1931-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds
'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi
fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa ;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky; ds
v/khuLFk dk;kZy; jk"Vªh; lsok ;kstuk {ks=h; funs'kky;] Hkksiky
¼e/; izns'k½ ftlds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkjhc`an us fganh dk
dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
[fe- la- 11011@2@2008&fg-,-]
,lñ ,yñ ehuk] mi lfpo
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1931.—In pursuance of sub Rule (4) of Rule of 10
of Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union)
Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies National
Service Scheme Regional Directorate, Bhopal (M.P.) a
Subordinate Office of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
whereof more than 80% staff have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]
S.L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1932-—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 dkñvkñ 600¼v½]
rkjh[k 19 Qjojh] 2015 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] vlk/kkj.k] Hkkx II] [kaM
3] mi&[kaM (ii)] rkjh[k 23 Qjojh] 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 ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj]
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 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 dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS] fd lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l
fyfeVsM] jkaph] >kj[kaM ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ 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, 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 ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj dsUnzh; ljdkj
esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,] rkjh[k 23 Qjojh] 2015 ls
fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/khu jgrs gq, ljdkjh daiuh esa
fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%—
1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk
vo/kkfjr izfrdkj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh
ckcr~ fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ
djsxh(
2- ljdkj daiuh }kjk 'krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr ljdkjh daiuh
}kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds
iz;kstuksa ds fy, /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, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds
laca/k esa mixr lHkh O;;] mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu
fd, tk,axs vkSj blh izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds
vf/kdkjksa ds fy, ;k muds laca/k esa vihy vkfn lHkh
fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh
daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
3997
3- ljdkjh daiuh] 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 iwoksZDr 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 daiuh 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 daiuh] ,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, fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir fd, tk,aA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@14@2012&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1932.—Whereas, on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, number S.O. 600 (E), dated the 19th February, 2015,
published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,
Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 23rd February, 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 over the said lands described in the Schedule
appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to
as the said land) are 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 powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the land and all rights over
the said land so vested shall with effect from the
23rd February, 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 legal
proceedings like appeals,etc. for or in connection
with the rights, in the said land, so vested, 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 land so vested;
4. The Government Company shall have 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
directions 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. 43015/14/2012-PRIW-I]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
fo|qr ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1933-—17-08-2006 dks vf/kwlfpr eq[; fo|qr fujh{kd
vkSj fo|qr fujh{kd dh vgZrk] 'kfDr vkSj dk;Z fu;ekoyh] 2006 ds
lkFk ifBr fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 ¼2003 dk 36½ dh /kkjk 162 dh
mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj
,rn~}kjk Jh nsosUnz nÙk feJk] eq[; fo|qr vfHk;ark ¼vkbZvkj,lbZbZ½
ch,evkjlh,y dks bl vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k ls cSaxyksj eSVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM esa muds dk;Zdky rd] mi;qZDr fu;e esa mfYyf[kr
vgZrk vkSj 'krZ dks iwjk djus ds v/khu fu;qDr djrs gSaA Jhs nsosUnz nÙk
feJk dks Jh chñ thñ ekY;k] eq[; fo|qr fujh{kd ch,evkjlh,y ds
LFkku ij fu;qDr fd;k tk,xkA
mi;qZDr vf/kdkjh le;≤ ij ;Fkkla'kksf/kr dsUnzh; fo|qr
izkf/kdj.k ¼lqj{kk vkSj fo|qr vkiwfrZ ls lacaf/kr mik;½ fofu;e] 2010
esa nh xbZ izfØ;k ds vuqlkj] ch,evkjlh,y ds vf/kdkj okys {ks=ksa esa
izpkyuk/khu fo|qr jksfyax LVkWd ds laca/k esa vFkok ch,evkjlh,y ds
fu;a=.kk/khu@ch,evkjlh,y ls lac) lHkh oS|qr laLFkkiukvksa ds
laca/k esa vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djsaxs vkSj vius&vius dk;Z fu"ikfnr
djsaxsA
ch,evkjlh,y ;g lqfuf'pr djsxk fd Jh nsosUnz nÙk feJk
ch,evkjlh,y esa eq[; fo|qr vfHk;ark ¼vkbZvkj,lbZbZ½ ds :i esa
mUgsa lkSais x;s dk;ks± dks djus ds laca/k esa eq[; oS|qr fujh{kd ugha gksaxsA
oS|qr fujh{kd ds :i esa fu;qDr vf/kdkjh og izf'k{k.k ysaxs ftls
dsUnz ljdkj bl mís'; ds fy, vko';d le>s rFkk ,slk izf'k{k.k
ljdkj dh larqf"V ds Lrj rd iwjk fd;k tk,xkA
[Qkñ lañ 42@3@2013&vkj ,.M vkj]
T;ksfr vjksM+k] la;qDr lfpo
3998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1933.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003
(36 of 2003) read with Qualifications, Powers and
Functions for Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical
Inspectors Rules, 2006 notified on 17.8.2006, the Central
Government hereby appoints Sh. Devedra Dutta Mishra,
Chief Electrical Engineer (IRSEE), BMRCL as Electrical
Inspector for Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., from
the date of this Notification till his tenure in BMRCL,
subject to fulfilment of the Qualification and Condition
mentioned in the above Rule. Sh. Devendra Dutta Mishra
will be appointed in place of Sh. B.G. Mallya, Chief
Electrical Engineer, BMRCL.
The above mentioned officer shall exercise the powers
and perform his functions in respect of electrical works,
electrical installations and electrical rolling stock in
operation within the areas occupied by the BMRCL or in
respect of works and all electrical installations under the
control of BMRCL/belonging to BMRCL as per the
procedure provided in Central Electricity Authority
(Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply)
Regulations, 2010, as amended from time to time.
BMRCL will ensure that Sh. Devendra Dutta Mishra
will not be the Chief Electrical Inspector in respect of the
work assigned to him as Chief Electrical Engineer (IRSEE)
in BMRCL.
The person appointed as Electrical Inspector shall
undergo such training as the Central Government may
consider necessary for the purpose and such training shall
be completed to the satisfaction of the Government.
[F.No. 42/3/2013-R&R]
JYOTI ARORA, Jt. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flracj] 2015
dk-vk- 1934-—17-08-2006 dks vf/klwfpr eq[; oSn~;qr fujh{kd vkSj fo|qr fujh{kd dh vgZrk] 'kfDr vkSj dk;Z fu;ekoyh] 2006 ds
lkFk ifBr fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 ¼2003 dk 36½ dh /kkjk 162 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj
,rnn~okjk dsanzh; fo|qr izkf/kdj.k ds fuEufyf[kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks bl vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k ls dsanzh; fo|qr izkf/kdj.k esa muds dk;Zdky rd]
mi;qZDr fu;e esa mfYyf[kr vgZrk vkSj 'krZ dks iwjk djus ds v/khu dsanzh; fo|qr izkf/kdj.k esa eq[; fo|qr fujh{k.k@oS|qr fujh{kd ds :i esa
fu;qDr djrh gS%&
Øe
uke
vgZrk
lhbZ, esa inuke
ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k
lañ
tkuk gS
1-
Jh xkSre jk;¹
chñVsdñ ¼bathñ½] ¼fo|qr½
eq[; vfHk;ark
eq[; fo|qr fujh{kd
2-
Jherh eSjh Qzkafll
chñ,llhñ Vsdñ ¼bathñ½] ¼fo|qr½
mi funs'kd
fo|qr fujh{kd
3-
Jherh FkkWel dsñ pkdks
chñ,llhñ Vsdñ ¼bathñ½] ¼fo|qr½
mi funs'kd
fo|qr fujh{kd
¹ Jh xkSre jk; dks Jh Mhñ dsñ tSu ds LFkku ij eq[; fo|qr fujh{kd ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA
mi;qZDr vf/kdkjh le;≤ ij ;Fkkla'kksf/kr dsanzh; izkf/kdj.k ¼lqj{kk vkSj fo|qr vkiwfrZ ls lacaf/kr mik;½ fofu;e] 2010 esa nh xbZ izfØ;k ds
vuqlkj] dsanzh; fo|qr izkf/kdj.k ds vf/kdkj okys {ks=ksa esa izpkyuk/khu fo|qr jksfyax LVkWd ds laca/k esa vFkok dsanzh; fo|qr izkf/kdj.k ds fu;a=.kk/
khu@dsanzh; fo|qr izkf/kdj.k ls lEc) lHkh fo|qr laLFkkiukvksa ds laca/k esa vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djsaxs vkSj vius&vius dk;Z fu"ikfnr djsaxsA
dsanzh; fo|qr izkf/kdj.k ;g lqfuf'pr djsxk fd mijksDr vf/kdkjh lhbZ, esa eq[; vfHk;ark@mi funs'kd ds :i esa mUgsa lkSais x;s dk;ks± dks djus
ds laca/k esa eq[; fo|qr fujh{kd@fo|qr fujh{kd ugha gksaxsA
fo|qr fujh{kd ds :i esa fu;qDr vf/kdkjh og izf'k{k.k ysaxs ftls dsanz ljdkj bl mís'; ds fy, vko';d le>s rFkk ,slk izf'k{k.k ljdkj
dh larqf"V ds Lrj rd iwjk fd;k tk,xkA
[Qkñlañ&42@3@2013&vkj,.Mvkj]
T;ksfr vjksM+k] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1934.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003)
read with Qualifications, Powers and Functions for Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors Rules, 2006 notified
on 17.08.2006, the Central Government hereby appoints following officers of CEA as Chief Electrical Inspector/Electrical
Inspector in CEA, from the date of this Notification till their tenure in CEA, subject to fulfilment of the qualification and
Condition mentioned in the above Rule:
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
3999
S. No.
Name
Qualification
Designation
Appointed as
1.
Sh. Goutam Roy*
B.Tech. (Engg.) (Electrical)
Chief Engineer
Chief Electrical Inspector
2.
Mrs. Mary Francis
B. Sc. (Engg.) (Electrical)
Deputy Director
Electrical Inspector
3.
Sh. Thomas K. Chacko
B. Sc. (Engg.) (Electrical)
Deputy Director
Electrical Inspector
*Sh. Goutam Roy is appointed as Chief Electrical Inspector in place of Sh. D.K. Jain
The above mentioned officers will exercise the powers
and perform their respective functions in respect of
electrical works, electrical installations and electrical rolling
stock in operations within the areas occupied by the CEA
or in respect of works and all electrical installations under
the control of CEA/belonging to CEA as per the procedure
provided in Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating
to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2010 as
amended from time to time.
CEA will ensure that abvoe officers will not be the Chief
Electrical Inspector/Electrical Inspector in respect of the work
assigned to him as Chief Engineer/Deputy Director in CEA.
The persons appointed as Electrical shall undergo such
training as the Central Government may consider it
necessary for the purpose and such training shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Government.
[F.No.-42/3/2013-R&R]
JYOTI ARORA, Jt. Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1935-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnfo'kuy
bathfu;j VsyhdkWe] Hkksiky ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@42@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@21@96&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1935.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/42/
98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jablapur now as shown in the Annexure in
the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Divisional Engineer Telecom, Bhopal
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 09/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/21/96-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/42/98
Shri Ramdas S/o Shri Gangaram,
Village Jargaon, Post Bhageh,
Tehsil Dabra,
Distt. Gwalior (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Engineer Telecom (RE),
Arera Colony,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 23-2-98 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-40012/21/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of management of Divisional
Engineer Telecom (RE) Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Ramdas S/o Shri Gangaram w.e.f.
15-8-91 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim AT Pages
2/1 to 2/3. The case of workman is that he was engaged on
daily wages from 17-8-85 with 2nd party. He was working
with devotion at Gwalior till 30-4-86. From 10-6-86, workman
was engaged on daily wages at Bhopal. He was
continuously working till 14-8-91. On 15-8-91, his services
were orally discontinued. The oral termination is illegal. He
was not given one months notice or one months pay in lieu
of notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation.
Without issuing showcause notice, his services were
terminated. That he had worked continuously more than
240 days. His termination is in violation of Section 25-F of
ID Act. Other persons engaged after him are continued in
employment in violation of Section 25-G of ID Act. For
terminating services of workman, permission of
4000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government was not obtained. On such ground, workman
is praying for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Pages 16/1 to 16/
2 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party raised
preliminary objection that Railway electrification Project is
under control of Director of Railway Electrification of office
at Bhopal. Said office was established by Telecom
department. After completion of its work in 1990, said office
was closed. The record was destroyed after complying the
rules. Any information about working of Ist party is not
available. Claim of workman deserves to be rejected. 2nd
party reiterates that record relating to the working of Ist
party is not available. Compensation under ID Act was
paid to the retrenched labours. Permission for retrenchment
was taken from Competent Authority. Claim of workman is
without any basis. It is barrede by time limit. On such
ground, 2nd party prays for answering reference in its
favour.
4. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating its contentions in
statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
"(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
Management of Divisional
Engineer Telecom (RE) Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri
Ramdas S/o Shri Gangaram w.e.f.
15-8-91 is legal and justified?
(ii) If so, to what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Ist party is challenging termination of his service for
violation of Section 25-G, H of ID Act. Workman filed affidvit
of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of
claim. That he was working from 17-8-95 to 31-1-86 at Datia
from 1-2-86 to 30-4-86, he was required to work at Gwalior
laying the cables. From 10-6-86, he was engaged on daily
wages at Bhopal. He was continuously working at Bhopal
till 14-8-91. His services were orally discontinued from
15-8-91. That he was working with 2nd party for six years
during each of the calendar year, he completed more than
240 days continuous service. The details of his working
days are given in Para-4 of his affidavit. In his cross-
examination, workman says on 17-8-85, he was engaged by
Motilal Kushwaha. He was appointed at Datia where he
worked for one year. He was not appointed by contractor.
From Datia, he went to Bhopal for work. Before
discontinuing his services, SDO had contacted JTO. He
was orally terminated. Written order of termination was not
given to him. He denies that appointment letter in writing
was not given to him. That he had gone for work from
Datial to Bhopal, transfer order was not received. He was
unable to tell whether PF was deducted from his wages.
When he was transferred from Datia, said office was
working. Workman in his further cross denies that he was
working sometimes 8 days, 12 days, 15 days in a month.
Document Exhibit W-1 was referred to workman. Secondly
it was admitted in evidence. He denies that he had not
worked 240 days in any of the year. Before his engagement,
post was not advertised. Presently he is working in the
agricultural land. In document Exhibit W-1, the working
days of workman are shown more than 240 days during
each of the years 17-8-85 to June 88. The evidence of
workman is corroboraed by document Exhibit W-1.
7. Management's witness Shri R.V. Chouhan filed
affidavit supporting contentions of 2nd party in the
Written Statement. That the work of electrification project
was carried at different points. The office at Bhopal was
closed in 1990. The documents related to the project was
destroyed as per Rule-69 in Appendix-V. In his cross-
examination, witness of management says he is working
with 2nd party from April 84. He does not know the workman.
He had seen his service record. Work was completed in
1990. Presently he is working in BSNL since 1-10-00. At
that time option of employee working in Telecom Deptt.
was called. The option was also called from casual employee
working in Telecom department. Copy of rules about
distribution of rules is produced. Management's witness
has no personal knowledge. The document relating to the
working of Ist party could not be produced as stated above.
The evidence of workman is supported by document
Exhibit W-1. Workman had completed 240 days continuous
service during 1985 to 1988. Therefore I do not find reason
to disbelieve of workman. The services of workman are
discontinued without notice, no retrenchment
compensation was paid. Though 2nd party in its Written
Statement has contented that retrenchment compensation
was paid under ID Act, any document in that regard are not
produced by 2nd party. No document is also produced
about permission of Competent Authority for retrenchment
of employee is obtained. The contentions of 2nd party in
that regard are not substantiated by documents. It is clear
that services of workman are discontinued in violation of
section 25-F of ID Act, therefore I record my finding in
point No. 1 in Negative.
8. Point No. 2—termination of workman is found illegal
for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, question remains
for consideration that workman is entitled for reinstatement
with backwages. The evidence of management's witness
that office of Railway Electrification project at Bhopal was
closed in 1998 is not shattered in its cross-examination.
Workman was engaged on daily wages. As per evidence in
cross-examination of workman, the post was not advertised.
Appointment letter in writing as not given to him. Copy of
award in R/274/97 is produced. In said case, violation of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4001
Section 25-G was also established. Workman has not
disclosed names of any junior persons continued by 2nd
party therefore reinstatement of Workman could not be
possible. Considering nature of engagement of workman
and period of his engagement, compensation Rs. One Lakh
would be reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in
points No.2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Divisional
Engineer Telecom (RE) Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Ramdas S/o Shri Gangaram w.e.f.
15-8-91 is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay Rs. One Lakh
compensation to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. RATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1936-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj j{kk vuqla/kku ,oa
fodkl laxBu] Xokfy;j ,oa vU; 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;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@70@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&14012@87@2001&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2015
S.O. 1936.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indistrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/70/
2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Defence Research & Development
Organisation, Gwalior & Others and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 18/09/2015.
[No. L-14012/87/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/70/2002
Shri Umesh Kumar,
S/o Shri Ramsewak,
R/o New Colony No. 1,
Qtr. No. 17,
...Workman
Birla Nagar, Gwalior
Versus
Director,
Defence Research & Development Organisation,
Gwalior.
M/S Sharma Construction,
Qr. No. 60, Line No. 14,
Birla Nagar,
...Management
Gwalior.
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 26.4.02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal
under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-14012/87/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under
reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Director,
Defence Research & Development Establishment
in terminating the services of Shri Umesh Kumar
S/o Shri Ramsewak Paswan w.e.f. 28.3.96 is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitlted for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at pages
2/1 to 2/3. Case of workman is that 2nd Party No. 1 had
issued letter dated 21.0.93 allowing 2nd Party No. 2 to
engage contract labour. 2nd Party No. 3 was allowed
contract of Rs. 20,000 as per order dated 1.2.93. Ist party
was working on daily wages with 2nd Party No. 3 from
December 1993 to 28.2.96. He was working continuously.
His services were terminated without notice. List of daily
wage employee was not displayed on notice board.
Workman prays for setting aside order of his termination
and reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd Party No. 1, 2 filed Written Statement at Pages
3/1 to 3/4 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits
that their establishment is engaged in field of Defence
Research for Armed Forces. It is sovereign function.
Provisions of ID Act are not applicable to their
establishment. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide
reference. That in order to expedite the projects, engage
workers for specific jobs through Private contractors. The
work related to project is of perennial nature. The work is
intermittent. When ever some work is mentioned
intermittent work activities increased. On 21.10.93, 2nd
Party No. 1, 2 awarded contract. M/S Sharma constructions
and Government supply is 2nd Party No. 3 for carrying out
4002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
various type of jobs at Rs. 20,000 per month. Workman
was engaged by 2nd party No. 3, 2nd Party No. 1, 2 were
not supervising work of the labours engaged by contractor.
Workman was not terminated by 2nd Party No. 1,2. The
contractor had terminated services of workman,
management has no control over him. On such ground,
2nd party prays reference be answared in its favour.
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
2nd Party No. 1, 2
management of Director,
not engaged or
Defence Research & Development terminate the
Establishment in terminting the
workman.
services of Shri Umesh Kumar
S/o Shri Ramsewak Paswan .
w.e.f. 28.3.96 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
5. In his pleading and affidavit of evidence, workman
says that he was engaged by contractor 2nd Party No. 3.
the order of reference indicates that 2nd Party No. 3 is not
party to the dispute. His name is not appearing in order of
reference. From evidence and pleadings of workman, it is
clear that the workman was not engaged or terminated by
2nd Party No. 1,2 management rather workman was
engaged by construction contractor. He was not party to
the reference. In statement of claim, his name is added by
workman.
6. The evidence of management's witness Shri K. K.
Soni is devoted on the point that establishment of
2nd party is discharging sovereign functions of the State.
Contractor M/S Sharma Construction and Government
supply was engaged on contract on 21.10.93. The nature
of work assigned to the said contractor is not disclosed
whether his evidence is also not clear, what kind of work,
the work was carrying after his engagement by contractor
the contentions of 2nd party that it is not covered as
industry therefore cannot be upheld the evidence of
management's witness is clear that workman was engaged
by contractor. Copy of contract is produced by
management's witness at Exhibit M-1. The record about
payment of wages is produced at Exhibit M-2. The counter
files are produced at Exhibit M-3/1 to 3/13. The
management's witness denies that during 1993 to 1996,
workman was working with management of 2nd Party No.
1, 2. Any other evidence is not produced by workman that
he was working under 2nd party No. 1, 2 for more than 240
days working. 2nd Party No. 3 was not party to the reference.
7. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Chourasia
incidently relies on ratio held in Case of Rajkumar versus
Jalagaon Municipal Corporation reported in 2013 (1) SCC
L&S-471. Their Lordship dealing with termination of service
of casual labour, daily wager and judgment of Single Judge
and Division Bench of High Court that appellants were
temporarily appointed on daily wages as and when work
was available and not posted on regular basis against any
sanctioned post. Their Lordship held there is no reason
and justification to interfere with the orders passed by the
two courts refusing to set aside termination of appellants.
In para-7 of the judgment, their Lordship considering
promptness in approching proper forum payment of
Rs. 10,000 each of the appellants will not adequately
compensate. The compensation Rs. 50,000 each was
allowed.
Ratio in above cited case cannot be applied to present
case as Ist Party workman was neither engaged or
terminated by 2nd Party No. 1, 2. The workman was not
engaged or terminated by 2nd Party, rather he was engaged
or terminated by the contractor who is not party to the
dispute under reference. Accordingly I record my finding
in Pont No. 1.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The workman was not engaged or terminated by
2nd Party No. 1,2. The contractor was not party
to the reference.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1937-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj j{kk
vuqla/kku ,oa fodkl laxBu] Xokfy;j ,oa vU; ds izca/kr= 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 ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@
vkj@51@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&14012@88@2001&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2015
S.O. 1937.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/51/
2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Defence Research & Development
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4003
Organisation, Gwalior & Others and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 18/09/2015.
[No. L-14012/88/2001-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/51/2002
Shri P. V. Sharma,
M/s. Sharma Constructions,
Qr. No. 60, Line No. 4,
Birla Nagar, Gwalior
...Workman
Versus
Director,
Defence Research & Development Organisation,
Gwalior
M/s. Sharma Constructions,
Qr. No. 60, Line No. 14,
Birla Nagar,
...Management
Gwalior
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of September, 2015
1.
As per letter dated 11.3.02 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-14012/
88/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Director,
Defence Research & Development Establishment in
terminating the services of Shri Munnalal Prajapati
S/o Shri Ramnandan Prajapati w.e.f. 28.3.96 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page 2/1
to 2/3. Case of workman is that 2nd party No. 1 had issued
letter dated 21.09.93 allowing 2nd party No. 2 to engage
contract labour. 2nd party No. 3 was allowed contract of
Rs. 20,000 as per order dated 1.2.93. Ist party was working
on daily wages with 2nd party No. 3 from December, 1993
to 28.2.96. He was working continuously. His services were
terminated without notice. List of daily wage employee
was not displayed on notice board. Workman prays for
setting aside order of his termination and reinstatement
with backwages.
3. 2nd party No. 1, 2 filed Written Statement at Page 3/1
to 3/4 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits
that their establishment is engaged in field of Defence
Research for Armed Forces. It is sovereign function.
Provisions of ID Act are not applicable to their
establishment. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide
reference. That in order to expedite the projects, engage
workers for specific jobs through Private contractors. The
work related to project is of perennial nature. The work is
intermittent. When ever some work is mentioned
intermittent work activities increased. On 21.10.93, 2nd party
No. 1, 2 awarded contract. M/s. Sharma constructions and
Government supply is 2nd party No. 3 for carrying out
various type of jobs at Rs. 20,000 per month. Workman was
engaged by 2nd party No. 3. 2nd party No. 1, 2 were not
supervising work of the labours engaged by contractor.
Workman was not terminated by 2nd party No. 1, 2. The
contractor had terminated services of workman.
Management has no control over him. On such ground,
2nd party prays reference be answered in its favour.
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
2nd party No. 1, 2
management of Director,
not engage or
Defence Research & Development terminate the
Establishment in terminating the
workman.
services of Shri Munnalal Prajapati
S/o Shri Ramnandan Prajapati
w.e.f. 28.3.96 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
5. In his pleading and affidavit of evidence, workman
says that he was engaged by contractor 2nd party No. 3.
The order of reference indicates that 2nd party No. 3 is not
party to the dispute. His name is not appearing in order of
reference. From evidence and pleadings of workman, it is
clear that the workman was not engaged or terminated by
2nd party No. 1, 2 management rather workman was
engaged by construction contractor. He was not party to
the reference. In statement of claim, his name is added by
workman.
6. The evidence of management's witness Shri K.K. Soni
is devoted on the point that establishment of 2nd party is
discharging sovereign functions of the State. Contractor
M/s. Sharma Construction and Government supply was
engaged on contract on 21.10.93. The nature of work
assigned to the said contractor is not disclosed whether
his evidence is also not clear, what kind of work, the work
was carrying after his engagement by contractor. The
contentions of 2nd party that it is not covered as industry
therefore cannot be upheld. The evidence of management's
witness is clear that workman was engaged by contractor.
Copy of contract is produced by management's witness at
4004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Exhibit M-1. The record about payment of wages is
produced at Exhibit M-2. The counter files are produced at
Exhibit M-3/1 to 3/13. The management's witness denies
that during 1993 to 1996, workman was working with
management of 2nd party No. 1, 2. Any other evidence is
not produced by workman that he was working under 2nd
party No. 1, 2 for more than 240 days working. 2nd party
No. 3 was not party to the reference.
7. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Chourasia
incidently relies on ratio held in Case of Rajkumar versus
Jalagaon Municipal Corporation reported in 2013(1) SCC
L& S-471. Their Lordship dealing with termination of service
of casual labour, daily wager and judgment of Single Judge
and Division Bench of High Court that appellants were
temporarily appointed on daily wages as and when work
was available and not posted on regular basis against any
sanctioned post. Their Lordship held there is no reason
and justification to interfere with the orders passed by the
two courts refusing to set aside termination of appellants.
In para-7 of the judgment, their Lordship considering
promptness in approaching proper forum payment of
Rs. 10,000 each to the appellants will not adequately
compensate. The compensation Rs. 50,000 each was
allowed.
Ratio in above cited case cannot be applied to present
case as Ist party workman was neither engaged or terminated
by 2nd party No. 1, 2. The workman was not engaged or
terminated by 2nd party, rather he was engaged or
terminated by the contractor who is not party to the dispute
under reference. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No. 1.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The workman was not engaged or terminated by
2nd party No. 1, 2. The contractor was not party
to the reference.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1938-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;q/k dkj[kkuk]
bVkjlh 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/kdkj ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ lañ lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@01@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&14012@27@98&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2015
S.O. 1938.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/1/
99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-
Labour-Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Ordnance Factory, Itarsi
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/09/2015.
[No. L-14012/27/98-IR (DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Dest Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/1/99
Shri Ashok Kumar Sarathe,
Oppo. Raj Talkies,
PO Itarsi,
Distt. Hoshangabad
... Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
Itarsi (MP)
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of July, 2015
1. As per letter dated 30-10/13-11/98 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-14012/
27/98-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Ordnance
Factory, Itarsi in:—
(a) Stopping 2 increments for 2 years without
cumulative effect on 12-5-86,
(b) Stoppage of next increment for 2 years without
cumulative effect on 19-7-89 and
(c) in terminating Shri Ashok Kumar Sarathe is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/6. Case of Ist party is that Government has
referred the dispute relating to the action of the
management of Ordinance Factory, Itarsi in stopping two
increments on 12.5.86 and 19.7.89 and legality of termination
of workman. Workman was served with chargesheet dated
11.8.89. The charges against workman were that on 26.7.89
at 12.10 hours, while shri B.K. Biswas Works Manager was
coming from CWS Section, he was obstructed by the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4005
applicant and one Shri Laxmi Narain Gahlot and beaten
Mr. Biswas causing injuries to his left arm another charge
alleged was of habital offender punished earlier.
Chargesheet was replied by workman on 24.9.90 denying
the charges against him. He was called to file statement of
his defence witness. Shri M. V. Murleedharan was
appointed as Enquiry Officer. Similar enquiry was
conducted against Laxmi Narain Gahlot by same Enquiry
Officer. Workman did not examine themselves. The defence
statement was submitted jointly by workman and
Shri Gehlot.
3. Management examined Shri S.L. Gehlot, R.K. Verma
on 13.2.90. Shri B.K. Biswas was examined on 4.4.90. Prior
to DE against workman, preliminary enquiry was conducted,
statement of Shri Gahlot, Ram Brij Prasad, Ram Kumar and
Shyam Singh were recorded on 26.7.89. Joint enquiry was
ordered on 4.10.89. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on
24.7.90. Its copy was supplied to workman on 3.8.90.
Management ordered that report of Enquiry Officer shall
be considered after receiving representation of the
workman, 15 days time was granted for submitting Defence
statement. Laxmi Gahlot submitted his representation on
15.9.90. Their representation was not taken into
consideration. Management issued letter dated 20.9.90.
Ist party workman submits that he was dismissed on 5.10.90.
His appeal was dismissed on 6.11.90. It is reiterated that
enquiry was not properly conducted. There was no eye
witness to the incident of beating. Prosecution witness
given statement. Enquiry Officer found him guilty. The
finding of Enquiry Officer is perverse. Shri Biswas had also
submitted report to save himself alleging workman had
stopped him. It is an act unbecoming on party of the officer.
The Disciplinary Authority accepted oral evidence of
Shri Biswas. The defence evidence was not accepted. On
such ground, it is submitted that the order of punishment
of dismissal is illegal.
4. Management of 2nd party filed Written Statement at
Page 6/1 to 6/4. Charges against workman was reproduced
in Para 1 of Written Statement. 2nd party submits that
workman was appointed as Darban on 20.3.80. He was
transferred as unskilled labour w.e.f. 1.7.85 in Pay Scale
196-212. During the service tenure, workman committed
several misconduct on different occasions. Disciplinary
action were initiated against him as per CCS Rules.
Punishment of stoppage of increments on 12.5.86, 19.7.89
were imposed after conducting enquiry. Punishment of
dismissal was imposed after conducting enquiry as per
CCS Rules. 2nd party separately submits that in 1986,
workman was posted in transport section. On 29.3.86, he
left his place of work and participated in illegal
demonstration, slogan shouting and resorted to dharna in
front of General Manager's Office on 29.3.86 from 12.15
hours. Chargesheet was issued to him under Rule 16. Gross
misconduct of absenting him from place of work participated
in demonstration, shouting slogans committed by workman
were an act of unbecoming of a Government servant. Reply
submitted by workman on 17.4.76 was considered. The
contention of workman was rejected. Penalty of withholding
3 increments without cumulative effect was imposed for
3 years. W.r.t. stoppage of two increments vide order dated
19.7.89, 2nd party submits that workman was posted at
Steam services Maintenance Section. On 20.5.89, workman
left place of his working alongwith Laxminarayan skilled
labour. It was also reported that on 31.5.89, workman did
not perform his assigned duty. Therefore chargesheet was
issued to him under Rule 16 for gross misconduct issued
from place of work during duty hours. Workman was given
10 days time to file reply. Workman did not submit any
reply. Punishment of with holding two increments was
imposed with cumulative effect.
5. W.r.t punishment of dismissal order dated 5.10.90
submits that chargesheet for gross misconduct assaulting
Gazetted Officer, habitual offender was issued to workman
and one Laxmi Gahlot. Workman denied charges against
him. Common order was passed under Rule 18(1) & (2)
CCS(CCA) Rules for conducting common enquiry. It is
reiterated that rules were followed while conducting enquiry.
Workman and Laxmi Narayan were guilty of the charges
framed against him. Punishment of dismissal from service
was imposed on him. The appeal filed by workman dated
6-11-90 was dismissed by speaking order dated 11-3-91.
2nd party submits that there is enough evidence on record
supporting findings of Enquiry Officer. No illegality is
committed while imposing the punishment. Workman filed
OA No. 246/92 before CAT, Jabalpur. 2nd party, submits
that if enquiry is found vitiated, 2nd party be permitted to
lead evidence to prove misconduct against workman. 2nd
party reiterated that punishment of dismissal imposed
against workman is legal. As per order dated 26-2-2012,
enquiry is found illegal. Management was permitted to
prove misconduct adducing evidence.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Ordnance Factory,
Itarsi in Stopping 2 increments for
2 years without cumulative effect
on 12-5-86 is proper and legal?
(ii) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Ordnance Factory,
Itarsi in Stoppage of next increment
for 2 years without cumulative effect
on 19-7-89 is proper and legal?
(iii) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Ordnance Factory,
Itarsi in terminating Shri Ashok
Kumar Sarathe is proper and legal?
4006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iv) If not, what relief the
As per final
workman is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
7. Enquiry conducted against workman is found illegal
as per order dated 26-6-2012. The terms of reference
withholding two increments of workman as per order dated
12-5-86 & 19-7-89. The reference dispute is relating to those
punishment is referred as per order dated 30-10-98 almost
12-9 years. Enquiry conducted against workman held illegal
relates to punishment of dismissal imposed against
workman. Order dated 26-6-2012 does not reflect detailed
reasons of enquiry. Those punishment were found illegal
as per Written statement filed by 2nd party. To chargesheet
issued to workman, reply given by management was found
satisfactory. Punishment of withholding increments was
imposed. Dispute is raised after 12-9 years. Considering
the delay, the dispute is raised, the dispute w.r.t. punishment
of withholding two increments vide order dated 12-5-86,
19-7-89 would not be tenable. Legal position rather settled
that the dispute referred after period of 7 years are not
tenable. After finding of my predecessor, the enquiry
conducted against workman was found illegal, 2nd party
was permitted to prove misconduct in Court.
8. Management filed evidence of witness Shri Hemant
Kumar Paikra. His affidavit is devoted on the point of
conducting enquiry against workman on complaint of
Shri B.K. Biswas Works Manager who was Group A
Gazetted Officer. In para 5.1 of his affidavit, management's
witness has narrated the workman and other employees
Laxminarayan were sending at the corner of the building of
said section obstructed him at that place. When the officer
enquired about the cause of obstruction, Shri Laxmi Narayan
told him in Hindi "Tumse aur kya bolna" and both of them
stared beating the officer with their hands, the officer had
caught hold Shri Laxmi Narayan and shouted for help. On
his calling, when staff members of CW section came out,
the workman twisted the hands of the officer and got his
accomplice released. The officer had suffered injury and
he submitted a complaint on that day itself. The complaint
dated 26-7-89 alongwith statements dated 26-7-89 of
witnesses are enclosed. Since the Officer had suffered
injury due to assault, he was sent to Ordnance Factory,
Itarsi Hospital for medical examination and treatment. His
affidavit is further devoted in Para 5.3 that documents
available on record, workman was habitual of committing
misconduct while on duty. Punishment was imposed. His
affidavit is further devoted on point of imposing
punishment of withholding two increments. Order No. 1258
for misconduct of workman absenting from duty and
missing form place of work. The affidavit of management's
witness does not disclose that he was witness to the
incident, what was his source of knowledge of the incident.
It also not disclosed. In his cross-examination,
management's witness says he was working in Ordnance
Factory since 2007. He has no personal knowledge of
chargesheet issued to workman. He admits that two
increments of workman w.r.t. charge of unauthorized
absence. He doesnot know whether the workman was active
Union leader or workman was taking dispute of workers to
the management. Management's witness claims ignorance
whether management was annoyed with the workman. The
management's witness admits that again two increments of
workman were with held for charge of missing from the
place of work. He claims ignorance whether before imposing
punishment, enquiry was conducted. That his affidavit is
based on documents. The zerox copy of record are filed at
R/7, R/8 the chargesheet issued on 11-8-89. The complainant
had not given evidence in DE in his presence. Once DE
conducted against workman is found vitiated, evidence
recorded in Enquiry Proceedings cannot be considered in
support of charge.
9. The evidence of workman on the point that he was
wrongly involved in the case by Shri B.K. Biswas, Work
Manager. On 26-7-89, he attended his duty. He had not
brought his tiffin therefore he had gone to C.W. Section.
He asked Aziz Khan to bring his tiffin. However Aziz Khan
did not bring his tiffin for want of time and therefore he was
going out for taking lunch. His affidavit is devoted on the
point that there was old dispute between Gehlot, co-worker
and Works Manager. He was also implicated in the matter.
The management failed to cross-examine the workman. His
evidence remained unchallenged. The evidence of
management's witness is not disclosing whether he was
dye witness of the incident, what was source of his
knowledge about recording of statement of witnesses. The
evidence of management's witness is not based on his
personal knowledge about incident of beating Works
Manager, Shri B.K. Biswas by workman. The evidence of
management's witness cannot prove charge No. 3 against
workman. The evidence of workman about said incident
remain unchallenged and I do not find any reason to discard
evidence of workman.
10. As stated above, the punishment of withholding
two increments of workman was imposed on 12-5-86 and
19-7-89. The dispute w.r.t. said punishment is referred along
with the withheld charge for which the workman was
dismissed from service. The dispute raised w.r.t. those
punishments after 9-12 years is belated. Therefore action
of the management withholding increment by those orders
cannot be interviewed. So far as punishment of dismissal
imposed against workman after enquiry, enquiry is vitiated
and evidence of management's witness does not show
source of his knowledge about his evidence of the incident.
His affidavit does not disclose whether he is witness to the
incident whether his affidavit is based on the documents.
But since the enquiry is vitiated, evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings cannot be considered. The charge about
assaulting Shri B.K. Biswas by workman is not proved.
The action of the management in imposing punishment of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4007
dismissal cannot be sustained. It is illegal. Accordingly I
record my finding in Point No. 1.
11. In view of my finding in Point No. 1 charge w.r.t.
assaulting and inflicting injury by workman on Works
Manager, Shri B.K. Biswas is not proved. The note of
argument submitted by management counsel relates to
course of dispute and enquiry conducted against workman
imposing punishment of dismissal. The order dated
26-6-2012 also shows that the management has not adduced
evidence. The original Enquiry Proceedings were not
produced. Management's witness is not cross-examined.
The punishment of dismissal imposed on workman cannot
be sustained. Therefore punishment of dismissal imposed
on workman deserves to be set-aside. Workman in his
affidavit of evidence has stated that after dismissal from
service, he could not get other job despite of repeated
efforts made by him. His wife is doing work of cleaning
utensil of other house. He is unemployed. His evidence
remained unchallenged. Management has not adduced any
evidence that workman was in gainful employment after
dismissal from his service. Considering the evidence on
record and charge of assault and inflicting injury is not
proved, the workman is entitled for reinstatement with
backwages. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management imposing
punishment of dismissal workman is illegal. The
punishment of Stopping 2 increments for 2 years
without cumulative effect vide order dated
12-5-86 & 19-7-89 cannot be said illegal as dispute
raised is highly belated.
(2) The order of dismissal of workman is set-aside.
(3) 2nd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service with full backwages
(4) 2nd party shall pay cost of Rs. 3000/- to the
workman.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1939-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iksLV vkWfQl xquk
fMohtu 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; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@107@00½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@16@2000&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2015
S.O. 1939.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/
107/00) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Post Office, Guna Division and
their workman, which received by the Central Government
on 18/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/16/2000-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/107/00
Shri Ajaj Ahmed
S/o Shahjad Ahmed,
R/o Bahadurpur,
Tehsil Mungavali,
Guna ..........
.... Workman
Versus
Superintendent,
Post, Office, Guna Division,
Guna
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 21-6-00 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-40012/
16/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of
Superintendent of Post Office in terminating the
services of Shri Ajaj Ahmed S/o Shahjad Ahmed
w.e.f. 22-9-97 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 8/1 to 8/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed
as postman on 16-3-78. His services were illegally terminated
on 22-9-97. That enquiry conducted against him is illegal.
The order of his termination is also illegal. Principles of
natural justice were not followed. He was not supplied
documents of preliminary enquiry and imposed documents
in enquiry. He was not allowed Defence Assistant by
Enquiry Officer. Shri S.P. Srivastava, Suptd. at Puna was
appointed as Enquiry Officer in violation of Discipline
4008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appeal rules. He was not paid subsistence allowance during
suspension period. He was not allowed opportunity to
cross-examine management's witnesses. The findings of
Enquiry Officer are perverse. After termination of his
services, he is unemployed. On such ground, workman
prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to 10/5
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that
chargesheet was issued to workman for misconduct on
23-1-96. Enquiry Officer was appointed to Shri A. K. Yadav,
Asstt. Suptd., Guna. Shri S.P. Srivastava Suptd. At Guna
was appointed as Presenting Officer. Shri R.K. Soni was
Defence Asstt. for workman. He had taken inspection of
documents. Enquiry was conducted on various dates. The
witnesses of management were present for cross-
examination. The workman admitted the charges against
him and declined to cross-examine management's
witnesses. The enquiry is conducted properly. Workman
was allowed opportunity for his defence. Considering
report of Enquiry Officer, charges against workman were
proved. Punishment of dismissal was imposed. The appeal
preferred by workman challenging his dismissal was
dismissed. 2nd party reiterates that workman was allowed
opportunity for his defence. 2nd party submits that
reference be answered in its favour.
4. Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal
as per order dated 29-11-2013.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded each of them for the reasons be
below:—
(i)
Whether the miscondcut
alleged against workman is
In Affirmative
proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii)
Whether the punishment of
dismissal imposed against
In Nagative
workman is proper and legal?
(iii)
If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. The chargesheet was issued to Ist party workman.
The misconduct alleged against him is workman while
working as EPMC/AA at Bhadurpur, Mungavali on
17-12-94, the bag sent from Accounts Officer Mungavali
for branch Bauro was received by workman in proper
condition. Said bag received in Bahadurpur Core branch
was found its seal missing when it was opened in presence
of Ram Narayan Sharma and Kailash Giri. As enquiry
conducted against workman is found proper and legal, the
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs to be considered
for deciding whether misconduct alleged against workman
is proved. The documents in Enquiry Proceedings at Page
10/12 shows that on 13-1-97, when enquiry was fixed, CSE
received chargesheet. He denied charges against him the
enquiry was fixed on 5-2-97. Documents were supplied to
workman. The enquiry was fixed on 30-4-97. The witnesses
of management were present on that day. Workman
submitted his submissions in writing admitting charges
against him. Therefore management's witnesses were not
examined. When workman admitted charges against him,
infact other evidence is required to prove the misconduct
in view of Section 58 of Evidence Act. therefore I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. Point No. 2. In view of my finding in Point No. 1
misconduct alleged against workman that postal bag handed
over to workman on 17-2-94 was delivered at EPM
Bahadurpur, its seal was found missing. There is no
evidence in the enquiry that any kind of articles were
missing from the postal bag. Merely as the seal on postal
bag was found missing proved against workman,
punishment of dismissal imposed against workman appears
highly disproportionate.
8. The citation are submitted in Case of J.H. Patel Versus
Nuboard Mfg Co. Ltd reported in 2014 LAB.I.C. 1278.. ratio
held in the case relates to evidence not discussed by Labour
Court to reach to the conclusion that misconduct of
workman was proved. The findings of Labour Court that
punishment proved by management was liable to be
setaside.
In present case, workman admitted charges alleged
against him. Though the management's witnesses were
present, they were not examined. The ratio held in above
case cannot be applied to case at hand.
Next reliance is placed in case of K. Kalirajan and
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-labour Court and another
reported in 2013 (136) FLR-384. In above cited case, out of
5 charges, 4 were not proved against petitioner. He was
dismissed by Disciplinary Authority Industrial Tribunal
found only one and first charge proved. Other charges are
not proved. The petitioner had worked for more than 15
years and had no prior record of any misnomer, their
Lordship held therefore CGIT ought to have exercised its
discretion under Section 11-A of Act. The award was set
aside and reinstatement with 50% backwages was allowed.
The facts of present case are not comparable as
workman has admitted charge against him. In view of
Section 58 of Evidence Act, no further evidence was required
to be recorded in the enquiry. However the charge of
misconduct alleged workman is seal on the postal bag found
missing. When there is no evidence about missing of any
postal articles, the gravity of misconduct proved against
workman cannot be said serious. Therefore punishment of
dismissal imposed against workman is excessive and
disproportionate. Considering workman had completed
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4009
19 years servcie without any adverse record, the dismissal
of workman deserves to be set aside. The age of workman
is shown 55 years in affidavit of evidence filed on 2-12-09.
The workman may have attained the age of superannuation,
therefore reinstatement is not possible. Considering facts
of the case, in my considered view, compensation
Rs. 3,00,000 would be appropriate relief.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Superintendent
of Post Office in terminating the services of Shri
Ajaj Ahmed S/o Shahjad Ahmed w.e.f. 22-9-97 is
not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party management is directed to pay
compensation Rs. 3,00,000 to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1940-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ
nwjlapkj ds izca/kr= 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 98@00½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@81@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2015
S.O. 1940.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/98/
00) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Department of Telecommunication
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/81/2000-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/98/00
Shri Mahesh Kumar Mavare,
S/o G. Mavere
R/o Bhopal Road Narsingarh,
Nr. Chanak Talkies, Tehsil Narsingarh,
Rajgarh (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road,
MP Circle, Bhopal
Telecom District Engineer,
Rajgarh, At Biaora,
Rajgarh (MP
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 27th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 31-5-00 by 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-40012/81/2000-
IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services
of Shri Mahesh Kumar Navare S/o Shri Gourdhanlal
Mavare w.e.f. January 1997 is justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially
appointed in 1991 as casual labour in Telecom Department,
Narsingarh, Rajgarh District. He continuously worked till
1996 without any break. He was appointed on permanent
vacant post. He completed more than 240 days continuous
service in January 1997. His services were terminated
without following legal precedure. Action of management
terminating his servcie is by victimization. Instead of
regularizing the workman was terminated in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act is illegal. On such ground, workman
prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/2
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that
workman was never engaged by it. Claim of workman for
regularisation is baseless, fabricated. 2nd party not violated
any provisions of ID Act. Workman had not completed 240
days service in any year. 2nd party prays reference be
answered in its favour.
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:—
4010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom
in terminating the services
of Shri Mahesh Kumar
Navare S/o Shri Gourdhanlal
Mavare w.e.f. January 1997
is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5. Though workman challenged termination of his
service by raising dispute, statement of claim is filed on its
behalf. Workman failed to adduce evidence in support of
his claim. Evidence of workman is closed on 13-11-2013.
Claim of workman is not supported by any evidence.
6. Management's witness Shri Ranjani Khan filed
affidavit of his evidence. The witness denied that workman
completed 240 days continuous service. In his cross-
examination, management's witness says any vouchers
regarding working of 1st party is not produced. Witness
says workman had not done any work in the establishment
of 2nd party. He has denied suggestion that workman
worked for 2-3 years. As claim of workman is not supported
by evidence, I record may finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Chief General
Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of
Shri Mahesh Kumar Navare S/o Shri Gourdhanlal
Mavare w.e.f. January 1997 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1941-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjn'kZu dsUnz] t;iqj
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 62@2006½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y & 42011@28@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2015
S.O. 1941.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 62/2006) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
the Doordarshan Kendra and their workman, Which was
received by the Central Government on 18/09/2015.
[No. L-42011/28/2006-IR (DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. 62/2006
Reference No. L-42011/28/2006-IR(DU)
Dated: 20.10.2006
Shri Nanak Chand
S/o Shri Nand Ram
1/916, Bhim Basti,
Jhajjar Road, Rewari-123401.
V/s
Director,
Doordarshan Kendra,
Near Jhalana Doongri,
Jaipur-O.
AWARD
4.8.2015
1. The Cental Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
‘‘Whether the demand of the All India Trade Union
congress for placing Shri Nanak Chand, Floor
Assistant at serial seven (7) in the seniority list of
Floor Assistants by the Director, doordarshan
Kendra, Jaipur is legal & justified? If yes, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. According to statement of claim submitted through
General Secretary of the Union applicant Sh. Nanak Chand
had submitted dispute regarding regularisation & seniority
before the CGIT, Jaipur in which award was passed on
10.11.2004 in favour of applicant. It has been further alleged
that the opposite party employer has made Casual Floor
Assistants as permanent whereas applicant being a
temporary floor assistant is entitled to be made permanent
first before the casual floor assistants. Due to non-
compliance of award dated 10.11.2004 whereupon seniority
list was to be amended & due to non-regularisation of the
applicant he again raised dispute before the conciliation
officer which resulted in failure. After receipt of failure report
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4011
Labour Ministry has made a reference for adjudication as
mentioned above.
3. It has been further alleged that at the time of
commencement of studio of Doordarshan, Jaipur applicant
was appointed after interview & training as floor assistant
on 17.12.1987 against created post of permanent floor
assistants. Annexure-1 to 4 to the statement of claim are
letter for interview, list of successful candidates, information
about training & first payment slip respectively. It has been
accepted by Doordarshan that the applicant worked from
the time of commencement of studio in 1988 till November,
1994 from the time of employment against created posts till
the time of their regularisation. It has been further alleged
by the applicant that he falls within the category of
temporary employee, hence, he is entitled to be regularised
prior to casually employed workmen but casual employees
were made permanent which resulted into injustice to the
applicant because he was entitled to be regularised prior to
the regularisation of casual employees. Further, applicant
has to say that in 1994 permanent posts were filled with a
panel of casual employees & instead of regularising the
applicant temporary work was also seized. At the time of
appointment applicant was qualified & was within the age
group of employment but he has attained the age of 48
years till now & there has been only assurance that he will
be regularised. The applicant was at the serial no. 23
amongst qualified 30 candidates. It has been further alleged
that the opposite party employer vide letter dated 22.7.89
Annex-5 intimated the persons absent that if they want to
work they should contact the office of the employer
otherwise their name shall be struck down from the list.
According to number of available posts at Jaipur
Doordarshan, panel review after every two year & looking
into the un-interestedness of the persons, name of those
employees should have been struck down from the list
who were not taking interest in the work. After completion
of interview & declaration of list for trainees
Sh. Madhusudan Nag at serial no. 2, Ramkaran Meena at
serial no. 6, Sh. Dinesh Singh Rawat at serial no. 8,
Sh. Ramkalyan Meena at serial no. 9, Sh. Ajay Kumar
Sharma at serial no. 10, Sh. Goverdhan Lal Meena at serial
no. 11, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Korapal at serial no. 15, Sh. Indraj
Verma at serial no. 16, Sh. Bhagat Singh at serial no. 19,
Sh. Harischandra Pathak at serial no. 20, name illegible at
serial no. 21 & Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Bhatnagar at serial
no. 22 are such persons who did not require employment
as they had already deserted the workplace earlier. These
persons had not returned back to work even after
proceeding of Pahara 5-A twice. It has been further alleged
that person at serial no. 3 Sh. Ramavatar Gothwal &
Sh. Munnawar Khan at serial no. 4 are working as permanent
employee at Jaipur Kendra. Sh. Mohammad Arif had become
permanent employee at CPC Studio Delhi who died
subsequently it road traffic accident. After removal of
seniority at serial no. 2 to 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 to 16, 20, 21 &
22 the seniority of the applicant comes out to be at serial
no. 7. At the time of filling the post permanently only 14
persons were working wherein the position of the applicant
was at serial no. 7 hence, assesstment by employer of the
position of the applicant at serial no. 7 is wrong &
consequently the prepared list is also wrong. Such list was
not produced by employer before the conciliation officer
& before the CGIT in prolonged litigation.
4. In award dated 10.11.2000 by CGIT, Annex-6 to the
petition, seniority of the applicant shown at serial no. 30
was held to be unbelievable & seniority shown by the
applicant was held to be correct & accordingly it has been
held that benefit to the applicant should be given. At the
time to joining the service applicant was having all the
eligibility for employment including age. The applicant has
worked since creation of the post till the posts were filled
up but the applicant was misguided by the employer on
false assurance of regularisation. The applicant has attained
the age of 48 & unable to bear the cost of litigation beside
other responsibilities. Applicant is unaware as to how long
he has to wait further. He is also unable to engage a counsel,
hence, he has prayed for speedy justice. The applicant has
given consent in writing to employ him as Floor Assistant
at any Doordarshan Kendra of the country or at
Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur on like post & pay which is
Annex-8 to the statement of claim.
5. The applicant has further alleged that from the facts
narrated above it is clear that according to original seniority
the applicant should have been regularised in the year
1994 & thus he has remained deprived to regularisation. It
has been prayed that applicant be declared regular along
with employees regularised in the year 1994 & consequently
he be awarded with benefits relating to pay, allowances &
annual increments along with compensation on account of
mental pain & cost of litigation.
6. In para wise reply to the statement of claim statement
of para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 has been alleged to be wrong &
denied. Against para 7 it has been said that statement is
related to the document hence, the statement is undisputed.
In reply to para 7 of the statement of claim it has been
alleged that by working as Floor Assistant on any
Doordarshan Kendra or by working at Jaipur Kendra on
like post with like pay does not confer right of regularisation
in favour of applicant. It has been further alleged that his
regularisation can be considered only on availability of
post under scheme of regularisation.
7. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 4 in
reply to the statement of claim that applicant was engaged
for the work as casual Floor Assistant on contract basis &
he was engaged on the work only for 10 days in a month &
this point has been clearly indicated by this tribunal in
award dated 10.11.2000 while answering issue no. 1. The
applicant has worked between 21.5.88 to 30.7.94 on casual
& rotational basis, hence, statement of the applicant is
4012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
wrong & baseless that he was engaged as temporary Floor
Assistant against permanent post of Floor Assistant.
8. It has been further alleged that applicant has worked
between 1988 to 1994 as casual artist on contract basis &
in the above mentioned period according to requirement
he was given work for only 10 days in a month on rotational
basis & the applicant has never worked during above
mentioned period for a period of 120 days. Applicant was
never engaged on temporary basis & he was engaged only
on contract as casual artist according to need. It has been
further alleged that according to scheme of regularisation
dated 9.6.92 applicant is ineligible for regularisation because
he has not worked in any calendar year for 120 days. The
applicant is eligible for regularisation according to scheme
of regularisation dated 17.3.94 but according to seniority
list prepared by non-applicant name of the applicant appears
at serial no. 30, hence, he can be considered for
regularisation only when vacant posts are created. No one
junior to the applicant has ever been regularised till date.
Accordingly, the allegation of the applicant is purely
baseless that he has been kept on assurance since past 12
years. The seniority list for regularisation has been attached
as Ex-R- 1 to the reply.
9. In reply to para 5 of the statement of claim it has been
alleged that whatever fact has been alleged by the applicant
in para 5 to the statement of claim they are related to a list
which was prepared by non-applicant after interview to
engage the artists on contract according to need & this
prepared list after interview has no connection with the list
relating to regularisation. It has been further alleged that
according to scheme of regularisation seniority list of Floor
Assistant & other artists have been prepared by non-
applicant after considering various points of the scheme &
the applicant name falls against serial no. 30 of the list.
Under scheme of regularisation applicant can be considered
for regularisation only according to seniority list as
indicated above & on the availability of the post, as at
present there is no vacant post consideration for
regularisation of the applicant is not possible. It has been
further alleged that it is relevant to make it clear that no
casual artist junior to the applicant has been regularised till
date & the list relating to regularisation & the list relating
to the persons who have qualified in interview are two
different lists.
10. It has been further alleged against para 6 of statement
of claim that in award dated 10.11.2000 decision regarding
seniority of the applicant was not based on merit because
persons from serial no. 7 to 29 were not party to the claim
before the tribunal & it was held by the tribunal that the
applicant could raise the issue of seniority at proper stage.
The applicant has not impleded those persons as party to
the present claim over & above whom he wants to be placed
in seniority list & according to principal of natural justice
those persons are necessary parties to the claim.
11. In reply to para 8 to the statement of claim it has
been alleged that applicant never worked in any calendar
year for 120 days hence, he is not eligible for regularisation
according to scheme of regularisation dated 9.6.92.
According to revised scheme of regularisation dated 17.3.94
on creation of post for regularisation applicant may be
considered according to seniority for regularisation. The
statement of the applicant is wrong that he has worked for
120 days in calendar year ending on 31.3.92. The statement
of claim of the applicant is fit to be rejected on the basis of
reply to the statement of claim.
12. Before the para wise commencement of reply to the
statement of claim three preliminary objections have been
raised by non-applicant which are as under:—
A. There is difference between reliefs claimed by the
applicant in statement of claim & point of reference made
by the Ministry for adjudication. The tribunal is devoid of
jurisdiction, hence, prayer for relief is liable to be rejected.
B. In award dated 17.11.2002 passed by CGIT Cum
Labour Court, Jaipur dispute on the point of seniority of
the applicant was not adjudicated because applicant had
not impleded the persons from serial no. 7 to 29 of the
seniority list. In the present statement of claim also those
persons have not been impleded hence, statement of claim
is liable to be rejected.
C. The applicant had worked on contract basis as casual
Floor Assistant between 1988 to 1994 & he was engaged
according to need for a period of only 10 days in a month.
According to judgement fo Constitution Bench of Hon'bel
Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others
V/s Uma Devi (3) & others, (2006) 4 SCC page 1 applicant
has no right of regularisation. It has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in above judgement that regularisation of
casual & temporary employees is completely against the
provision of Indian Constitution. The view expressed by
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court is as
under:—
"Merely because a temporary employee or a casual
worked continue for a time beyond to term of his
appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed
in regular service or made permanent. And further
held that the decisions of the Supreme Court running
counter to or containing directions counter to this
principle will stand denuded of their status as
precedent."
13. The applicant has filed rejoinder on 23.11.10 in which
points raised in statement of claim has been reiterated.
14. After filing of documentary evidence from both the
sides on 13.8.2012 applicant filed his affidavit in evidence
& case was fixed on 31.10.2012 for cross examination of the
applicant by opposite party. For various reasons given in
order-sheets of various dates applicant remained un-cross
examined till 14.7.2015. On 14.7.2015 an application was
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4013
moved by the applicant in his individual capacity to
withdraw the case but the application of withdrawal was
not moved by General Secretary of the Union who is
applicant in the statement of claim. The applicant moved
application of withdrawal on account of his posting in
Agartala but application of withdrawal did not accompany
the letter appointment. Next date 4.8.2015 was fixed with
direction to file the appointment letter. On 28.7.2015
applicant further moved an application along with
photocopy of offer of appointment dated 21.7.2015 to the
post of Floor Assistant at DDK, Agartala. On 28.7.2015 it
was ordered that application be kept on record to be placed
on 4.8.2015 & copy of the application be given to opposite
party.
15.On 4.8.2015 application was moved for withdrawal
by General Secretary of the Union along with photocopy
of offer of appointment dated 21.7.2015. Both the parties to
the case were heared on application of withdrawal. The
application of withdrawal which has been made part of
award read as under:—
layXud&1
Jheku fizlkbZ¯Mx vkWfQlj
fnukad 04-08-2015
lsUVªy xouZesaUV fVªC;quy&de&yscj dksVZ
lhñthñvksñ dkWEiysDl
10 fo|k/kj uxj&t;iqj&302109
fo"k;% dsl la[;k 62@2006 ukud pUn cuke nwjn'kZu dsUnz
t;iqj o vU; okil ysus gsrqA
lanHkZ%& 14@7@2015 dks fn;s x;s dsl okil ysus gsrq izkFkZuk i= ds
lanHkZ esaA
ekU;oj]
mijksDr lanHkZ esa fuosnu gS fd Jh ukud pUn dks i= Øñ
16@2015@SI )(A) fild No. 31/49/2011-S1A dt. 6/8 May 2015
,oe~ vkns'k lañ 19/2015 S1 (A) of even file dt. 03.06.15 ds
vuqlkj fu;ferdj.k vxjryk nwjn'kZu dsUnz ij fd;k tk jgk gSA
blds lanHkZ esa ukud pUn dks nwjn'kZu dsUnz vxjryk ls vkWQj ysVj
uañ AGT/DDK/1(3)2015-16/6725 fnukad 21.07.2015 dk fey
pqdk gSA ftldh izfr;ka lyaXu gSA
vc pqafd dksbZ okn 'ks"k ugha jg tkrk vr% fu;fefrdj.k ds dsl
dks okil ysrs gSA
Hkonh;
gLrk{kj viBuh;
¼Mhñ dsñ Naxk.kh½
egklfpo
16. Following order was passed on the application of
withdrawal moved by the applicant which reads as under:—
04.08.2015 iqdkj dh x;hA ;kph ukud pUn O;fDrxr :i ls
mifLFkr gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls Jh eqds'k ehuk ,MoksdsV mifLFkr gSA
;kph us vijkUg~ esa 1650 cts vkosnu Jh Mhñ dsñ NxkM+h] egklfoo
,oa vkosnd dh rjQ ls izLrqr dh ftlesa ;kfpdk] tks Jh ukud
pUn dh rjQ ls egklfpo }kjk izLrqr dh x;h gS mls okil ysus dh
izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA vkosnu ds lkFk fu;qfDr&i= dh QksVks izfr layXu
gSA
(A) File No. 31/49/2011-S 1 A fnukafdr 6/8 May 2015 ,oa
vkns'k lañ 19/2015 S 1 (A) of even fild dt. 03.06.15 ds vuqlkj
fu;fefrdj.k vxjryk nwjn'kZu dsUnz ij fd;k tk jgk gSA ftlds
lEcU/k esa ukud pUn dks nwjn'kZu dsUnz vxjryk ls fu;qfDr i=
AGT/DDK/1 (3)/2015-16/6725 fnukad 21.07.2015 dk fey pqdk
gSA ftldh izfr;ka lyaXu gSA ftldh izfr layXu gSA pwfad dksbZ fookn
'ks"k ugha jg x;k gS vr% oknh fu;fefrdj.k dk eqdn~ek okil ysrk
gSA vkosnu ij vkosnd deZdkj rFkk foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dks
lqukA foi{k dks eqdn~ek okil ysus esa dksbZ vkifÙk ugha gS vr% ;kph
dh vkosnu Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA
vkns'k
;kph dh vkosnu layXud&1 vukifÙk ds vk/kkj ij Lohdkj dh
tkrh gS rFkk ;kfpdk okil ysus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA
;kfpr vuqrks"k vLohdkj fd;s tkrs gSA ;kph iqu% mUghs vk/kkjksa ij
nwljh ;kfpdk ugha izLrqr djsaxsA layXud&1 ,okMZ dk va'k gksxkA
17. From above fact & circumstances, I am of the view
that statement of claim of the apllicant in relation to reference
is fit to be dismissed as withdrawn. The claim petition is
accordingly dismissed as withdran.
18. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1942-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh fodkl vFkkWfjVh
vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks 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 43@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@188@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1942.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 43/2015) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal Cum labour Court No. 1,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
4014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
management of the Delhi Development Authority & others
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 29/09/2015.
[No. L-42012/188/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COM-LABOUR-COURT
NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT
COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 43/2015
Shri Dinesh Kumar
S/o Mewa Lal Gupta,
C/o 1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi 11 0049
...Workman
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Delhi Development Authority,
Siri Fort Sports Complex,
August Kranti Marg,
Khel Gaon,
New Delhi 110 049
2. M/s. Niti Enterprises,
L-88, Kisan Vihar,
New Delhi 110 041
...Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/188/2014-
IR(DU) dated 12.01.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
''Whether the action of the management of NITI
Enterprises, Contractor, in terminating the services
of the workman, Shri Dinesh Kumar, with effect from
01.05.2015 can be construed as termination of
employment by DDA presuming the entity of
contractor as sham and camouflage? If not, with relief
the workman concerned in entitled to?’’
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute.Despite directions, so given, Shri Dinesh Kumar
opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the workman as well as the management. Neither the postal
article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed
by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected in
the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption
lies, in favour of the fact that the above notice was served
upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim
statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the
workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference
on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither 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.
Dated: August 21, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYYkh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1943-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k ds dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYYkh fodkl
vFkkWfjVh vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 44@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@189@2014 vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1943.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 44/2015) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. 1,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Delhi Development Authority & others
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 29/09/2015.
[No. L-42012/189/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-COM-LABOUR
COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA
COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 44/2015
Shri Vir Pal,
S/o Shri Gopi Ram,
C/o 1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi 11 0019
...Workman
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4015
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Delhi Development Authority,
Siri Fort Sports Complex,
August Kranti Marg,
Khel Gaon,
New Delhi 110 049
2. M/s. Deepali (India) Enterprises
178, Block 14, Ground Floor,
L.B.S. Hospital, Khichripur,
New Delhi 110 019
........Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/189/2014-
IR(DU) dated 12.01.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
''Whether the action of the management of NITI
Enterprises, Contractor, in terminating the services
of the workman, Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, with
effect from 16.07.2013 can be construed as
termination of employment by DDA presuming the
entity of contractor as sham and camouflage? If not,
with relief the workman concerned in entitled to?"
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Vir Pal opted not
to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the workman as well as the management. Neither the postal
article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed
by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected in
the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption
lies, in favour of the fact that the above notice was served
upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim
statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the
workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference
on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither 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.
Dated: August 21, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYYkh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1944-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYYkh fodkl
vFkkWfjVh vkSj nwljksa 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 46@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&09&2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@191@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1944.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 46/2015) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Com-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 Delhi Development Authority & others
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 29-09-2015.
[No. L-42012/191/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT
COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 46/2015
Shri Bindeshwari Prasad,
S/o Shri Ram Prakash,
C/o 1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019
....Workman
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Delhi Development Authority
Shri Fort Sports Complex,
August Kranti Marg,
Khel Gaon,
New Delhi 110049
2. M/s. Niti Enterprises
L-88, Kisan Vihar,
New Delhi 110 041
...Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/191/2014-
IR(DU) dated 12.01.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of NITI
Enterprises, Contractor, in terminating the services
of the workman, Shri Bindeshwari Prasad, with effect
4016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
from 01.05.2013 can be construed as termination of
employment by DDA presuming the entity of
contractor as sham and comouflage? If not, what
relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Bindeshwari
Prasad opted not to file his claim statement with the
Tribunal.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the workman as well as the management. Neither the postal
article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed
by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected in
the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption
lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served
upon the claimant. Despite services of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim
statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the
workman is not interested in adjudtication of the reference
on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither 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.
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Dated : August 21st, 2015
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1945-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh fodkl vFkkWfjVh
vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksas ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 47@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@192@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1945.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 47/2015) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. 1,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Delhi Development Authority & Others
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 29-09-2015.
[No. L-42012/192/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT
COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 47/2015
Shri Bhagirath,
S/o Shri Shyam Lal,
C/o 1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019
....Workman
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Delhi Development Authority
Shri Fort Sports Complex,
August Kranti Marg,
Khel Gaon,
New Delhi 110049
2. M/s. NITI Enterprises
L-88, Kisan Vihar,
New Delhi 110041
...Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/192/2014-
IR(DU) dated 12.01.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of NITI
Enterprises, Contractor, in terminating the services
of the workman, Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, with
effect from 01.05.2013 can be construed as
termination of employment by DDA presuming the
entity of contractor as sham and camouflage? If not,
what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Bhagirath opted
not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the workman as well as the management. Neither the postal
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4017
article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed
by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected in
the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption
lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served
upon the claimant. Despite services of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proeedings. No claim
statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the
workman is not interested in adjudtication of the reference
on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither 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.
Dated: August 21st, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1946-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj fnYyh fodkl vFkkWfjVh
vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 48@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 29&09&2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@193@2014&vkbZ vkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 48/2015) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. 1,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Delhi Development Authority & others
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 29.09.2015.
[No. L-42012/193/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT
COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 48/2015
Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh,
S/o Shri Kalaka Baks,
C/o 1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi 110019
..... Workman
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Delhi Development Authority
Siri Fort Sports Complex,
August Kranti Marg,
Khel Gaon,
New Delhi 110 049
2. M/s. Niti Enterprises,
L-88, Kisan Vihar,
New Delhi-110 041
.... Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/193/2014-
IR(DU) dated 12-01-2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of NITI
Enterprises, Contractor, in terminating the services
of the workman, Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, with
effect from 01.03.2013 can be construed as
termination of employment by DDA presuming the
entity of contractor as sham and camouflage? If not,
what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Bajrang Bahadur
Singh opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the workman as well as the management. Neither the postal
article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed
by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected in
the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption
lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served
upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim
statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the
workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference
on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither 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.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Dated: August 21st, 2015
4018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1947-—jk"Vªifr] Jh jatu dqekj lju] ihBklhu vf/
kdkjh] dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] /
kuckn&I dks Ng ekg dh vof/k vFkok fu;fer vk/kkj ij bl in ds
Hkjs tkus rd buesa tks Hkh igys gks] dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] /kuckn&II ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dk
vfrfjDr izHkkj lkSairs gSaA
[lañ ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]
,lñdsñ flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2015
S.O. 1947.—The President is pleased to entrust the
additional charge of the post of the Presiding Officer of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Dhanbad-II to Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Dhanbad-I for a period of three months or
till the post is filled on regular basis, whichever is earlier.
[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]
S.K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1948-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe
fyfeVsM] rfeyukMq ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 42@2005½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&10&2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[ lañ ,y&40011@1@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 42/2005) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Tamil Nadu and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 01-10-2015.
[No.L-40011/1/2005-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT CHENNAI
Monday, the 14th September, 2015
Present:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 42/2005
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between
the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Tamil Nadu
Telecom Circle, Chennai and their workman)
BETWEEN
The Circle Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
BSNL Employees Union
No. 3/71, 4th Street, Raghava Nagar
Madipakkam
Chennai-600091
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st
BSNL, Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle
Respondent
Annasalai
Chennai-600002
2.
The Principal
:
2nd Party/2nd
RGM-CTTC, Meenambakkam
Respondent
Chennai-600002
3.
The Chairman & Managing
:
2nd Party/3rd
Director BSNL, Sanchar Bhawan
Respondent
New Delhi-110001
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s K.M. Ramesh, Advocates
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/
:
Shri D. Simon, Advocate
1st, 2nd & 3rd
Respondent
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and
Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/1/2005-IR (DU)
dated 09.05.2005 referred the followng Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom
Department, BSNL, Chennai in non-regularizing/
absorbing the services of the contract labourers
numbering three i.e. Smt. Paulsoundaram, M. Sundari
and S. Devi is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman/contract labourers are entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 42/2005 and issued notices to both sides.
Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel
and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4019
3. The dispute has been pending before this Tribunal
for a long time. After stay in the matter has been removed it
was posted for evidence repeatedly. However, the petitioner
has not come forward to tender evidence to substantiate
the case. So far no documents have been produced in
support of the case also. The petitioner seems to be not
interested in pursuing the case. In the absence of any matter
the reference is only to be answered against the petitioner.
Therefore the reference is answered against the
petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1949-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ+ iksLV]
paMhx<+ ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; lañ 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ
11@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[ lañ ,y&40011@4@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 11/2011) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Department of Post, Chandigarh and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 30/09/2015.
[No.L-40011/4/2011-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 11/2011. Reference No. L-40011/4/2011-IR(DU)
dated 11.05.2011
Shri Surinder Pal Singh son of Shri Karam Chand C/O Shri
R.K. Singh Parmar working
President Pb. INTUC, 211-LBrari, PO Partap Nagar, Nangal
Dam, Ropar.
...Workman
Versus
1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Post, GPO, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
...Respondent
Appearance
For the workman
: Shri R.K. Singh
For the management
: Shri Vikram Bajaj Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on 23.09.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification
No.L-40011/4/2011-IR (DU) dated 11.05.2011 has referred
the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the demand of Shri Surinder Pal Singh, Ex-
BPM(GDS) at Mukari, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District
Ropar, against the management of Sr. Supdt. of Post
Offices, Sector-17D, Chandigarh for reinstatement in
service w.e.f. 30.06.2010 with continuity of service
with full back wages is legal and justified? What
benefits the workman is entitled for and what
directions are necessasry in the matter?"
2. The workman filed claim statement in which it is
pleaded that he was employed as BPM(GDS) at Village and
PO Mukeri, District Ropar w.e.f. 18.8.2006 and was
continuously employed as such till 30.6.2010 and before
joining the present service he was working for his father as
BPM for the last about three years. And he was paid wages
in the pay scale of Rs.2745/- and on the date of termination
drawing Rs.4000/- per month. It is further pleaded that on
1.7.2010 he was suddenly relieved from his duty by taking
charge. There was no complaint against his work and
conduct. It is pleaded that his termination from service
w.e.f. 30.6.2010 is illegal in as much as he was not served
with one month notice nor paid pay for one month in lieu of
notice and not paid any retrenchment compensation which
is pre condition to the termination. The management
violated the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
4020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is prayed that the workman may be reinstead in service
with full back wages with all other attendant benefits.
3. The management filed written statement in preliminary
objection has been taken that the workman had already
availed his remedies twice before the Central Administrative
Tribunal by way of filing OA1993/PB/2008 seeking
quashing of order dated 23.4.2008 under which his
appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. His
second OA was also dismissed; therefore, the workman
cannot agitate his claims before this Labour Court. On merits
it is pleaded that on the death of Shri Karam Chand as a
stop gap arrangement the charge of Mukari BO was handed
over to Surinder Pal who is the son of the deceased Karam
Chand purely on temporary basis till appointment of regular
BPM with the condition that he will not claim any right on
the post. In order to fill up the post a proposal was sent to
the CPMG and the approval was accorded on 22.9.2006.
The workman also applied for the appointment on
compassionate ground and since it has to take some time,
therefore, the process to fill up the post was initiated and
the post was notified for SC category on 5.2.2007. The
workman had not applied against this post. The workman
was engaged on this post in place of his father till the
regular incumbent is recruited on the post. The workman
itself has not availed the remedies of competing with others
for recruitment which was from the open market and has
been awaiting for his compassionate appointment which
was ultimately rejected. The work has been assigned to
regular incumbent and there is no other post available.
Thus the disengagement of the workman is legal, valid and
according to the conditions of his employment and
therefore, the workman is not entitled for any claim and the
reference deserves rejection.
4. The workman is evidence filed his own affidavit as Ex.
W1. In rebuttal the management filed affidavit of Mr. P.D.S.
Thakur as Ex. M1 who also relied on documents Ex. M2 to
Ex. M5. The workman in his statement before this Tribunal
admitted that the charge of Mukari BO was handed over to
him on 19.8.2006 purely on temporary basis till the
appointment of regular BPM. It is also admitted by the
workman in his cross-examination that he applied on
compassionate ground and his case was finally rejected
on 13.3.2008 and on his filing a case before the CAT, the
CAT ordered for reconsideration but his case was
reconsidered and rejected on 23.7.2009. It is further admitted
by the workman that he again moved to CAT but his second
OA was also rejected by CAT on 4.8.2009. It is also admitted
by the workman that Shri Mandip Singh son of Shri Sarwan
Singh was appointed as GDSBPM Mukari BO and he was
relieved on 30.6.2010. MW1 Shri P.D.S. Thakur in his
statement before his Tribunal admitted that on notice was
given to the workman nor any compensation was given.
Workman himself has submitted a undertaking.
5. I have heard the parties, gone through the evidence
and record.
6. It is submitted by the learned rep. of the workman
during arguments that the workman served with the
department from 19.8.2006 to 30.6.2010 for about four years.
He was given the charge of the post in place of his father.
The services of the workman were terminated on 30.6.2010
without payment of one month pay in lieu of notice and
without payment of any retrenchment compensation which
is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and the workman are entitled
for reinstatement with back wages. On the other hand the
learned cousel for the management submitted during
arguments that the workman was given the charge on stop
gap arrangement on the death of his father on the clear
understanding that on joining of regular candidate, the
workman has to go. The workman also lost twice his case
for compassionate appointment before the Central
Administrative Tribunal and joining of regular candidate
Shri Mandip Singh, the services of the workman were
disengaged. The disengagement of the workman is in
accordance with his undertaking given by him at the time
of joining. Therefore, there is no violation of Section 25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
7. So far as the status of the workman on the post is
concerned, it is clear from the evidence and admission of
the workman himself that he was engaged on temporary
basis on 19.8.2006. Thereafter regular incumbent was
appointed on the post following the recruitment rules as
applicable. The workman applied for considering on
compassionate ground. His case was sent to the Circle
Officer but his case was rejected. The workman challenged
this order before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh bench. The CAT, Chandigarh ordered for
reconsideration of his case. The case of the workman was
again rejected by the Circle Office against which the
workman filed second original application before the CAT,
Chandigarh. This second OA was again rejected by the
CAT, Chandigarh. The management submitted that
workman was engaged purely on temporary basis as stop
gap arrangement. The management cited 1997(1) S.L.R. page
135 Union of India and other Vs. Bishamber Dutt. The
management also cited 2007(1) All India Service Law Journal
page 151 National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Som Vir Singh.
Another judgment 2009(3) All India Service Law Journal
page 93 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also cited by the
management. In these case laws the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that a person engaged without following the
recruitment procedure is not entitled for regularization. If it
is done, that would be back door entry and such
regularization would be illegal. Thus in view of the above
the reinstatement of the workman can not be ordered as he
was engaged on the post without following the recruitment
procedure. Moreover the person who was appointed after
following the recruitment procedure also joined on the post.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4021
8. On behalf of the workman it is submitted that he was
engaged on 19.8.2006 and worked till 30.6.2010. The
workman in his claim statement nowhere stated that he
worked for 240 days in preceding year to the date of his
disengagement. The management in its written statement
clearly mentioned in para No. 5 that "the claimant has not
given the details of days of his working. It is denied that he
has worked continuously as alleged".. the management
filed the affidavit of Shri P.D.S. Thakur Sr. Supdt. of Post
Offices, Chandigarh. In the affidavit the management's
witness substantiate the allegation made in the written
statement and it is clearly mentioned in para No. 5 of the
affidavit that the claimant has not given the details of days
of his working and it is denied that he has worked
continuously as alleged.
9. Form the above discussion, it is clear that workman
was engaged purely on temporary basis as stop gap
arrangement and not as per recruitment procedure and the
regular incumbent who was selected after following the
recruitment procedure has joined the post. The workman
also failed to prove any violation of Section 25F of the I.D.
Act. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief.
10. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed.
Chandigarh.
23.09.2015
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1950-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 23@2006
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@129@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh&2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 23/2006 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
01/10/2015.
[No. L-22012/129/2005-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT ASANSOL
Reference No.: 23/ITC/2006
Management of Girmint Colliery under Sripur Area of
E.C.L.
v/s
Sri Pardeshi Chamar
SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT
Held on 4th September, 2015 at CGIT-cum-LC, Asansol
AWARD
On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is
resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form 'H' containing the
terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by
both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed
accordingly.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1951-—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 76@1997
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@60@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1951.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 76/1997 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Johilla Area of Sourthern Eastern
Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 01/10/2015.
[No. L-22012/60/1996-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/76/97
4022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
General Secretary,
Rathtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,
Johilla Area, Near Bus Stand,
Post Nowrozabad, Distt. Shahdol.
....Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Johilla Area of SECL,
Post Nowrozabad Colliery,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 4th day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 10.3.97 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-22012/60/96-IR
(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of SECL,
Bilaspur in withdrawing the promotion order of Shri Shankar
Rai Chowdhary (passed on 20-1-92) to the post of Special
Grade Clerk vide order dated 28.1.92 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. RKKMS Union submitted statement of claim on
behalf of workman Shri Chowdhary at page 2/1to 2/4. Case
of workman is that workman Shankar Rai Chodhwary was
initially appointed on 24.11.78 as clerk Grade III in G.M.
Office, Central Coalfields Ltd. On 13.11.1979, he was
promoted as clerk Grade-II. On 28.7.84, promoted as Clerk
Grade I. Workman was trapped in communal feeling dispute.
On 12.5.86, at Orissa, Bengali community people were
harassed by local Orissa Community. While workman was
harassed by local people, he requested for transfer to
Calcutta or Bilaspur Headquarter. In the year 1986, just
after the harassment, request for transfer was made.
Management of SECL didnot pay attention to the
application for transfer from 1986 to 1992 for 6 years. On
20.1.92, 6 persons including workman were promoted to
the post of Special Clerk Grade. Order of promotion was
issued by Personnel Manager Talcher Area. After his
promotion, workman was transferred to Lingaraj Open Cast
Project. Workman joined on promotional post on 22.1.92.
Suddenly on 28.1.92, the promotion order was kept in
abeyance. Thereafter all concerned workman were
transferred to Johilla Area on 26.3.92 stating request
transfer. Workman were surprised that after lapse of 6
years, the transfer application was brought to notice.
Workman alleged malafide on part of management,
workman immediately objected to it. Since workman belong
to poor middle Class family, in order to maintain large
family, he had no alternative but to accept the orders. He
joined Johilla Area on 27.3.92. That order of promotion to
the post of Special Grade was kept in abeyance. All those
persons were promoted as clerical staff except workman.
The Union submits that order of transfer of workman is
treated as administrative transfer and workman be given
promotion as special grade clerk with all monetary benefits.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to 11/8
opposing claim of the workman. The initial appointment of
workman as Clerk Grade III on 23.11.78 and his promotions
to clerk Grade II on 13.11.79, Clerk Grade I from 30.7.84 are
not disputed. Workman was working at SECL. He submitted
application for his transfer. Copies of the applications were
submitted to the Prime Minister, Minister of Energy and
other authorities. In light of said application, workman was
tranferred from Kalcher project vide order dated 27.7.91.
General Manager, Johilla Area relieved him from his present
posting. Workman has come on transfer from Kalcher Area.
The promotion zone for clerk, promotion from Grade I to
Special Grade is as per seniority cum merit. That as per
guidelines of the company, employee who comes on
request transfer is placed at bottom senirotiy. Workman
was transferred on request. His transfer cannot be treated
on administrative ground. Workman was relieved. He
accepted transfer joining the place of transfer. Workman
cannot be granted promotion from 20.1.94. The cadre
scheme is reproduced. That for promotion to special Grade
Clerk, qualification required is matriculation or equivalent
exam. 5 years experience as clerk Grade-I. Mode of
promotion is by DPC.
4. That as per order dated 20.6.92, six persons were
promoted as LDC including Shri S.R. Chowdhary workman.
Subsequently the matter was rectified. According to
seniority cum merit, DPC recommended promotion of mine
employees working as UDC. Workman was not
recommended by DPC. All adverse contentions of workman
are denied. 2nd party prays reference be answered in its
favour.
5. Union filed rejoined at Page 12/1 to 12/6 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim. Management filed
rejoinder at Page 13/to 3/3 reiterating contentions in Written
Statement.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under,
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of SECL, Bilaspur
in withdrawing the promotion
order of Shri Shankar Rai
Chowdhary (passed on 20.1.92)
to the post of Special Grade
Clerk vide order dated 28.1.92 is
legal and justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4023
REASONS
7. Workman has produced documents Exhibit W-1 order
of his promotion to the post of Sr. Clerk dated 22.1.92.
Exhibit W-2 joining letter of promotional post. Exdhibit
W-3 is letter dated 24.3.92 submitted to Project Officer
regarding his transfer alleging that it was clear that after
release from Tandsi Project, fresh order be issued. Exhibit
W-4 office order workman was directed to report for duty
to General Manager, Johilla Area since he was transferred
on own request. Exhibit W-5 workman submitted joining
report on 27.3.92 under protest alleging that he had
submitted application for transfer to Calcutta or Bilaspur
Head Office. That he was posted at Johilla Area. Exhibit
W-6 is letter by Sub Area Manager to Dy. Chief Personnel
Manager, Johilla Area. Since there was no steno/secretariat
cadre staff, service of S. Raichi was utilized as special case
though he was clerk Grade I. as per Exhibit W-6(a),
Dy. General Manager by his letter to Dy. Chief Personnel
Manager informed that performance of Shri S. Rai
Chowdhary was satisfactory. His servive were utilised as
there was not steno/secretariat cadre. Exhibit W-7 office
dated 28.9.97. 11 employees including workman were relied
on their transfer. Exhibit W-7(a) office order dated 4.10.97
workman was transferred to Johilla Project. Rajspati Yogi
was transferred to stores. Exhibit W-7(b) workman was
transferred to Vindya project. Exhibit W-8 office order dated
19.7.98 workman Rai Chowdhary was posted as PA.
8. Management produced documents Exhibit M-1
workman was transferred to Johilla Area. Exhibit M-1(a)
workman was directed to report General Manager, Johilla
Area on his transfer. Exhibit M-2 workman was relieved
and posted at Pinora Project from 27.3.94. Exhibit M-3, 3(a),
(b) is cadre scheme. Exhibit M-4 is order of promotion dated
20.1.92. Workman was also promoted. Exhibit M-5 is order
dated 28.1.92. Order of promotion was kept in abeyance.
9. Turning to the evidence, Ist party workman filed
affidavit of evidence of Kallimulla Beg and workman S.
Raichowdhary. Their affidavits are devoted to cover most
of the points in the statement of claim of Ist party. That
workman had requested transfer in 1986 due to communal
feelings. However he was transferred to Johilla Area after
6 years. It is stated in both the affidavit. Kalimulla in his
cross exmaination says he worked with workman at Pinoura
Project in 1992-93 since he jointed. The distance between
Pinoura Project and GM office is about 10 Kms. In their
cross-examination, both witnesses have reiterated that
though workman had requested in 1984, he was transferred
to Pinopura Project in 1990. Workman in his cross-
examination syas he had sent Exhibit W-1, its copies were
sent to several authorities. He had not withdrawn Exhibit
M-1. He received order M-2, M-3. Promotion of clerk in
area wise as oper seniority cum merit. Exhibit M-6 was
subseqauently introduced. As per Exhibit M-9, he was
promoted to Clerk Special Grade. That his grievance was
that in UDC Grade, he had acquired seniority. he was
trasnferred from Tilchar Sub Area. If he would have been
transferred in 1986, he had no grievance.
10. Affidavit of evidence is filed by Shri K.K. Singh, he
submitted that transfer to workman was on request.
Workman was not entitled to transfer benefits. Workman
was not recommended by DPC for higher promotion. In
his cross-examination, witness says in 1986, he was working
as Project Manager at Tilchar Area. He did not recollect on
what post he was working in 1991-92. He was acquainted
with the workman. That workman was desiring his transfer.
On his request, he did not recollect when workman had
submitted application for his transfer. Whether its copy is
produced on record. He did not recollect in 1986, workman
requested transfer to Bilaspur or Calcutta. In his cross-
examination, management's witness says that workman had
not submitted protest application. The documents Exhibit
W-3 shows workman had requested for cancellation of his
transfer. Exhibit W-5 is workman jointed at Johilla Area
under protest for the reasons that he had requested for
tranfer to Calcutta or Bilaspur. The evidence of workman is
supported by documents whereas management's witness
in his cross-examination is claiming ignorance on vital
points. Therefore evidence of workman is accepted.
Management has not explained any reasons why workman
was not tranferred on his request in 1986 when he was
facing communal harassment. What were reasons for
transfer in 1991 when workman had acquired seniority at
Tilcher itself. Therefore the order of transfer of workman
was issued with malafide intention denying promtoion.
Workman was promoted as per order dated 20.1.92. The
order of promotion was kept in abeyance as per order dated
28.1.92 is not justified. Workman on his transfer to Johilla
Area was given bottom seniority, secondly he was denied
promotion. The act of management is therefore illegal. For
the reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Negative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of SECL, Bilaspur in
withdrawing the promotion order of Shri Shankar Rai
Chowdhary (passed on 20.1.92) to the post of Special Grade
Clerk vide order dated 28.1.92 is illegal.
(2) 2nd part is directed to treat order of transfer of
workman to Johilla Area as on administrative ground
without affecting his seniority and give benefit to the
order of his promotion dated 20.1.92. Workman be paid all
monetary benefits.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1952-—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]
4024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
44@1997½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-10-2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@340@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/1997) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown
in the Anneuxre, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Kunustoria Colliery of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 01.10.2015.
[No. L-22012/340/1996-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Setion Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 44 OF 1997
PARTIES:
The Management of Kunustoria Colliery of
M/s. ECL
Vs.
Shri Radhakrishna Mishra
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management
: Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv.
(ECL)
For the Union (Workman)
: Shri S.K. Pandey, Gen.
Secy. (CMC)
Industry:
Coal
State:
West Bengal
Dated:
07.09.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
340/1996-IR(C-II) dated 22.07.1997 has been pleased to refer
the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the denial of the management of
Kunustoria Colliery of ECL to regularise/promote
Sh. Radhakrishna Mishra, Cap Lamp Fitter as Asst.
Cap Lamp In-charge is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief is the workman entitled and from which
date?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/340/1996-IR
(C-II) dated 22.07.1997 of the above said reference from the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 44 of
1997 was registered on 28.07.1997 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out Shri P.K. Das, Learned Advocate appears
on behalf of the management (ECL). Shri S.K. Pandey,
General Secretary of the Union (CMC) is present on behalf
of the workman.
Shri Pandey, representative of the workman declines to
contest the case further. He verbally submits that the
workman is no more interested to proceed with the case
further.
On perusal of the case record I find that the case was
fixed for evidence of workman on 03.02.2010 vide order
No. 64 dated 25.11.2009 and again for evidence and physical
appearance of the workman on 13.02.2013. But, neither the
workman appeared physically nor the evidence of the
workman has been filed. So it is apparent that the workman
is now at all interested to proceed with the case further.
This is a case of the year 1997 i.e. 18 years have already
passed. So I think it is not proper and just to keep this old
record pending without any result. As such the case is
closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as not dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1953-—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 42@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@543@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4025
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2000) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Nimcha(R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 01/10/2015.
[No. L-22012/543/1999-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 42 OF 2000
PARTIES:
The Management of Nimcha (R) Colliery of
M/s. ECL
Vs.
Shri Alokdeo Singh
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management
: Shri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Adv.
(ECL)
For the Union (Workman)
: Shri Rakesh Kumar,
President, KMC
Industry:
Coal State :West Bengal
Dated:
10.09.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
543/1999-IR(CM-II) dated 06.07.2000 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Nimcha(R)
Colliery under M/s. E.C. Ltd. in denying the date of
birth of Shri Alokdeo Singh as July, 1972 is justified?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/543/1900-IR
(CM-II) dated 06.07.2000 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 42 of
2000 was registered on 01.08.2000 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out. Shri P.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate
appears on behalf of the management (ECL). None appears
on behalf of the workman/union.
On perusal of the case record it was found that the case
was fixed for filling evidence of the workman on 29.01.2013.
More than 2 years and 15 dates have so far been passed
but evidence of the workman has not been filed. Shri Rakesh
Kumar, President of the union, who represents this case on
behalf of the workman, has made his signature on 29.01.2013
and 19.06.2013. He has also received the notice of the
Tribunal on 26.08.2014, but to no effect.
It seems that neither the workman nor the union is
interested to proceed with the case further. The case is of
the year 2000 i.e. 15 years ago and I think it unreasonable
to keep this old record pending. As such the case is closed
accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as not dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1954-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds izca/
kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 81@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@140@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2005) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Amritnagar Colliery of M/s. ECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government
on 01/10/2015.
[No. L-22012/140/2004-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
4026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 81 OF 2005
PARTIES:
The management of Amritnagar Colliery of
M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri R.N. Bhati and 36 others
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. (CLE)
For the union (Workman):
H.L. Soni, Secretary (KMC)
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated: 18.09.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
140/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 27.06.2005 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
''whether the action of the Amritnagar Colliery under
M/s. CEL in denying upgradation in the next higher
grade in respect of Shri R.N. Bhati and 36 others (list
of workmen enclosed) clerical staff is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman
is entitled?''
Having received the Order No. L-22012/140/2004-IR (CM-II)
dated 27.06.2005 of the above said reference from the Govt.
of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of
the dispute, a Reference Case No. 81 of 2005 was registered
on 17.08.2005 and accordingly an order to that effect was
passed to issue notices through the registered post to the
parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on
the date fixed and to file their written statements along with
the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support
of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Case called out. Sri P.K. Das, Learned Advocate appears
on behalf of the management (ECL) but he has not filed
written statement till date. None appears on behalf of the
workman/union.
On perusal of the case record I found that Sri H.L. Soni,
secretary of the union (KMC) appeared and filed written
statement on behalf of the workman on 26.10.2005. But
after 20.01.2007 the union is neither appearing nor taking
any step. 27 dates have been granted after 20.01.2007 but
neither the workman nor his representative turned up. Even
registered notice was sent to the union on 17.05.2012 and
25.07.2014 but to no effect. It seems to me that the union/
workman is now not at all interested to proceed with the
case further. The reference case is also old i.e. in the year of
2005. So the case is closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute
Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Let an ''Award'' be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India.
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDVwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1955-—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+k|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@314@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1955.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2005) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Asansol as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s Eastern Coalfield Limited and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
01.10.2015.
[No. L-22012/314/2004- IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 66 OF 2005
PARTIES:
The management of Kunustoria Colliery of
M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Sanatan Majhi
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4027
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. (CLE)
For the union (Workman): None
INDUSTRY :
COAL
STATE:
WEST BENGAL
Dated:
17.09.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/
314/2004-IR (CM-II) dated 20.07.2005 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
''whether the action of the Kunustoria Colliery M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissng Sh. Sanatan
Majhi from Services w.e.f. 26.03.1999 is legal and
justified ? if not, to what relief the concerned workman
is entitled.?
Having received the Order No. L-22012/314/2004-IR
(CM-II) dated 20.07.2005 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a Reference, Case No. 66 of
2005 was registered on 17.08.2005 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
his authorization 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, Learned Advocate appears
on behalf of the management (ECL) but he has not filed
wirtten statement till date. None appears on behalf of the
workman/union.
On perusal of the case record I found that the union
neither appearing nor taking any step from 17.11.2009.
30 dates have been granted after 26.08.2009. Registered
notices were also issued to the workman/union on
24.05.2012 and 20.08.2014 but all are in vain. It seems to me
that the union is now not at all interested to proceed with
the case further. The case is also very old - in the year 2005.
As such the case is closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute
Award' may be passed.
O R D E R
Let an ''Award'' be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India.
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1956-—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+k|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 97 @2006) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@179@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1956.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/2006) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. ASANSOL 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 01.10.2015.
[No. L-22012/179/2006- IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, ANANSOL
Present :
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 97 OF 2006
Parties :
The management of Gourandih-Begunia
Colliery of M/s. ECL
Versus
Sri Nirod Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Adv.
(ECL)
For the union (Workman) :
H.L. Soni, Secretary (KMC)
Industry :
Coal
State :
West Bengal
Dated :
18.09.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
179/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 29.11.2006 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Gourandih-Begunia
Colliery in dismissing Sri Nirod Bouri, Drillier w.e.f.
4028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31.10.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/179/2006-IR
(CM-II) dated 29.11.2006 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 81 of
2005 was registered on 17.08.2005 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out. Both the parties are absent.
On perusal of the case record I found that this is a case
of the year 2006, one of the oldest cases in the Tribunal.
The case is represented by Sri H.L. Soni, Secretary of the
Union (KMC) on behalf of the workman and Sri P.K.
Goswami, Ld. Adv. on behalf of the management. Written
Statement has been filed the management on 05.10.2007.
The union neither files written statement nor takes any
step from the beginning. First notice was issued on
12.01.2007 and 9 dates were granted after that. 2nd notice
was issued on 20.07.2009 and 14 dates were granted after
that. 3rd notice was again sent to the union on 02.01.2012
and 13 dates were granted after issuing 3rd notice. 4th and
final notice was issued on 01.09.2014 and the same was
received by Sri. H.L. Soni himself on 12.09.2014. Two dates
were granted after that but the union/workman neither
appears nor files written statement. It seems that the union/
workman is not at all interested to proceed with the case
further. As such the case is closed and accordingly a 'No
Dispute Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1957-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,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 ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 117@1995½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@559@1994 vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1957.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 117/1995) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Kahan Area of Western
Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 01/10/2015.
[No. L-22012/559/1994-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/117/95
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
Sub Regional Office, Damua,
P.O. Damua, Distt. Chhindwara
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
WCL, Kahan Area,
PO Dungaria,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 4th day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 19.6.1995 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/
559/94-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of project
Officer, Tandsi Project of WCL, PO Tandsi, Distt.
Chhidndwara (MP) in not correcting the date of birth
of Shri Sayed Ramjan ali S/o Sayed Wajid Ali, Sr.
Overman of Tandsi project of WCL, Kanhan Area
from 1.1.1935 to 5.1.1937 without giving any
consideration to his date of birth recorded as 5.1.1937
in the High School Supplementary Examination, 1963
produced by him is justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page 3/2
to 3/6. Workman died during pendency of reference
proceeding. His LRs are brought on record. The case of Ist
party workman is that he was appointed as Mining Sirdar
on 26.9.66. He was transferred to Rawanwara colliery.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4029
Workman was dismissed on 9.5.72. He was reinstated on
30.10.72. Again workman was transferred to Ambara in 1976,
Mohan Colliery in 1982, VTC Sukari in 1984, Tandsi project
in 1987. Workman had taken voluntary retirement on
19.02.93. Workman submits that after taking VRS, he is
entitled to benefits under the VRS Scheme dated 8.3.89.
Management wrongly assessed his date of birth. He passed
Matriculation in 1983. In SSC Certificate, Gas Testing
Certificate, his date of birth is shown 5.1.1937. In Form B
register, his date of birth was shown 1.1.1935 instead of
5.1.1937. Workman prays for correction of his date of birth.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement Statement at page
4/1 to 4/3 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits
in Form B Register, date of birth of workman is recorded
1.1.1935. It is statutory register maintained as per Coal
Mines Regulation. The entries made in register is accepted
as correct as the entries were taken on information furnished
by workman. I.I. No. 76 was issued to JBCCI under NCWA-III.
The excerpts of services of workman were prepared.
Workman was given opportunity for correction of date of
birth. Wrokman did not raise objection about his age shown
in Service Excerpts. There was no dispute about the date
of birth of workman. I.I. No. 37 as per NCWA-II was
implemented. It was displayed on notice board inviting
objections of the workman aggrieved about their date of
birth to submit objection within 90 days. Reference is vague.
It does not specify record which is not considered by
management. Date of birth entered in record by
management is correct. Workman not prodcued certificate
about his date of birth while he was in service. Workman
has taken VRS on 19.02.95. On such ground, 2nd party
prays reference be answered in its favour.
4. Identical Written Statement is also submitted by 2nd
party at page 8/1 to 8/7.
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 project Officer,
Tandsi Project of WCL, PO
Tandsi, Distt. Chhindwara
(MP) in not correcting the date
of birth of Shri Sayed Ramjan
ali S/o Sayed Wajid Ali, Sr.
Overman of Tandsi project of
WCL, Kanhan Area from
1-1-1935 to 5.1.1937 without
giving any consideration to his
date of birth recorded as
5.1.1937 in the High School
Supplementary Examination,
1963 produced by him is
justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. As per terms of reference, the dispute pertains to date
of birth of workman. The dispute is referred by Goernment
of India, Ministry of Labour as per letter dated 19.6.95.
Workman has taken VRS on 19.2.93. The dispute is raised
after taken VRS by workman.
7. Workman filed affidait of his eidence in support of his
claim contending that in certificate of supplementary SSC
Examination, Gas Testing Certificate, overman Certificate,
School Leaing Certificate, his date of birth is recorded
5.1.1937. His date of birth was wrongly recorded as 1.1.1935
illegally. He had given letter to the management for
correction of date of birth of 14.4.1989. Workman could not
be cross-examined. He died during pendency of the
proceeding. Affidavit of evidence are also filed by his son
Syed Akram Ali corroborating evidence of workman that
his date of birth was 5.1.1937. The documents Exhibit W-1
Certificate of supplementary Exam, Exhibit W-2 Gas Testing
Certificate, Exhibit W-3 Overman Certificate, Exhibit W-4
school leaving certificate, Exhibit W-5 LPC shows date of
birth of workman is recorded 5.1.1937. Syed Akram S/o
Workman in his cross-examination says documents Exhibit
W-1 to W-4 were received by his father. He was unable to
tell whether original of Exhibit W-5 was with his father. His
father was appointed on 30.10.72. He taken VRS in 1992. At
that time, he was working as Sr. Overman. He claims
ignorance for date of birth of his father was shown at the
time of VRS.
8. Management's witness Shri Amit Kumar Mathur filed
affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of
management. That date of birth of deceased workman in
Form B register was recorded 1.1.1935. I.I. No.76 was issued
by JBCCI as per NCWA-III. Service excerpts were prepared.
Date of birth of workman was shown 1.1.1935. Workman
did not submit any objection to it. Workman did not dispute
his date of birth. He had taken VRS on 19.2.93. Form hjis
evidence, documents Exhibit M-1 to M-6 are proved.
Management's witness in his cross examination says he
had seen documents about VRS of deceased workman.
I.I. No. 76 applied in case of dispute for date of birth. He
claims ignorance w.r.t 14.4.89 denies its contents. He denies
that Accounts Officer had suggested for correction of date
of birth of workman. The evidence on record shows
deceased workman while in service of 2nd party did not
raise dispute about his date of birth. The present dispute is
raised after workman had taken VRS on 19.2.93. In evidence
of management's witness that service excerpts were
prepared as per I.I. No. 76. Workman had not raised any
objection is not shattered. The dispute raised by workman
after taking VRS as such not in service with 2nd party is
not permissible in view of I.I. No. 76. legal position is also
settled that the objection about date of birth should be
4030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
raised at the earliest. The evidence of Syed Akhtar Ali is
clear that documents Exhibit W-1 to W-4 were with his
father. Why deceased workman did not raise dispute about
his date of birth while he was in service from 1966 and
reinstated in 1972. Though the date of birth of workman is
shown 5.1.1937 in Exhibit W-1 to W-4, after workman has
taken VRS, the dispute has raised. The correction of date
of birth of workman after VRS cannot be accepted.
Management has produced documents Exhibit M-1 about
reinstatement of workman in 1972, M-2 is copy of LPC,
date of birth of workman is shown 1-1-1935. Exhibit M-3
Form B date of birth is shown 1-1-1935. Exhibit M-4 Service
Excerpts of workman, his date of birth is shown 1-1-1935
inviting objections within 14 days.
9. Management's witness in his cross-examination says
that in matter about correction of date of birth of workman
was not received. Therefore no enquiry was taken in the
matter.
10. Shri A.K. Shashi relies on ratio held in appeal 8634/
13. He also relies on judgment in Writ petition 18/99. The
present dispute is raised for correction of date of birth after
VRS taken by workman. The detailed discussion of those
judgments is not necessary. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management is proper and legal.
(2) Workman/LRs are not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1958-—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;ksatdksa 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 110@1995½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@42@1994&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/1995) of the Cent.
Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Gajandoh Mines of Western Coalfields
Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 01/10/2015.
[No. L-22012/42/1994-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/110/95
Shri Faiyazuddin
S/o Sirajuddin, Ex. Clipman,
Ward No. 4, Eklehra Colliery,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Workman
Versus
The Manager,
Gajandoh Mines of WCL,
PO Parasia,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 7-6-95 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section - 10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/42/94-IR
(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Gajandoh
Mine of Western Coal Fields Limited in dismissing
the services of Shri Faiyazuddin clipman w.e.f. 11-11-92
is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman
is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page 2/1
to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed in Eklehra
colliery in 1973. He was promoted to the post of Trammer
and post of Clipman Cat-IV subsequently. He was
transferred to Bhamori colliery in 1984. Again he was
transferred to Gajandoh mine in June 1994. It is further
submitted that Manager Gajandoh colliery adopted rigid
view against him for Union activities. He was falsely
implicated for charges of theft, fraud, dishonesty with
employers business and property. Manager has complained
to police regarding the same charges, trial was over. That
management denied to supply copy of FIR and statement
of prosecution witnesses. Workman was denied
opportunity for his defence in the enquiry. That Civil Court
had stayed domestic enquiry till ending criminal trial in
criminal court. It was unfair to compel him to defence his
witness in domestic enquiry. Enquiry was proceeded exparte
in violation of the stay order by court amounting to
contempt. That domestic enquiry conducted during
pendency of criminal trial is vitiated. Findings in enquiry is
illegal. The chargesheet alledged that report against
workman was received. He had entered in the mine in
midnight without helmet and lamp and bringing 20mt. cable
form mine was caught. It was alleged that I caused damage
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4031
of Rs. 10,000 to the company. Workman denied charges
against him. Shri A.K. Singh was appointed Enquiry Officer.
Enquiry was completed was empty formality. Enquiry Officer
was putting questions during examination in chief by the
management's representative was admitted by Enquiry
Officer.
3. It is further submitted that the chargesheet is vague
and Manager not specified allegations of the charges.
Workman committed misconduct. Chargesheet was issued
to workman alleging misconduct. Subsequently FIR was
lodged to policy management in Civil Suit hardly in Court.
DE was stayed. Criminal case was pending. Enquiry Officer
denied equal protection of law to workman. That he was
falsely implicated by management. The management failed
to prove misconduct alleged against him in the chargesheet.
Management could not produce Enquriy report during
conciliation proceedings. That action was taken by Manager
independently in the absence of Enquiry Report in violation
of principles of natural justice. Enquiry is vitiated. On such
ground, workman prays for appropriate relief.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/3
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that
workman was working as clipman in Gajandoh mine of WCL.
On 24-8-92, workman was on duty in 2nd shift. After he
was relieved with view to commit theft, he entered in mine
unauthorisely and attempted to steal 20mt cable from mine.
He was caught red handed while attempting to steal said
property. Chargesheet was issued to workman. He did not
submit any reply to the chargesheet. Shri A.K. Singh
Personnel Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer.
Shri A.K. Kapoor was appointed as management's
representative. Enquiry Officer vide notice dated 14-9-92
directed parties to appear on 16-9-92. Management
representative and workman had appeared on said date.
Workman denied charges against him. When workman was
asked about appointing co-worker for his defence, workman
submitted application. Enquriy was adjourned to 18-9-92.
On said date, workman nominated Abdul Raut Mining sirdar
as his co-worker. He was permitted to represent workman.
Enquiry was adjourned to 19-9-92. On above date, workman
appeared alongwith co-worker. He submitted application
requesting standing orders, documents of enquiry.
Workman was shown entire file for study by co-worker.
Entire papers were readover and explained to him. Enquiry
was conducted in presence of workman and his co-worker.
The witnesses of management were cross-examined. The
enquiry was closed. 2nd party reiterates that enquiry was
held properly following principles of natural justice.
Opportunity for defence was given to the workman. The
action of the management is justified. It is denied that
enquiry was not properly conducted. It is reiterated that
workman was indulged in theft of company's property. He
is not a fit person to be retained in service. Management
has no confidence in workman. Claim of workman be
rejected.
5. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
6. Management also filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/6
reiterating contentions in written statement.
7. As per order dated 11-8-2014, enquiry conducted
against workman is found vitiated. 2nd party was permitted
to prove misconduct adducing evidence.
8. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the charges/
In Negative
misconduct alleged againsts
workman is proved from
evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii)
Whether the punishment of
In Negative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iii)
If not, what relief the
As per final order
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
9. Enquiry conducted against workman is found illegal.
2nd party was permitted to prove misconduct by adducing
evidence. Management filed affidavit of witness Prakash
Agrawal. Affidavit of management's witness has stated
that workman was working as clipman in Gajandoh branch.
On 24-8-92, he was on duty in 2nd shift without permission
of competent officer, workman had entered in mine in the
night. On 24-8-92, he was on duty by the side of shift
overman. Other employee Bhikari and Jagannath were
working in Electrical department. They had given
information about thief had entered. He had given said
information to security guard Sidhu Prasad and Ramkewal.
Shift Incharge Shri Deshpande during inspection
Shri Fiyazuddin (workman) and Ramdas were found in the
mine. They were not workman in his shift. They had not
entered in mine with his permission. Fiyazuddin and Ramdas
were not wearing helmet and lamp. In his cross-examination,
management's witness claims ignorance about chargesheet
issued to Fiyazuddin and Ramdas. He is acquainted with
Ramdas. He claims ignorance whether he is still working in
establishment of 2nd party or he is re-employed. He was
witness in Enquiry Proceedings. On 19-9-92, he was not
present in Enquiry Proceedings. In his further cross-
examination, management's witness says he had not seen
Fiyazuddin and Ramdas entering the mine. He had seen
them in the underground mine. Workman is acquitted by
criminal court. Copy of judgement is produced on record.
Judgment shows that Ramdas and Fiyazuddin were
prosecuted under Section 380/34 IPC. Both of them were
acquitted by JMFC, Chhindwara. The chargesheet issued
4032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to workman is produced at Exhibit M-1. Chargesheet was
issued under Clause 17(1) of standing orders alleging
misconduct of theft, dishonesty and violation of mining
rules 1952. As enquiry is found vitiated, the evidence in
Enquiry Proceedings cannot be considered. The evidence
of management's witness is not cogent that he had seen Ist
party workman entering in the mine. His evidence is silent
about the workman carrying 20mt. cable with him. The
evidence of management's witness is not sufficient to
establish admitted theft or fraudulent intention. When
workman is acquitted in criminal case for the same allegation,
judgment of criminal court deserves to be respected. The
charge against workman is not proved therefore I record
my finding in Point No. 1 Negative.
10. Point No. 2 In view of my finding in Point No. 1
charge against workman is not proved, punishment of
dismissal imposed against workmen cannot be sustained.
The punishment of dismissal of workman therefore deserves
to be quashed. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No. 2.
11. Workman was initially appointed in 1973. He was
dismissed from service on 11-11-92 after about 19 years
service. Workman died during pendency. His LRs are
brought on record. Workman cannot be reinstated.
Considering above facts, reasonable compensation could
be awarded to the LRs of deceased workman. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No. 3.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Gajandoh Mine
of Western Coal Fields Limited in dismissing the
services of Shri Faiyazuddin clipman w.e.f. 11-11-92
is not proper and legal. The dismissal of workman
is set-aside.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 2,50,000/- to the workman.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1959-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15@1994½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@169@1994&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/1994) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Narsamunda Colliery of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 01/10/2015.
[No. L-22012/169/1994-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present::
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 15 OF 1994
Parties:
The management of Narsamuda Colliery of
M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Parmanand Singh
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. (ECL)
For the union (Workman):
Sri N. Ganguly, Ld. Adv
INDUSTRY:
COAL
STATE:
WEST BENGAL
Dated:
03.09.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
169/1994-IR(C-II) dated 07.11.1994 has been pleased to refer
the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Narsamuda Colliery in not regularizing
Shri Parmanand Singh, Security Guard in the post of
Security Havildar w.e.f. 12.12.1985 is justified? If not
to what relief is the workman entitled to?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/169/1994-IR(C-II)
dated 07.11.1994 of the above said reference from the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of
the dispute, a Reference Case No. 15 of 1994 was registered
on 25.07.1996 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.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4033
Case called out. Sri P.K. Das, Learned Advocate appears
on behalf of the management (ECL). Sri N. Ganguly, Learned
Advocate, who is also present for some other engagement,
submits that the case may be closed as he has no contact
with the workman/union for last five years.
On perusal of the case record I find that Sri Ganguly, Ld.
Adv. last appeared before the tribunal on 28.11.2007 on
behalf of the workman. Thereafter no one has turned up on
behalf of the workman. Registered notices were again
issued on 19.03.2009 and 19.03.2012 but no response. It
seems that the workman/union is now not all interested to
proceed with the case further. The case is of the year 1994.
As such the case is closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute
Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1960-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 77@2001½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@202@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2015
S.O. 1960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2001) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Mahadeopuri Mine
of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 01/10/2015.
[No. L-22012/202/2000-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/77/2001
Shri Sabir Khan,
S/o Habibulla,
Ex. D.P.R. of Mahadeopuri Colliery,
Chief House, Chandametta,
Distt Chhindwara (MP)
....Workman
Versus
The Manager,
Mahadeopuri Mine of WCL,
PO Parasia,
Distt, Chhindwara (MP)
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 4th day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 12-4-2001 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-22012/202/2000-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the CME/Sub Area Manager,
Newton Sub Area of WCL, PO Parasia, Distt.
Chhindwara (MP) in dismissing the services of
Shri Sabir Khan S/o Habibulla, DPR of Mahadeopuri
Mine of WCL, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
w.e.f. 1-11-99 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties, Workman submitted statement of claim At Page 2/
1 to 2/3. Case of workman is that he was appointed
on 12-8-81 as DPR at Mahadeopuri Mine, pench area.
Chargesheet issued to him on 30-9-99. Management illegally
charged him though he was not involved in incident of
violence and destruction of property. Bharat Singh Sakrawar
was his Defence Assistant was not present 13-9-99 in the
enquiry. Enquiry Officer under pressure of management
proceeded exparte against workman in enquiry. Workman
was dismissed on 29-10-99. Order of punishment was not
issued by Competent Authority. His Appointing Authority
is General Manager. The Separate Order was issued by
Sub Area Manager. On such ground workman prays for his
reinstatement.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/6
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that
workman was initially appointed as departmental piece
rated employee at Shivpuri underground mine. He was
transferred to Mahadeopuri mine as DPR. Complaint was
received against workman on 1-9-99 from Abdul Hameed,
chargesheet was issued to workman on 3-9-99 for
misconduct under cause 26.23, 26.27 of standing order
pertaining to causing wilful damage to the work, conduct
within mine premises engangering life and safety of others.
Enquiry was conducted on various dates. On 13-9-99,
request for adjournment was rejected and evidence of
management's witness was recorded. Enquiry Officer held
charges against workman proved. Workman was dismissed
as per order dated 19-10-99. 2nd party reiterates that the
4034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
enquiry was properly conducted following principles of
natural justice. The dismissal of workman is proper and
legal.
4. Enquiry conducted against workman is found vitiated
as per order dated 13-12-12. Management was permitted to
prove misconduct by leading evidence.
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 charges against
In Negative
workman are proved by 2nd
party?
(ii)
Whether the punishment of
In Negative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. As discussed above, enquiry conducted against
workman is found illegal. Management was permitted to
prove misconduct adducing evidence. I may mention that
the documents related to enquiry are produced at Exhibit
W-1 to W-7. Copy of Judgment of Criminal court is
produced, workman was acquitted.
7. Management has also produced documents of
enquiry. The discussion of documents of enquiry is not
required as enquiry is found vitiated. Management is order
to prove charges alleged against workman, management
examined witness Shri Abdul Hameed. He has not
supported any charges alleged against workman. The
complaint was read over to him. Witness of management
only admitted his signature, the complaint is marked Exhibit
M-2 but he says its contents are false. Chargesheet exhibit
M-3 was also explained to the witness. Management's
witness says the charges are false. He admits his signature.
No other witness is examined by management to prove the
charges. From evidence on record, charges alleged against
workman cannot be proved therefore I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. As charges alleged against workman are not proved,
the order of punishment of dismissal cannot be sustained
therefore I record my finding in Point No. 2 in Negative.
9. Point No. 3-In view of my finding in Point No. 1,2
charges alleged against workman are not proved, order of
his dismissal cannot be sustained, question remains for
consideration is whether workman is entitled for
reinstatement with backwages.
Shri A.K. Shashi learned counsel for 2nd party on the
point relies on part held in case of Jaipur Golden Transport
Company Ltd. vrs Munna Khan Dost Khan Mohammad
and another reported in 2000(1)LLN 955. Their Lordship
setaide the order of reinstatement by Labour Court and
instead compensation Rs. 1,90,000 was allowed. The facts
of present case are not comparable as in Para-9 of the above
cited judgment, their Lordship observed that it is not
possible to agree with the view taken by the Labour court
merely because the workmen who instigated the assault
and damage to the company's property were standing
outside the premises of the company. The workman has
completed 58 years.
In present case, the age of workman is shown 45 years
in his affidavit of evidence filed on 30-11-09. The age of
workman may be about 51 years. The charges against
workman are not proved therefore punishment of dismissal
is illegal. As charges are not proved, workman deserved
reinstatement with backwages. Accordingly I record my
finding in point No. 2.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the CME/Sub Area Manager, Newton
Sub Area of WCL, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara
(MP) in dismissing the services of Shri Sabir Khan
S/O Habibulla, DPR of Mahadeopuri Mine of
WCL, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) w.e.f.
1-11-99 is not proper.
(2) 2nd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service with backwages.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1961-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj 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]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 24@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@117@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2010)) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Northern Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/10/2015.
[No. L-41011/117/2009-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4035
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 24/2010
Ref. No. L-41011/117/2009-IR (B-I) dated: 09.11.2010
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangatan Mantri
Uttar Railways Karmchari Union
283/63. Kh Gadi Kannora
PO Manak Nagar
Lucknow
(Espousing cause of Shri Ram Chander)
AND
1. Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction)
Uttar Railway, Charbagh
Lucknow.
2. Deputy Chief Manager (Stores)
Northern Railway, Stores Depot
Alambagh, Lucknow.
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/117/2009-IR (B-I) dated:
09.11.2010 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 Mandal Sangathan Mantri, Uttar
Railways Employee Union, 283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora, PO.
Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the Dy. Chief Engineer
(Construction), Uttar Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow &
Deputy Chief Manager (Stores), Northern Railway, Stores
Depot, Alambagh, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the Action of Management of North
Central Railway, Allahabad/Kanpur in not giving Shri
Ram Chander, T.No. 449 Status of Temporary Worker
from the date of Completion of 120 days of service is
Legal and Justified? What relief the workman is
Entitled to?"
3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the
workman, Ram Chander, has been engaged as casual labour
with in construction unit under opposite party No. 1 and is
presently working under opposite party No. 2. It has been
alleged by the workman's union that the workman under
dispute was to be given temporary status after completion
of 120 days of working as per P.S. N. 7850, Master Circular
48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian Railway
Establishment Manual; but they were granted temporary
status after five year's of their engagement, which is not
only unfair labour practice but also is against Article 21 of
the Constitution. Accordingly, the workman's union has
prayed that the workmen concerned be granted temporary
status from the date they have completed 120 days' working
with consequential benefits.
4. The management of the North Central Railways has
filed its written statement denying the allegations of the
workman's union with submission that the workman under
dispute was initially engaged by them as Project Casual
Labour in Construction Unit with intermittent gap w.e.f
24.04.79 and has been granted temporary status on 01.01.85
vide letter No.220/E/3/Recruit dated 22/25.02.85. It has been
submitted that the railway formulated a scheme to provide
the temporary status to Project Casual Labour, circulated
vide No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 dated 1.6.84 as per directions of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav & other vs Union
of India & others (1985) 2 SCC 648. The management
has submitted that as per modified date of grant of
temporary status, the workmen were screened and posted
as Gangman and is in fruitful employment of the opposite
party for last 20 years, thus raising the present industrial
disputes after lapse of 20 long years makes it time barred
hence, not maintainable in the eye of law. It is specifically
submitted by the management that the workman has been
engaged as project casual labour and as per existing
Railway Rules 360 days' continuous service is required for
grant of temporary status, therefore, the claim of the
workman for grant of temporary status after 120 days is not
maintainable and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the
management has prayed that the claim of the workman's
union be rejected being devoid of any merit.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein
apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the
statement claim has submitted that the workman under
dispute has not appointed in any project, therefore decision
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra) is
not applicable on him and he should be granted temporary
status after completion of 120 days of service.
6. The workman's union has not filed any documentary
evidence in support of its claim; rather it has stated that
the Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman and his
Service Book, is with the employers, in original.
The management has filed photocopy of Casual Labour
Card and Service Book in respect of workman.
7. The Workman's union has examined workman;
whereas the management examined Sri Sita Ram Sonkar,
APO in support of their claim. The parties availed
opportunity to corss-examine the each other's witnesses
apart from putting oral arguments as well as written
arguments.
8. Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties
and perused entire evidence on record.
9. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that the workman was not project casual labour;
rather he was casual labour engaged in construction
division/unit. Therefore, he was eligible for grant of
4036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
temporary status from the date he completed 120 days of
service. The railway administration instead treated him as
project casual labour and granted him temporary status
after lapse of five years which is unfair labour practice. It is
also contended that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra) is not applicable on
the workman. The workman's union has relied on:
(i) Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another 2008
(116) FLR 1046.
(ii) Union of India & others vs. Basant Lal & others
1992 SCC (L&C) 611.
(iii) L. Rebert D'Souza vs Executive Engineer,
Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S)
124.
(iv) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy ACJ 1998
1347 SC.
(v) Kuldeep Singh vs. GM. Instrument Design
Development and Facilities Centre & another
2011 (128) FLR 121.
(vi) Din Mohammed (Dead) by LRs. Vs Union of India
& others 2002 (92) FLR 1216.
(vii) The Union of India & another vs Girja Shankar
& others 2003 (96) FLR 1094.
10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that the workman has been
project casual labour in construction unit and worked with
intermittent gap and he was granted temporary status as
per Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84. It has been
submitted that the Railway Board vide its letter dated
11.09.86 modified the date of temporary status to the
workmen in view of decision given by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra). The management
has contended that the workman was not entitled for grant
of temporary status after completion of 120 days
continuous service since he was engaged as project casual
labour and as per existing Railway Rules, 360 days'
continuous services is required for grant of temporary status
to a project casual labour.. The authorized representative
of the management has also contended that the workman
has turned up after lapse of more than 20 years and his
cause is not tenable in the eye of law being time barred.
The management has relied on Inder Pal Yadav & others
Vs. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions of the learned authorized representativs
of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in
light thereto.
12. The workman has come up with a case that he has
been engaged as casual labour in the Construction Unit of
the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway,
Lucknow and he was entitled for grant of temporary status
on completion of 120 days of service under P.S.N. 7850,
Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian
Railway Establishment Manual; but the management
granted him temporary status after five years' of their
appointment, amounting to unfair labour practice. The
workman's union has not filed any documentary evidence
in support of their case; rather it has pleaded that the same
is in power and possession of the Railways.
13. The management of the Northern Railways, rebutting
the claim of the workman's union has come up with a clear
cut case that the workman had been engaged as Project
Casual Labour and accordingly, he was entitled for grant
of temporary status on completion of 360 days continuous
service; and accordingly, he was grated vide Railway
Board's letter dated 01.06.84. Later on with decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra), the
date of grant of temporary status was modified vide
Railways Board's letter dated 11.09.86 whereby the
workman were given temporary status from previous date.
The management has also stressed upon the factum of
delay in raising the present industrial dispute after lapse of
more than 20 years. The authorized representative of the
management has pointed out that the workman is working
with the railways for decades; but neither he preferred any
representation, on the issue; nor moved to the court for
redressal of his grievances. It is also stressed by the
management that the workman has raised the present
industrial dispute at a highly belated stage without any
explanation to the delay. It has also been argued that though
there is no limitation in the I.D. Act, 1947; but the same
should not be condoned for the want of any explanation
from the workman's union. He has also submitted that the
Hon'ble Apex Court in number of its verdicts has observed
that Courts should exercise their discretion, judiciously,
while condoning the delay.
14. The workman's union adduced evidence of the
workman who stated in his cross-examination that he had
appointed as casual labour in 15.03.1974 and he was granted
temporary status w.e.f. in 13.12.82. The workman admitted
the photocopy of service record and casual labour card,
filed by the management, from paper No. 8/1 to 8/3 & 6/7 to
6/8.
15. The workman has not filed any documentary proof
in support of their claim but has relied on the photocopy of
the service record and casual labour card of the workman,
filed by the management. The service record of the workman
shows the entry regarding grant of temporary status to the
workman of different dates and there after grant of revised
temporary status from different dates as per Railway Board's
circular dated 11.9.86. The photocopy of the casual labour
card, filed by the management has details regarding working
of the workman with permanent Way Inspector
(Construction) at different-different stations.
Thus, both the parties have relied on the same set of
documents in support of their different stands.
16. After going through the rival pleadings of the parties
and documentary and oral evidence relied upon by the
parties the bone of contention is as to whether the workman
was Project casual labour or just casual labour engaged in
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4037
the railway administration. Had they been Project Casual
Labour then the action of the management was right and if
they were casual labour on the rolls of railways then they
ought to have been granted temporary status on
completion of 120 days continuous service.
The burden that lied upon the workman's union was to
come with the evidence that the workman was engaged as
casual labour and he completed 120 days continuous service
on this particular date, making him entitled for grant of
temporary status. Thus, it was for the workman's union to
lead its evidence on two points firstly that the workman
was engaged as Casual Labour and secondly that he
completed 120 days' of continuous working on such and
such date. But the workman failed to comply with the above
requirement. As it relied on the documentary evidence i.e.
casual labour card which was in power and possession of
the management for working details; but when the
management filed the photocopy of the same then it neither
calculated the 120 days' of continuous working from it nor
disputed its genuineness. This goes to upheld the stand
taken by the management that the workman was Project
Casual Labour and accordingly he was granted temporary
status on completion of 360 days of continuous working
vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84 and thereafter
granted them revised temporary status from a back date
vide letter dated 11.09.86 as per guidelines of Hon'ble Apex
Court.
17. The workman has relied on Union of India vs.
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar
& another which pertains to termination of services of a
workman in violation of provisions of Section 25F, G & H
of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are entirely
different; hence not applicable in the present case. The
workman has also relied on Union of India & Others Vs.
Basant Lal & others 1992 SCC (L&S) 611; wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that workman having
completed 120 days of working becomes entitled for
regularization as temporary worker and the Railway cannot
deny them the temporary status on the ground that they
had been appointed as causal labour on a project work and
not on construction work on open line and as such would
acquire the temporary status only after completing 360 days
of service. But in the present the workman's union failed to
specify the date when the different workmen completed
120 days' of continuous service, rendering them for grant
of temporary status. The workman's union has also relied
on L. Robert D'Souza vs Executive Engineer, Southem
Railway & another 1982 SSC (L&S) 124 but the fact of the
case law in entirely different from the present case hence
not applicable. Likewise the facts of the case law relied
upon by the workman in the Union of India & another Vs.
Girja Shankar & others 2003 (96) FLR 1094, Kuldeep Singh
Vs GM Instrument Design Development and Facilities
Centre & another 2011 (128) FLR 123 and Din Mhammaed
(Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India & others 2002 (992) FLR
1216 are quite different from the facts of the present case
hence not appreciable.
18. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an action, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of
the action; and if not evidence is produced, the party
invoking jurisdiction of the court fail. In the present case
burden was on the workman's union to set out the grounds
to challenge the validity of the action of the management
in not granting the temporary status to the workman after
completion of 120 days' of continous working. For this the
burden of proof was on the workman's union to come with
the evidence, that the workman under dispute has been
engaged by the management of Railways as casual labour
and under rules they were entitled for grant of temporary
status from completion of 120 days services with the
employers; but the workman's union has failed to discharge
the burned that lied upon them. The workman's union made
a pleading, to explain the reason why it is not in position to
file any documentary evidence before this Tribunal, in their
statement of claim of the effect that the relevant document
in support of their claim i.e. Casual Labour Card is attached
in their Service Book. The workman's union in its rejoinder
required the management to produce Casual Labour Card
in respect of the workman before this Tribunal, resultantly,
the management filed photocopy of Casual Labour Card
and Services Book in respect of the workman. The
workman's union did not dispute the service details filed
by the management i.e. Casual Labour Card and extracts of
Service Book. Therefore, when the management has filed
the photocopy of Casual Labour Card as desired by the
workman's union then it was incumbent upon the
workman's union to come forward and sort out the relevant
extract of the Casual Labour Card, which bears working
details i e. working period and number of days, to show
that the workman completed 120 days of continuous on
such and such date and he was entitled for grant of
temporary status from such date. But the workman has
utterly failed to bring any evidence to the effect before this
Tribunal that the workman was engatged as Causal Labour
and that the workman was casual labour and it also failed
to specify the date as to when the workman completed 120
days' of continuous working, making him eligible for grant
of temporary status.
19. On the contrary the management has come with a
clear cut case that the workman was engated as Project
Casual Labour with Construction Union. It is also
contended by the learned authorized representative of
opposite party that there are so many projects which go on
with the Construction Unit and the workmen were kept
engaged in different Projects. It is also specifically pleaded
and proved by the management that the workman was
granted temporary status vide Railway Board's letter dated
01.06.84; but due to supreme Court's direction in Indra Pal
Yadav Case (supra), the Railway Board vide its letter dated
11.09.86; changed the date of grant of temporary status, as
per modified policy and accordingly, reduced the date of
Temporary Status through notice. The management has
filed photocopy of Service Record in respect of workman,
which bears entries regarding grant of temporary status to
the workman.
4038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20. The management has made a specific pleading to
the effect that the claim of the workman's union is stale one
and time barred as the union has preferred the case before
this Tribunal after lapse of more than 20 years. The
workman's union in rebuttal has submitted that there is no
provision regarding limitation in the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947; hence their claim is maintainable.
In this regard the workman's union has relied
on N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347;
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter
delay has observed that length of delay does not matter,
acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. But
the workman's union has not given any explanation in its
pleadings as to what prevented them to raise an industrial
dispute at an early state. However, in the evidence it has
been stated that the workman/union wrote many letters to
the opposite parties and the same are pending with them;
although no copy of such letter/reprsentation finds its
reference either on record or annexure with the affidavit.
Moreover, the management witness vide para 9 of his
affidavit has denied of submissions of any such application
by the workman.
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board & other Vs T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772,
Honble Apex Court has observed as under:
"The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights
of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason, approaches the
court at his won leisure or pleasure, the court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may be fatal but in
most circumstances inordinate delay would only
invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors
of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction
on the part of a litigant-a litigant who has forgotten
the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the
greatest thief to time" and second, law does not permit
one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring
a hazard and causes injuury to the lis. In the case at
hand, though there has been four years' delay in
approaching the Court, yet the writ Court chose not
to address the same. It is the duty of the Court to
scruitinize whether such enormous delay is to be
ignored without any justification."
Further, In Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye
Hospital vs State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11 Honble
Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the State
Government in denying the making reference of case after
22 years held that it is not expedient for State government
to refer order of temination dated 26.6.1982 being old and
stale case, where the workman filed an application raising
industrial dispute after 22 years in 2004. Hon'ble High Court
observed that there is nothing to indicate as to why the
workman could not approach the authority under the ID
Act.
Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear the
workman did not bother to approach the management or
any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and the explanation forwarded by the
workman's union before this Tribunal is unsufficient.
21. Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case
and law cited hereinabove; I am of considered opinion that
the action of the management of Northern Railway, Lucknow
in not giving temporary status to the workman, Shri Ram
Chander, from the alleged date of completion of 120 days
of service is neither illegal nor unjustified. Accordingly, I
come to the conclusion that the workman's union is not
entitled to any relief.
22. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
23. Award as above.
LUCKNOW.
22nd September, 2015
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1962-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@110@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2011) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as sown in the Annexure, in the industrial Dispute
between the management of Northern Railway and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
05/10/2015.
[No. L-41011/110/2010-IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 41/2011
Ref. No. L-41011/110/2010-IR(B-1) dated: 14.03.2011
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4039
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangthan Mantri
Uttar Railway Karmchari Union
283/63 Kh, Garhi Kananora (Premwati Nagar)
PO-Manak Nagar
Lucknow-16
(Espousing cause of Shri Hira Lal)
AND
Senior Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel)
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow
AWARD
1. By Order No. L-41011/110/2010-IR(B-1) dated:
14.03.2011 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 Mandal Sangthan Mantri, Uttar
Railway Karmchari Union, 283/63 Kh, Garhi Kananora
(Premwati Nagar), PO— Manak Nagar, Lucknow and Senior
Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
‘‘Whether the demand of the Union regarding placing
Shri Hira Lal S/o Shri Kamla Prasad, Assistant Loco Pilot,
Loco-shed, Lucknow in the Penal of 1983-84 above his
Juniors and grant of pay benefits accordingly is legal and
justified? To what relief the union is entitled?"
3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the
workman, was appointed as cleaner w.e.f. 12.10.1979 and
worked as such till 03.09.1981 continuously, when he had
been retrenched w.e.f. 04.09.1981 illegally. The workman
challenged his retrenchment before CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur in I.D. No. 48/83 and 163/1983 and the
Tribunal was pleased to reinstate the workman with back
wages from the date of retrenchment vide their award dated
19.02.1987 and 25.11.1985. The management challenged the
award of CGIT, Kanpur before Hon'ble High Court, which
was rejected; likewise the SLP too before Hon'ble Apex
Court was rejected; accordingly, the workman was
reinstated on 03.08.1983. It is alleged that the management
vide its order No. 220 E/1-5/Screening/Loco dated 30.08.1991
regularized the workman on the post of Loco Cleaner;
whereas it absorbed other junior workmen in the panel for
the year 1983-84 on the basis of 120 days working up to
30.09.1981, which is in violation to the provisions of Railway
Rules. It is submitted by the workman's union that
Shri Amarjeet Singh & Sri Abdul Aziz were also included in
the panel for year 1992 but later on included in the panel of
year 1983-84 on the orders of Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow.
Likewise, other workmen viz. Shri Pratap Bahadur & Ahmad
Ali, who were earlier included in panel for the year 1992
were included in the panel for year 1983-84 as per order of
this Tribunal. Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed
that the name of the workman, be included in the panel of
the year 1983-84 which consequential benefits.
4. The management of the railways has filed its written
statement, denying the claim of the workman's union and
has contended that the workman's union has sought the
relief placing the name of the workman in the panel of year
1983-84, which is not permissible because of the seniority
of other employees will be effected and they are not arrayed
as party in present industrial dispute and if the relief is
granted, several other workers may prefer the matter in
courts since their seniority shall be affected. The
management has specifically submitted that the industrial
dispute has been referred after lapse of more than 25 years
without any rhyme or reason or any sufficient explanation;
and accordingly, the same is liable to be rejected on the
point of limitation.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein
apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the
statement claim has submitted that there is no limitation
provided in the industrial disputes Act, 1947.
6. The parties filed documentary as well as oral evidence
in support of their respective case and forwarded oral
arguments.
7. Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties
at length and perused entire evidence on record.
8. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that since the termination dated 04.09.81 has
been held illegal and the workman had been reinstated
with consequential benefits, therefore he is entitled for
inclusion in the panel of year 1983-84. He has relief upon:
(i)
N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ
1347.
9. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that the workman was screened
and rightly placed in the seniority panel vide order dated
30.08.1991. The management has vehemently contended
that the workman is not entitled to be included in the panel
for the year 1983-84, in as much as the present industrial
dispute is time barred and the workman has raised this
industrial dispute when he found that some other workmen
got benefit from different Court/Tribunals. The
management has relief on:
(i)
M. Ramakotaiah & Others vs. Union of India &
Others 2007 (6) AWC 6556 (SC).
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the learned authorized representatives
of the parties and scanned the entire evidence available on
record.
11. Admittedly, the workman had been terminated w.e.f.
04.09.1981 and his termination had been declared to be
illegal and was reinstated with back wages by the CGIT-
cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. Also, the Hon'ble High Court
in writ petition, filed by the management of railways, upheld
4040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the award regarding reinstatement and the management in
compliance of award reinstated the workman and paid him
back wages. However, the management's contention over
the issue referred to this Tribunal is, that the workman was
screened and was rightly placed in the seniority panel for
1991 and he is not entitled for inclusion in the panel for
year 1983 as he was not in service at that point of time;
more so because the present industrial dispute has been
raised after lapse of more than 25 years.
12. Thus, the question to be adjudicated is as to whether
the workman is entitled to be included in the seniority panel
of 1983-84 which was denied to him, consequent upon his
termination in the said year? It is admitted fact that the
workman was not in service due to illegal termination in the
relevant year 1983, when the seniority panel was drawn
and his name was not considered. The termination of the
workman was quashed by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Kanpur and in compliance thereof the management
reinstated the workman, treating the termination as non-
est and paid back wages in compliance of the order of the
Hon'ble High Court.
As per award of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur,
the reinstatement order was not qualified one to be given
effect to the extent of monetary benefits only. As per settled
procedure, logically and legally reinstatement required grant
of all service benefits including seniority as if the
termination had not taken place. The management complied
with the order of reinstatement without giving seniority
and released monetary benefits to the workman. On the
quashing of termination order, it has to be assumed that
the workman was never been terminated and continued to
be in service notionally. The effect of the reinstatement is
that the workman, would be deemed in service on the last
post held on the date of termination. Accordingly, he is
entitled for preference over his juniors and to be included
in the seniority panel for the year 1983-1984.
13. The management of the railways has come up with a
contention that the present industrial dispute is time barred
as it has been raised after lapse of more than 25 years. The
workman's witness during his cross-examination stated that
he moved an application before DRM; but has not filed its
copy before this Tribunal. He further, stated that when the
management did not act upon his repeated representations,
then he raised the present industrial dispute. The authorized
representative has contended that the workman has not
given any reliable explanation for inordinate delay of
25 years; rather he turned up when the other got successful.
He stressed that the order of the Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow in respect of Amarjeet Singh was delivered
on 26.04.1993; but the workman has raised present industrial
dispute in 2011, without any explanation.
14. The management has relief upon N. Balakrishnan
Vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347; wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court while dealing with the matter of delay has observed
that length of delay does not matter, acceptability of the
explanation is the only criterion.
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board & Other T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772, Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed as under:
"The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a Constitutional
Court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but
simultaneously. It is to keep itself alive to the primary
principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate
reason, approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure,
the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize
whether the list at a belated stage should be entertained or
not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may be fatal but in most
circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster
for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay
reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant—a
litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely,
"procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second,
law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.
Delay does bring a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In
the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay
in approaching the Court, yet the writ Court chose not to
address the same. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize
whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any
justification."
Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye
Hospital Vs. State of U.P. & Others 2013 (138) FLR 11
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the
State Government in denying the making reference of case
after 22 years held that it is not expedient for State
Government to refer against order of termination dated
26.6.1982 being old and stale case, where the workman
filed an application raising industrial dispute after 22 years
in 2004. Hon'ble High Court observed that there is nothing
to indicate as to why the workman could not approach the
authority under the ID Act. On the issue of delay the
workman has tried to explain his delay by pleading that he
kept on making representations before the authorities; but
in the absence of any copy thereof his contention cannot
be relied upon. There is no other explanation about delay.
Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear that the
workman did not bother to approach the management of
any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and he approached this Tribunal when he
come to know about favourable order of courts in similar
nature of cases, which points out towards opportunitism
of the workman. Moreover, the explanation forwarded by
the workman's union before this Tribunal is insufficient.
15. In the present case, admittedly there is delay of
approximately 20 years as he was screened vide order dated
30.08.1991. The workman's union failed to give any logical
explanation for this inordinate delay of 20 years. Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative
Marketing-cum-Processing Services Society Ltd. &
Another 1999 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay
of seven years has held that the Court can mould relief by
refusing back wages or directing payment of part of back
wages.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4041
16. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case
and the case laws cited hereinabove, I am of considered
opinion that the action of the management of Central
Railway in not including the name of the workman in the
panel for year 1983-84 was illegal and unjustified.
Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman,
Sri Hira Lal is entitled for placement in the panel of 1983-
1984 above his juniors, subject to his suitability under Rules.
He shall be entitled to services benefits under Rules;
however, he would be liable for payment of only 1/3rd of
back wages, in view of delay in raising the present industrial
dispute.
17. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
18. Award as above.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
LUCKNOW.
16th September, 2015.
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1963-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj e/; jsyos ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|kSfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 88@05½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUæh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@175@2004&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1963.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/05) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/10/2015.
[No. L-41012/175/2004-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/88/05
Shri Omprakash
S/o Shri Halke,
Village Sironkalan,
Thana : Jhakhoru,
Distt. Lalitpur (MP)
..... Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Habibganj,
Bhopal (MP)
.... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 5th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 1.9.05 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L- 41012/175/2004-
IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
''Whether the action of the management of Divisional
Railway Manager, W.C. Railway, Bhopal MP instead
of regularizing terminating the services of Shri Om
Prakash Halke Ex. MRCL who was working during
the period from 28.6.80 to 18-7-80 & from 28.9.88 to
3.8.89 is justified and legal? If so, to what relief the
workman is entitled for?''
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
pages 3/1 to 3/2. Case of workman is that he was engaged
in Railway service first time under PWI(R) Nasik from
26.6.80. He was again working with Non-applicant from
24.9.88 to 18.7.89. He was working continuously and gained
temporary status. Workman was medically examined and
he passed in C-1. After his medical examination, applicant
was due as regular employee. Without issuing any notice,
his services were arbitrarily retrenched instead of
regularization in service. The procedure for retrenchment
was not followed.
3. Workman further submits that due to recruitment of
card holders employees he had submitted his form for
reinstatement. It was rejected on 6.9.04 on the ground of
verification from concerned departement. Workman was
declared disqualified for screening by the Committee. Being
aggrieved by rejection as per order dated 6.10.04, workman
raised dispute under reference.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
workman. 2nd party contents that workman is praying
reinstatement with backwages. His claim is not covered
under 3rd schedule of Section 7 of ID Act. The reference is
not tenable. Applicant himself admitted in medical
examination found fit in Category "C". The medical category
for gangman is B-1. The claim from reinstatement of
workman is not sustainable. It is further submitted that
workman himself absented from work. Workman was not
recruited. His case was not represented within time. The
dispute is raised after lapse of 15 years is barred by
limitation. It is denied that workman was represented by
4042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2nd party. On medical examination, workman was found fit
in C-1 Category. He is not fit for gangman. That workman
had failed to submit his application through concerned
department. He was originally engaged as casual labour.
Service card was issued. His application was rejected by
Scrutiny Committee. As dispute is raised after 15 years, the
verification of service particulars is not possible. Workman
was not terminated, he himself left the job. The order of
rejection of application is correctly issued by Scrutiny
Committee. The claim of workman cannot be allowed.
5. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in
the Statement of claim.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for any 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 Divisional
Railway Manager, W.C.
Railway, Bhopal MP
instead of regularizing
terminating the services of
Shri Om Prakash Halke Ex.
MRCL who was working
during the period from 28.6.80
to 18-7-80 & from 28.9.88 to
3.8.89 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled any
relief.
REASONS
7. The terms of reference pertains to legality of
termination of service of workman, claim of workman about
his reinstatement submitting application is beyond the
terms of reference. Workman did not adduce evidence in
support of his claim. His evidence was closed on 13.12.2013.
8. Management's witness Shri Chandra Prakash Yadav
filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of
2nd Party in Written Statement. Management's witness says
that dispute raised after 15 years is not tenable. The on
medical examination, workman was found fit in C-1 Category
whereas medical category of Gangman is B-1. Workman
did not qualify in B-1 Category is not qualified for
appointment as gangman. That workman left job in the
year 1989. He approached for further recruitment after lapse
of 15 years. Workman was negligent in redressing his
grievances. Workman failed to produce his application
through concerned department where he was originally
engaged as casual labour, service card was issued. Workman
was not terminated by Railway Administration. Workman
himself left the job. He failed to submit verified form for
appointment. In his cross-examination, management's
witness says date of 1st appointment of workman is not
written in his affidavit. Notice was not issued to workman
regarding his absence from duty. Public notice was not
issued. Management's witness claims ignorance whether
any enquiry was conducted against workman in 1989, he
was posted at Ganj Basoda. He was not posted at Vidisha
in 1989. He was working as PWI, South Vidisha in November
2012. Workman was found fit in C-1 Category. Post of
workshop khalasi is covered in C-1 category. Alternate job
is provided to regular employee not found fit. Alternate job
is provided in lower category. The terms of reference does
not pertain to alternate job or reappointment of workman
on rejection of application.
9. Workman has not adduced evidence to substantiate
his claim. The dispute is raised after 15 years is highly
belated. For long lapse of time, the dispute relating to
alleged termination of workman seized to exist.
10. Counsel for management submitted written notes of
argument. The citations are also submitted in Case of
Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Balgalore Versus S. Mani
and Others reported in 2005(5)SCC-100. Their Lordship
dealing with Section 25-F, N of I.D. Act, it was held 240
days continuous service rendered by temporary workman
the effect is status to which workman restored on
reinstatement for non-compliance of Section 25-F. 240 days
continuous service does not by itself give rise to a claim of
permanence. The direction for reinstatement for non-
compliance of Section 25-F would only restore to the
workman the same status which he held when his services
were terminated. It is further held that onus and burden of
proof with respect to 240 days continuous service. Failure
of employer to prove a defence if sufficient or amounted to
an admission, discharging the said burden. Initial burden
of proof is on workman to show that he completed 240
days service.
In present case, workman has not adduced evidence to
discharge the burden. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Divisional
Railway Manager, W.C. Railway, Bhopal MP
instead of regularizing termination the services of
Shri Om Prakash Halke Ex. MRCL who was working
during the period from 28-6-80 to 18-7-80 and from
28-9-88 to 3-8-89 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1964-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4043
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 8@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@59@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1964.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 8/2011) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 05/10/2015.
[No.L-12012/59/2009-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Ref. No. 8 of 2011
Employer in relation to the management of
State Bank of India, Dhanbad
And
Their Workmen.
Present :
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers:- None
For the workman: - Sri Kapildeo Sharma, Concerned
workman
State : Jharkhand
Industry:- Banking
Dated: 28-8-2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-12012/59/2009-1R (B-1), dated
02/02/2011, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India, in terminating service of Shri Kapil deo
Sharma, water boy w.e.f. 08/10/2004 is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour &
Employment on 08.04.2011. After receipt of reference, both
parties are noticed. The workman files their written statement
on 19.04,2011. But the management neither appear nor files
any written statement in spite of regd. Notice being sent.
Hence Exparte argument heard. The workman himself files
many document, which relates to management of SBI,
marked as Ext. M-1 to M-4.
3. The workman's case is that the workman concerned
was appointed as water boy on a monthly remuneration of
Rs. 900/- w.e.f. 28/02/1991 by the management of State Bank
of India, Dhanbad Branch and he worked continuously till
07/10/2004, and has been receiving his remuneration for
the same at the prevailing rate which has subject to revision
from time to time. He has also stated that he was working
from 28.2.1991 and completed more than 240 days
attendance in one calendar year. Before terminating the
service of workman the management not issued any notice
u/s 25 F of I.D. Act nor paid him any retrenchment
compensation. Hence his termittation be treated illegal and
unjustified.
4. The short point involved in this reference is that,
whether the termination of the workman is just and proper
or not. The workman have been terminated by the
management without assigning any rhyme or reason.
5. The workman who is a bank employee joined as daily
wager w.e.f. 28.2.1991. But after working for a long period,
he claims for regularization as well as increase his
remuneration for which his service was termmanted.
6. The workman said that he is still job less and his case
is not forwarded for consideration and kept under carpet.
The workman files series of document, that he was working
continuously. In spite due notice the Bank management
neither appeared nor have his say. Hence Tribunal
proceeds on the basis of material produced on the record.
7. The workman files appointment letter, and he has also
files letter of State Bank of India. letter No. 21/1585 dated
02.03.1998, Marked as Ext. W-2, in which Asstt. General
management submits that as per letter of Head Office Letter
No. CDO No. PER/940/4097 dated 8th Nov. 1997, he
forwarded the name of Sri Kapildeo Sharma, concerned
workman to the higher authority for his absorption as he
completed 240 days in one calender year. It reveals that the
concerned workman competed 240 days in twelve calender
month against vacancies and he worked during leave/
transfer/ promotion/retirement/death etc of permanent
employee.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
and perusing the letter of the management, the termination
4044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of Shree Kapildeo Sharma in our opinion is not legal and
.justified. Hence this Tribunal orders the workman be taken
immediately as daily wager, and be saved from starvation,
and the management is also directed to regularize him in
any lowest grade within 6 months from the date of
publication of the award in Gazette of India in any branch
of SBI, Dhanbad District or Bokaro District.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1965-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vksj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]
èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 266@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@252@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 266/2001) 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 State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 05/10/2015.
[No. L-12012/252/2001-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. 266 of 2001
Employer in relation to the management of
State Bank of India, Bhagalpur
And
Their workman
Present :
Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Shree S.N. Goswami, Advocate.
For the Workman :- Shree D.S. Sinha, Advocate
State:- Jharkhand.
Industry :- Banking.
Dated 17-8-2015
AWARD
By Order No.-L-12012/252/2001 IR-(B-1), dated
26/11/2001, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the workman Sri Priyadarshi Ashok had
worked with State Bank of India, Sikandra Branch,
Distt- Jamui between 01.07.1985 to 25th August 1999
as Massenger? If so the action of the management in
terminating the service of the applicant w.e.f. 25th
August 1999 is justified? If not what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
10.12.2001. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed. The workman files their written statement on
12.07.2005. After long delay the management files their
written statement-cum-rejoinder on 02.11.2012. Three
witnesses on behalf of the workman are examined and
documents marked as W-1 to W15.
3. The case of the workman is that the concerned
workman was appointed to the post of messenger in sub-
ordinate cadre in the month of July 1985. The services of
the workman was also utilised for clerical job but he was
being paid daily wages continuously from 1985 to 1999. So
he claimed to be reinstated against permanent vacancy.
4. Case of the management is that Sri Priyadarshi Ashok
was firstly engaged in Bank on 01.08.1985 as daily wager.
To meet the need as because of shortage of Subordinate
staff at the Branch to do the jobs of sundry works as water
Boy-cum- messenger dispatching/ delivery of Banks Dak /
letters and he was paid Rs. 25/- per day thereafter Rs. 35/-
per day through Banks Cheque and sometimes by credit to
his S.B Account as and when required.
5. The workman was engaged by the Branch Manager
of S.B.I. as a messenger. There is enough material to show
the workman worked under the Bank as casual employee
on wage. There is prove that the workman completed 240
days, in a calendar year and prays for regularisation. But
when the workman prays for regularisation , the
management did not to regularise him and terminate the
service of workman. Subsequently the workman is died
soon after losing the service.
6. For the regularisation of the workman the Branch
Manager has written several times to the higher officer and
the same is regretted without any reason.
7. As per Ext. W-2 the workman worked 277 days in
1986, which is the certificate of temporary service on daily
wages issued by the S.B.I. Management .
8. As per Ext. W-12, which is also management
document, in which management is submitted that he is
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4045
used as permanent employee and he has access to all books.
He has paid wages for every sunday and holiday. Many
document marked which is issued by the management, in
which management has instructed, the he is an assets of
the bank, not to be retrenched.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances it is revealed,
that the management even not complied 25 F which ought
to be complied prior to retrenching the workman. In the
meantime, the workman concerned has died and his wife is
substituted.
10. The wife of the deceased urged for relief. Since the
workman rendered service to the Bank for a long period as
well as more than 240 day in a year. The widow of the
workman be given work as a casual employee, as his
husband was working in the bank, with the prevalent wage
structure soon after the publication of this award in the
Official Gazatte.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1966-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe e/;
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
vfèdj.k ,oa tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 47@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@65@2010&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1966.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2010) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Paschim Madhya Railway and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 05.10.2015.
[No. L-41012/65/2010-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/47/2010
Shri Sourabha Mehroliya,
S/o Shri Govind Mehroliya
R/o Rly. Bunglow No. 158-A,
Servant Quarter, South Civil Lines,
Jabalpur.
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Paschim Madhya Railway,
Jabalpur.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 23-9-2010 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 as per Notification No. L-41012/
65/2010-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Paschim
Madhya Railway, Jabalpur(MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Sourabh Mehroliya S/o Shri Govind
Meroliya w.e.f. 24-9-09 is legal and justified? If not,
what relief he is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim. Case of Ist
party workman is that he was appointed as substitute
Bunglow peon in pay-scale 2550-3200 with approval of
General Manager of WCL on 24-10-07. His date of birth is
5-8-89, educational qualification is 8th standard pass in
General Category. That his appointment is purely temporary
Workman was eligible for regular absorption in Group D
after completion of 3 years service. The appointment was
provisional subject to verification of character and
antecedent. As per Railway Board's letter dated 31-12-03,
his services were covered under contributory pension
Scheme. Workman had passed medical examination under
Category A-II by Medical Certificate dated 15-10-07.
Workman joined service on 25-10-07 and drawing salary in
said scale. That he was regular in service. He was served
with warning that he was not regular in his work and not
performing house hold work, remaining absent form duty
as per letter dated 6-8-09. Another warning was received
vide letter dated 17-8-09. Workman submitting his
explanation claimed that he was regular in performing his
duty. That workman was not allowed on duty from 18-8-09.
He had requested General Manager but nothing was done.
Any action was not taken on his request. As per order
dated 24-09-09 by Vagilance Department, his services were
terminated on the ground that despite warning letters, he
did not improve his habits. That substitute Bunglow Peon
requires 3 years regular service for eligibility to be absorbed
as peon in regular service Grade D. That 15 days notice has
been served on him and 15 days salary before terminating
his services by Dy. Chief Engineer Officer III.
3. After receiving termination order, workman submitted
representation which was not considered. Workman had
put 1 year 11 months 1 day regular service. The warning
letters issued to him is pre-determined planning to terminate
his service before completing 3 years service for eligibility
for absorption. Such practice is illegal.
4046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. That workman was issued privilege pass of 2nd class
dated 21-08-09 from Mumbai to Howrah valid till 21-12-09.
The substitute peon are engaged in regular pay-scale in
short-term vacancy. A panel of suitable persons used to be
drawn available with subordinates for engaging them. That
after completion of 120 days continuous service, he is
entitled to temporary status. Benefit of medical treatment
or self was eligible for the workman. The substitute pen is
also entitled to benefit of usual increments, on completion
of 1 year service. Ist party workman prays that as per terms
and conditions specified in appointment letter. Workman
could have been issued chargesheet as per Discipline
Appeal Rules 1960. No chargesheet was issued to workman.
As per Article 311, no civil servant shall be removed or
dismissed from service or reduce in rank without any
inquiry. Workman submits that principles of natural justice
were not followed. He was not given reasonable
opportunity issuing chargesheet. Termination of his service
is in violation of provisions of ID Act. On such ground,
workman prays for withdrawal of termination order dated
24-09-09 and his reinstatement.
5. 2nd party filed written Statement opposing claim of
the workman. The appointment of workman as Bunglow
Peon is not denied. Workman remained absent for
considerable period without satisfactory reasons. Workman
was not appointed as regular peon. He willfully disobeyed
service conditions. The warnings were issued to him.
Workman failed to comply with his duty. His services were
terminated by Competent Authority following due process.
The representations of workman were not received.
Workman was not sincere. His performance in service as
bunglow peon was not satisfactory. Workman himself failed
to provide substitution allowance as per policy for
recruitment in department.
6. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in
statement of claim alleging that Written Statement filed by
management is devoid. That order was issued for
termination of his service and not paid to retrenchment.
Section 25-F(a,b) were not followed. One months notice or
salary for one month was not paid to workman.
Retrenchment Compensation was also not paid to him. Any
enquiry was not conducted against him. Documents of
enquiry were not provided to the 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
General Manager, Paschim
In Negative
Madhya Railway, Jabalpur(MP)
in terminaing the services of Shri
Sourabh Mehroliya S/o Shri
Govind Mehroliya w.e.f. 24-9-09
is legal and justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
As per final
workman is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
8. There is no dispute between parties that workman
was appointed as substitute peon. Warnings were issued
to Workman. workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He
was stated that he was appointed on 24-10-07 with approval
of Competent authority as Bunglow peon. He worked with
honesty. He was appointed in pay Scale Rs. 2250-3200.
That his services were terminated on imaginary ground by
Dy. Chief Engineer Officer III is illegal. That after completion
of 120 days, he is eligible for temporary status. Without
giving any opportunity of hearing, his services were
terminated illegally. From evidence of workman, documents
Exhibit W-1 to W-10 are exhibited. Workman in his cross-
examination says he passed 8th standard. The post was
not advertised. He was working with Shri Virendra Kumar
since 2 years prior to his appointment as substitute peon.
He had not submitted application for his appointment. Shri
Virendra Kumar had made efforts for his appointment.
Appointment letter was received by him. He was working
at Bunglow peon, doing all kind of work including labour.
That warning letter Exhibit W-4 was issued to him for
absence from duty is wrong. Exhibit W-7 dose not bear the
date. Said letter also doesnot bear acknowledgement of
the person receiving it. Exhibit W-10 does not bear his
signature. He denies that he has not completed 3 years
service.
9. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri R.K. Swami.
The witness of management says services of workman were
terminated. Workman was irregular in his duty. His work
was unsatisfactory. Dy Chief Vigilance Officer terminated
workman following procedure. In his cross-examination,
witness of management admits that on Exhibit W-1, on
behalf of Chief Personnel Officer, it is signed by Asstt.
Personnel Officer. He denies suggestion that Appointing
Authority of workman is General Manager. He claims that
he was competent to terminate services of workman.
10. Management's witness Shri Virendra Kumar in his
affidavit of evidence says that in 2007, workman was
engaged as substitute Bunglow Peon. Workman was
irregular in duty. His work was unsatisfactory. Workman
was orally warned but he failed to fulfil requirement of
service. That workman is not entitled to protection of
Section 25-F of ID Act. From his evidence, Exhibit W-2 is
proved. Management's witness in his cross-examination
says no record is maintained about warning issued to
workman. He was unable to tell its date. Along with
retrenchment notice, amount of 15 days salary was sent to
workman. The warning letter dated 6-8-09 was given by
him. The record about irregular attendance of workman
was maintained in Engineering Deptt. Exhibit M-3, 2nd part
of record of attendance is not available. Workman was
retrenched, he was not promoted.
11. Learned counsel for workman Mr. Pandiya during
course of argument pointed out my attention that
appointment letter Exhibit W-1 is issued by Chief Personnel
Officer. Termination order Exhibit W-6 is signed by Dy.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4047
Chief Vigilance Officer, Authority lower than rank to the
Appointing Authority. Document Exhibit W-6 is not issued
by Appointing Authority, Chief personnel Officer rather it
is issued by Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer III. No documents
are produced that Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer was of equal
rank to the Appointing Officer, Chief Personnel Officer and
he was as such competent to terminate services of workman.
In Exhibit W-6 termination order, workman was informed
that for retrenchment, 15 days salary would be paid. Amount
was not actually paid to workman. The cheque was not
accompanied with the order. The amount is not specified.
As such termination of workman by Authorioty other than
Appointing Authority cannot be said legal. Workman was
not paid retrenchment compensation mentioned in Exhibit
W-6. These rules about substituted employees are
produced. The rules provides that after completion of 120
days continuous service, casual labour is entitled to
temporary status, he is entitled for benefit of medical
treatment, educational benefits after completing 4 months
continuous service. On completion of one year service
from date of acquiring temporary status entitled to annual
increments. Workman had completed 120 days service, he
was eligible for temporary status after acquiring temporary
status, the services of workman could not be terminated
without enquiry. Warning letters issued to workman is
produced at Exhibit W-4. Services of workman are terminated
for unasatisfactory work which could be said misconduct
but no enquiry was conducted. As per Exhibit M-1,
appointment of service condition of bunglow peon are
produced. Officers entitled to bunglow peon are allowed
to pick up candidates in whom they have trust. Candidate
should be 18-25 years of age, should be literate, should be
declared medically fit. Substitutes should be appointed on
monthly rate of pay Rs. 7-80. Clause VII of Exhibit M-1
clearly provides that bunglow peon who has not completed
3 years service can be terminated without assigning reason
either on transfer of the Officer to who he is attached after
giving him notice, compensation admissible under rules.
Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation though
he had completed 1 year 11 months services. Only 15 days
wages were paid. It was also not paid alongwith termination
order. Documents produced by management about
attendance of workman shows he was absent for 27 days
in 2003, 60 days in 2007 to 2010, 13 days in 2003. The period
of absence of workman after his appointment was only 4
days. As per documents produced by management,
workman was paid salary in pay scale 2500-20200(M-2).
From reasons discussed above, it is clear that workman
was terminated in violation of Section 25-F. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation, 15 days salary was also
not sent to workman along with termination order. The
termination of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
12. Point No. 2. In view of my finding in Point No. 1
workman is termination illegally by authority other than
appointing authority in violation of Section 25-F, of ID Act,
question is whether workman is entitled for reinstatement.
Workman had completed 1 year 11 months service, he was
appointed as substitute peon on completion of 3 years
continuous service. Workman would be eligible for
absorption as bunglow peon. Whether in context of above
facts, reinstatement with backwages could be allowed, it
needs to be considered. The written notes of arguments
submitted by counsel for both parties do not cover above
aspect. Learned counsel for workman produced copy of
Award in R/178/97 passed by my predecessor. Said reference
also pertains to termination of service of substituted
Khalasi. Reinstatement of workman with backwages was
allowed. As the rules provides eligibility for workman for
absorption as regular peon on completion of 3 years service.
The evidence of workman that he was working with Shri
Virendra Kumar 2 years prior to his appointment as
substitute peon, workman has worked for vital years of his
young age if reinstatement is not allowed, he will loose
opportunity for absorption as regular peon Reinstatement
of workman with backwages would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the General Manager, Paschim
Madhya Railway, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating
the services of Shri Sourabh Mehroliya S/o Shri
Govind Mehroliya w.e.f. 24-9-09 is not proper and
legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to reinstate workman with
backwages. Parties to bear their respective costs.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1967-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lriqjk ueZnk xzkeh.k
{ks=h; 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 111@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@40@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 111/2007) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of Satpura Narmada Gramin Kshetriya Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/10/2015.
[No. L-12012/40/2007-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
4048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/111/2007
Shri Nand Kishore Belkhede,
R/o Vill & PO Goreghat,
Tehsil Katangi,
Distt. Balaghat (MP),
Balaghat
...Workman
Versus
The Chairman,
Satpura Narmada Gramin Kshetriya Bank,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 31st day of August 2015
1. As per letter dated 25.9.07 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-12012/40/2007-IR
(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya
Gramin Bank, Chhindwara in terminating the services
of Shri Nand Kishore Belkhede without departmentral
proceeding, is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged
as peon cum messenger by Branch Manager Goreghat
branch on 14-5-90. Thereafter he was posted in Katangi
branch. He rendered his services in said branch till
27-11-03. That he was engaged on vacant sanctioned post
after following due process by 2nd party No. 2. He rendered
his services diligently for more than a decade. That he was
eligible for regularization of post of messenger cum peon
considering his long continuous service.Workman had
submitted representations to the Bank for regularization
but were of no avail. Workman had filed Writ petition 1095/
02 before Hon'ble High Court, MP Jabalpur. The Writ
Petition was disposed off on 20-3-02 allowing apportunity
to raise his grievance before appropriate forum. Workman
raised dispute through Union before conciliation authority
under ID Act. During pendency of conciliation proceeding
before ALC, Chhindwara, his services were dispensed with
from 27-11-03 by the Bank without issuing order in writing.
He was not served with notice or compensation in lieu of
notice was not paid to him.
3. Ist party workman reiterates that he completed more
than 240 days continuous service. He is covered as
employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. The respondent
Bank failed to follow guidelines and scheme for
regularization of daily wage employees completing 240 days
service in a calendar year i.e. circular issued by NABARD
dated 7-5-87 and circular by RBI dated 8-10-84. The case of
Ist party workman as well as co-employee was put up by
Union before Bank for implementation of above circular for
regularization. Despite of agreement was raised upon
between Union and Bank for unknown reasons. 2nd party
Bank denied to implement the same. Letter dated 20-3-94 is
relied. It is alleged that Bank despite need of regular staff
on post of messenger cum peon adopted unfair labour
practice dehors the principles of natural justice. In violation
of Section 33(C) of ID Act, services of workman were
terminated without notice. 2nd party continued practice of
pick and choose the daily rated employees at their whims
and fancies. 2nd party Bank violated section 25-F, G, H of
ID Act as juniors to the workmen were retained in service
even after discontinuation of service of Ist party workman.
It is alleged that after discontinuing workman, other fresh
persons were appointed in place of daily wagers. Policy of
last come first go was not followed. Workman should have
been given preference over others in case of new
recruitment. The sponsored Bank of 2nd party Central Bank
of India issued directions to all branches on 16-2-90
directing them to provide information of all daily wage
employees who have completed 240 days continuous
service in 12 months during the period 1-1-82 to 31-3-95 by
Regional Office, Chhindwara. The direction was not
complied. It is reiterated that during pendency of
conciliation proceedings pertaining to regularization of
services, workman was discontinued by the Bank in arbitary
manner. The broad of directors taken decision to discharge
services of employees during pendency of conciliation
proceedings vide communication dated 20-11-03. Workman
further submits that since his initial employment from
14-5-90 till 27-11-03, PF amount was deducted from hi wages.
The deduction of PF wages of workman clearly indicates
that he worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. His
services are terminated illegally. On such ground, workman
prays for his reinstatement with full backwages.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
workman. 2nd raised preliminary objection that workman
has committed theft of documents. All the documents relied
by workman are denied. That 1st party is not workman he
was never appointed by the management he was not
sponsored through Employment Exchange. He did not
undergo process of selection. The board has not
sanctioned any such post. 2nd party has no policy to
appoint any person contrary to the norms and rules their
relationship of master servant between parties is denied. It
is denied that workman was engaged by Branch Manager,
Goreghat branch, Distt. Balaghat as peon cum messenger.
It is denied that workman was transferred to Katangi branch
and has rendered continuous service from 14-5-90 to
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4049
27-11-03. It is denied that workman was engaged on vacant
sanctioned post following due process. It is reiterated that
workman has not completed 240 days continuous service
during any of the calendar year. He is not covered as
employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. 2nd party denies
that despite need of regular staff, the post of messenger
cum peon, the Bank adopted unfair labour practice. It is
denied that services of workman are dispensed with in
violation of provisions of ID Act. It is submitted that
provisions of ID Act are not applicable to present case.
Termination of services of workman in violation of Section
25-F, G, H, of ID Act is denied. That temporary need in the
Bank depends on casual work which is fulfilled by any
person who offers his service for required period. The
principles of policy of last come first go is not attracted in
the matter.
5. 2nd party denied that any circulars for regularization
to temporary employee has been issued. Appointment of
workman is denied. That deduction of PF is in compliance
of provisions under PF Act. The prayer of workman is
opposed. It is submitted that workman is not entitled to
any relief.
6. Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating his
contentions in statement of claim.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of Chairman,
Satpura Kshetriya
In Negative
Gramin Bank, Chhindwara in
terminating the services of
Shri Nand Kishore Belkhede
without departmental proceedings
is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final
workman is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
8. Workman is challenging discontinuation of his service
in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. In support of his
claim, workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman
says that he was engaged as sweeper cum messenger from
2-4-90 in branch mate, Tehsil Kirnapur by Branch Manager
on vacant post. He worked in Goreghat branch from
14-5-90 to 15-11-94. He worked more than 240 days in each
calender year from 16-11-94 to 26-11-03, he continuously
worked more than 240 days during each of the year. His
services were terminated without notice, he was not paid
retrenchment compensation. He raised dispute for
regularization of his service. During pendency of
conciliation proceedings, his services were discontinued.
After termination of his services, other daily wage
employees were engaged by the Bank he was not given re-
employment. He was paid wages at Collector rate Rs. 82.77
per day. 12% amount of wages was deducted towards PF
during the year 1999 to 2003. In his cross-examination,
workman says appointment letter was not given to him, the
post was not advertised. He has not produced certificate
of working, payment vouchers, pass book. He denied that
he had not worked for more than 240 days during any of
the year. The certificate of working days is not produced.
Other employee was not engaged after his disengagement.
He produced documents about deduction of PF. He was
paid wages for his working days. The documents Exhibit
W-3 (a) to (c) are admitted from his evidence in cross-
examination. He has no other documents.
9. Managements's witness Snehlata Jaiswal filed affidavit
of her evidence denying workman was appointed on vacant
post as messenger on 14-5-90 in Gorighat branch. That
workman had not worked in said branch during May 90 to
October 94. Workman never worked for 240 days during
any of the year. Ist party workman is not employee of the
Bank. There was no question of issuing notice or payment
of compensation to him, she has further stated that
whenever any casual work occurs any person including
applicant is available comes, Bank offers to do casual work.
On completion of such casual work, his services
automatically comes to end. In her cross-examination,
management's witness says she did not work in either of
the branches at any time. She was working in control office
during 1983 to 94. The witness of the management was
unable to tell whether PF was deducted, she was unable to
tell whether workman had account no. 884 in the branch
and his wages were deposited in said account. She claims
ignorance whether Head Office call details about casual
labours working in the branch. Casual labour was engaged
as per need. Entries of payment under voucher was
recorded in cash scroll. She has not seen cash scroll.
Suggestion is denied that workman had worked more than
240 days. Evidence of management's witness is hearsay
and evidence of workman is supported by document
Exhibit 3(a) to (g). That he filed affidavit in this case as per
information forwarded by Branch Manager. The Branch
Managers are in service. Workman was not employee of
the Bank. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. No
chargesheet was issued to him for any misconduct. She
claims ignorance whether some employees are reinstated
in service as per order passed by Hon'ble High Court. From
cross-examination of management's witness, it is clear that
she was not working in the branch. She gave evidence as
per information received by Branch Manager. She has no
personal knowledge.
10. Workman has produced documents. Exhibit W-1
settlement between Union and management of the Bank
dated 20-3-94. Exhibit W-2 refers to Board of Directors
decision to terminate immediately daily wage employees.
Documents Exhibit W-3(a) to (g) shows payment of wages
4050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to workman during 1990 to 1993. Other documents produced
by workman are not proved by valid evidence.
11. The question arise about evidence of workman and
management's witness. As discussed above, the
management's witness has no personal knowledge. Her
evidence is based on information received from Branch
Manager who are still working in the branch. The
documents maintained in the Bank payment register, AC
statement, etc. which are maintained by the Bank are not
produced. On the other hand, evidence of workman is
corroborated from documents Exhibit W-3 (a) to (g).
12. The evidence of workman in cross-examination
shows that workman has not produced documents about
his working for 240 days. After discontinuation of his
service, other persons engaged on daily wages. The
documents relating to it are not produced. The deduction
of PF of workman is shown as Exhibit W-3 (a) to (g) is
indicative that the workman was working with 2nd party
was covered under provisions of PF Act. The management's
witness in her cross-examination says she doesnot mean
that workman was never working in the Bank. In cross-
examination of workman, there is no suggestion that
workman was not working with Bank or he had not
completed 240 days continuous service as stated in his
affidavit. Evidence of workman on above point remained
unchallenged in his cross-examination. Evidence of
workman is supported by some documents Exhibit W-3 (a)
to (g) and his evidence remained unchallenged on the point
he had worked than 240 days during any of the year. The
evidence of management's witness is silent as to who was
working as regular sweeper in the Bank. I find no reason to
disbelieve workman that he was continously working in
the Bank from 1990 to 2003. Evidence of workman is about
completing more than 240 days continuous service finds
corroboration from document Exhibit W-2. As per settlement
Exhibit W-1, the process for regularization of part time
employee, part time farrash was started and it was not to be
completed till 5-4-94 as per the circulars issued by NABARD
dated 7-5-87, circular issued by RBI 8-10-84. 2nd party has
not produced those circulars. The evidence of
management's witness is clear that workman was not served
with notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to
him, services of workman are terminated without violation
of Section 25-F of ID Act.
13. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri A.K. Shashi relies
on ratio held in case of
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education, Amravati and another versus Sanjay
Krishnarao Shrungare Amravati reported in 2008-II-CLR-
301. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F, G, H of ID
Act in case related to unfair labour practice under
Maharashtra Act held that best possible evidence on the
point of total service put I by the respondents not brought
on record by the appellant. Appellant has to blame itself
for this failure on its part. The Labour Judge and the
Industrial Court did not err in drawing their conclusions.
In present case, though management's witness admits
the record of various files is maintained in the Bank. It is
not produced. It appear that management is suppressing
the material evidence. From above reasons, it is clear that
services of Ist party workman are terminated in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act. Therefore I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Negative.
14. Point No. 2-In view of my finding in Point No. 1
termination of Ist party is in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act, question remains for consideration whether workman
is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Though
workman in his pleadings and evidence has referred to the
circulars issued by NABARD and RBI relating to regulation
of part time employees, those circulars are not produced
on record, the term of reference pertain to regularization of
workman rather it pertains to legality of termination of his
service. From reasons dealing with Point No. 1, it is clear
that Ist party workman was working continuously with
2nd party as peon/sweeper from 1990 to 2003 for about 12-
13 years but post was not advertised. Workman was not
issued appointment letter. Workman was engaged on daily
wages.
As per Exhibit W-2, 54 part time employees were working
against sanctioned post for long period. The advice of
General Manager was requested by the Chairman. Point
w.r.t. the relief for reinstatement with backwages, Shri A.K.
Shashi counsel for workman pointed out my attention to
the award passed in R/88/2001 & R/9/2to 17/12 & 1/13.
Considering ratio held in various cases, in Para 28 of the
award, it was observed that workman have worked for
different period. The reinstatement with backwages is not
automatic. The facts of each case needs to be considered.
Workman who worked more than 2 years and workman
working between 4-7 years needs different consideration.
Workman who have completed 10 years service for long
time deserves reinstatement. Workman working more than
7 years deserve compensation Rs. 50,000/- workman
working about 4 years deserves compensation Rs. One
Lakh. Same principle would be applied while dealing with
the claim for reinstatement by workman. Workman was
working with the 2nd party from 1990 to 2003 for about 13
years justified his claim for reinstatement.
15. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Pramesh Jain
submitted written notes of argument opposing claim of
workman for reinstatement that workman had not completed
240 days continuous service. Learned counsel relies on
ratio held in
Case of BSNL versus Bhurumal reported in Civil Appeal
No. 10957/2013. In Para 24 of the judgment, their Lordship
considering ratio held in case of State of Karnataka versus
Uma Devi 2006(4) SCC-1 observed thus when he cannot
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4051
claim regularization and he has no right to continue even
as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be
served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given
monetary compensation by the Court itself in as much as if
he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive
monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment
compensation and notice pay.
In Exhibit W-1, Union and management had arrived at
settlement of regularization of part time employees on
15-6-94. In Exhibit W-2 Chairman of the Bank has requested
advice of General Manager that 54 part time employees
were working in the Bank since long against sanctioned
post. The ratio in above cited case cannot be applied to
case at hand as the facts are not comparable.
Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Pramesh Jain also
relies on ratio held in case of Tapash Kumar versus BSNL
repoted in 204A?IR SCW 5816. Their Lordship have
considered when reinstatement can be ordered. The order
of Division Bench awarding compensation in lieu of
reinstatement was set aside. In para-5 of the judgment,
their Lordship held it is no doubt true that Court may pass
an order substituting reinstatement by awarding
compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable
ground i.e. (i) where the industry is closed, (ii) where the
employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and
no period of service is left to his credit, (iii) where the
workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge
the duties and cannot be reinstated and (iv) when he has
lost confidence of the management to discharge duties.
In present case, management's witness says any charge
sheet for misconduct was not issued to the workman. The
Bank is not closed. Workman have not attained age of
superannuation. The ratio held in above cited case does
not support the contentions of 2nd party.
Learned counsel for 2nd party also relies on ratio held
in case of Mahboob Deepak versus Nagar Panchayat
Gajraula decided in Appeal NHo. 5875 of 2007. In para 2 of
the judgment, their Lordship discussed it is now well settled
by a catena of decisions of this court that in a situation of
this nature instead and in place of directing reinstatement
with full back wages, the workmen should be granted
adequate monetary compensation.
Ratio held in above case holds the filed the reinstatement
can be refused only on 4 grounds discussed above.
Therefore ratio in above cited case cannot be beneficially
applied. For same reasons, ratio held in case of MP
Administration v/s Tribhuban reported in 2007 (5) Scale
397 cannot be beneficially applied to case at hand.
16. At the time of argument, learned counsel for workman
Shri A.K.Shashi submits that workman is not interested in
backwages rather workman be provided reinstatement
without backwages. For the reasons discussed above, it
would be appropriate to direct reinstatement of workman
considering he was working with 2nd party for about 3
years on daily wages. Despite settlement Exhibit W-1 & W-
2 clearly stating that 54 part time employees were working
against sanctioned post for long period, it is not known
what advice was given by General Manager to said
workman, reinstatement of workman would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
17. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya Gramin
Bank, Chhindwara in terminating the services of
Shri Nand Kishore Belkhede is not proper and
legal.
(2) Termination of workman is set-aside. 2nd party is
directed to reinstatement workman without
backwages.
(3) Parties to bear their respective costs.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1968-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2010½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@109@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indistrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2010) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Nothern Railway and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/10/2015.
[No. L-41011/109/2009-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
SHRI RAKESH KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 26/2010
Ref. No. L-41011/109/2009-IR (B-I) dated: 09.11.2010
4052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangatan Mantri
Uttar Railways Karmchari Union
283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora
PO Manak Nagar
Lucknow
(Espousing cause of Shri Jag Prasad)
AND
1. Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction)
Uttar Railway Charbagh
Lucknow
2. Deputy Chief Manager (Stores)
Northern Railway, Stores Depot
Alambagh, Lucknow
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/109/2009-IR (B-1) dated:
09.11.2010 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 Mandal Sangatan Mantri, Uttar
Railways Employee Union, 283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora, PO.
Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the Dy. Chief Engineer
(Construction), Uttar Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow &
Deputy Chief Manager (Stores), Northern Railway, Stores
Depot, Alambagh, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the action of management of North Central
Railway, Allahabad/Kanpur in not giving Shri Jag
Prasad, T.No. 564 status of temporary worker from
the date of completion of 120 days of service is legal
and justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to?"
3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the
workman, Jag Prasad, has been engaged as casual labour
with in construction unit under opposite party No. 1 and is
presently working under opposite party No. 2. It has been
alleged by the workman's union that the workman under
dispute was to be given temporary status after completion
of 120 days of working as per P.S.N. 7850, Master Circular
48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian Railway
Establishment Manual; but they were granted temporary
status after five years' of their engagement, which is not
only unfair labour practice but also is against Article 21 of
the Constitution. According, the workman's union has
prayed that the workmen concerned be granted temporary
status from the date they have completed 120 days' working
with consequential benefits.
4. The management of the North Central Railways has
filed its written statement denying the allegations of the
workman's union with submission that the workman under
dispute was initially engaged by them as Project Casual
Labour in Construction Unit with intermittent gap w.e.f.
24.04.79 and has been granted temporary status on 01.01.85
vide letter No. 220-E/3/Recruit dated 22/25.02.85. It has been
submitted that the Railway formulated a scheme to provide
the temporary status to Project Casual Labour, circulated
vide No. E(NG) II/84/CL/41 dated 1.6.84 as per directions of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav & others vs. Union
of India & others (1985) 2 SCC 648. The management
has submitted that as per modified date of grant of
temporary status. The workmen were screened and posted
as Gangman and is in fruitful employment of the opposite
party for last 20 years, thus, raising the present industrial
disputes after lapse of 20 long years makes it time barred
hence, not maintanable in the eye of law. It is specifically
submitted by the management that the workman has been
engaged as project casual labour and as per existing
Railway Rules 360 days' continuous service is required for
grant of temporary status, therefore, the claim of the
workmen for grant of temporary status after 120 days is not
maintainable and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the
management has prayed that the claim of the workman's
union be rejected being devoid of any merit.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein
apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the
statement claim has submitted that the workman under
dispute has not been appointed in any project, therefore,
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case
(supra) is not applicable on him and he should be granted
temporary status after completion of 120 days of service.
6. The workman's union has not filed any documentary
evidence in support of its claim; rather it has stated that
the Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman and his
Service Book, is with the employers, in original.
The management has filed photocopy of Casual Labour
Card and Service Book in respect of workman.
7. The workman's union has examined workman, whereas
the management examined Sri Sita Ram Sonkar, APO in
support of their claim. The parties availed opportunity to
cross-examine the each other's witnesses apart from putting
oral arguments as well as written arguments.
8. Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties
and perused entire evidence on record.
9. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that the workman was not project Casual Labour,
rather he was Casual Labour engaged in construction
division/unit. Therefore, he was eligible for grant of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4053
temporary status from the date he completed 120 days of
service. The railway administration instead treated him as
project casual labour and granted him temporary status
after lapse of five years which is unfair labour practice. It is
also contended that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra) is not applicable on
the workman. The workman's union has relief on:
(i) Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another 2008 (116)
FLR 1046.
(ii) Union of India & others vs. Basant Lal & others
1992 SCC (L&S) 611.
(iii) L. Robert D'Souza vs. Executive Engineer, Southern
Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124.
(iv) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy ACJ 1998
1347 SC.
(v) Kuldeep Singh vs. GM, Instrument Design
Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011
(128) FLR 121.
(vi) Din Mohammed (Dead) by LRs. vs. Union of India
& others 2002 (92) FLR 1216.
(vii) The Union of India & another vs. Girija Shankar &
others 2003 (96) FLR 1094.
10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
managemet has contended that the workman has been
project casual labour in construction unit and worked with
intermittent gap and he was granted temporary status as
per Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84. It has been
submitted that the Railway Board vide its letter dated
11.09.86 modified the date of temporary status to the
workmen in view of decision given by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra). The management
has contended that the workman was not entitled for grant
of temporary status after completion of 120 days
continuous service since he was engaged as project casual
labour and as per existing Railway Rules, 360 days'
continuous services is required for grant of temporary status
to a project casual labour. The authorized representative of
the management has also contended that the workman has
turned up after lapse of more than 20 years and his cause is
not tenable in the eye of law being time barred. The
management has relied on Inder Pal Yadav & others vs.
Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the learned authorized representatives
of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in
light thereto.
12. The workman has come up with a case that he has
been engaged as casual labour in the Construction Unit of
the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway,
Lucknow and he was entitled for grant of temporary status
on completion of 120 days of service under P.S.N 7850
Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian
Railway Establishment Manual; but the management
granted him temporary status after five years' of their
appointment, amounting to unfair labour practice. The
workman's union has not filed any documentary evidence
in support of their case; rather it has pleaded that the same
is in power and possession of the Railways.
13. The management of the Northern Railway, rebutting
the claim of the workman's union has come up with a clear
that the workman had been engaged as Project Casual
Labour and accordingly, he was entitled for grant of
temporary status on completion of 360 days continuous
service, and accordingly, he was greated vide Railway
Board's letter dated 01.06.84. Later on with decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra), the
date of grant of temporary status was modified vide Railway
Board's letter dated 11.09.86 whereby the workmen were
given temporary status from previous date. The
Management has also stressed upon the factum of delay
in raising the present industrial dispute after lapse of more
than 20 years. The authorized representative of the
management has pointed out that the workman is working
with the railways for decades; but neither he preferred any
represenatation, on the issue; nor moved to the court for
redressal of his grievances. It is also stressed by the
management that the workman has raised the present
industrial dispute at a highly belated stage without any
explanation to the delay. It has also been argued that though
there is no limitation in the I.D. Act, 1947, but the same
should not be condoned for the want of any explanation
from the workman's union. He has also submitted that the
Hon'ble Apex Court in number of its verdicts has observed
that Courts should exercise their discretion, judiciously,
while condoning the delay.
14. The workman's union has adduced evidence of the
workman who stated in his cross-examination that he had
been appointed as casual labour on 28.04.79 and he was
granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.1983. Thereafter he
admitted grant of temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.83.
15. The workman has not field any documentary proof
in support of their claim but has relied on the photocopy of
the service record and casual labour card of the workman,
filed by the management. The service record of the workman
shows the entry regarding grant of temporary status to the
workman of different dates and there after grant of revised
temporary status from different dates as per Railway Board's
circular dated 11.9.86. The photocopy of the casual labour
card, filed by the management has details regarding working
of the workman with Permanent Way Inspector
(Construction) at different-different stations.
Thus, both the parties have relied on the same set of
documents in support of their different stands.
4054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16. After going through the rival pleadings of the parties
and documentary and oral evidence relied upon by the
parties the bone of contention is as to whether the workman
was Project casual labour or just casual labour engaged in
the railway administration. Had they been Project Casual
Labour then the action of the management was right and if
they were casual labour on the rolls of railways then they
ought to have been granted temporary status on
completion of 120 days continuous service.
The burden that lied upon the workman's union was to
came with the evidence that the workman was engaged as
casual labour and he completed 120 days continuous service
on this particular date, making him entitled for grant of
temporary status. Thus, it was for the workman's union to
lead its evidence on two points firstly that the workman
was engaged as Casual Labour and secondly that he
commpleted 120 day's of continuous working on such and
such date. But the workman failed to comply with the above
requirement. As it relied on the documentary evidence i.e.
casual labour card which was in power and possession of
the management for working detail; but when the
management filed the photocopy of the same then it neither
calculated the 120 days' continuous working from it nor
disputed its genieness. This goes to upheld the stand taken
by the management that the workman was Project Casual
Labour and accordingly he was granted temporary status
on completion of 360 days' of continuous working vide
Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84 and thereafter granted
them revised temporary status from a back vide letter dated
11.09.86 as per guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court.
17. The workman has relied on Union of India vs.
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar
& another which pertains to termination of services of a
workman in violation of provisions of Section 25 F, G & H
of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are entirely
different; hence not applicable in the present case. The
workman has also relied on the Union of India and others
vs. Basant Lal & others 1992 SCC (L&S) 611; wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a workman having
completed 120 days of working becomes entitled for
regularization as temporary worker and the Railway cannot
deny them the temporary status on the ground that they
had been appointed as casual labour on a project work and
not on construction work on open line and as such they
would acquire the temporary status only after completing
360 days of service. But in the present case the workman's
union failed to specify the date when the different workman
completed 120 days' of continuous service, rendering them
for grant of temporary status. The workman's union has
also relied on L.Robert D'Souza vs Execulve Engineer,
Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124 but the
fact of the case law is entirely different from the present
case hence not applicable. Likewise the facts of the case
law relied upon by the workman in the Union of India &
another vs. Girja Shankar & others 2003 (96) FLR 1094,
Kuldeep Singh vs. GM Instrument Design Development
and Facilities Centre & another 2011 (128) FLR 123 and Din
Mhammaed (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India & others
2002 (992) FLR 1216 are quite different from the facts of the
present case hence not appreciable.
18. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an action, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of
the action; and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present
case burden was on the workman's union to set out the
grounds to challenge the validity of the action of the
management in not granting the temporary status to the
workman after completion of 120 days' of continuous
working. For this the burden of proof was on the workman's
union to come with the evidence, that the workman under
dispute has been engaged by the management of Railways
as casual labour and under Rules they were entitled for
grant of temporary status from completion of 120 days
services with the employers; but the workman's union has
filed to discharge the burned that lied upon them. The
workman's union made a pleading, to explain the reason
why it is not in position to file any documentary evidence
before this Tribunal, in their statement of claim on the effect
that the relevant document in support of their claim i.e.
Casual Labour Card is attached in their Service Book. The
workman's union in its rejoinder required the management
to produce Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman
before this Tribunal, resultantly, the management filed
photocopy of Casual Labour Card and Services Book in
respect of the workman. The workman's union did not
dispute the service details filed by the management i.e.
Casual Labour Card and extracts of service Book. Therefore,
when the management has filed the photocopy of Casual
Labour Card as desired by the workman's union it was
incumbent upon the workman's union to come forward and
sort out the relevant extract of the Casual Labour Card,
which bears working details i.e. working period and
numbers of days, to show that the workman completed 120
days of continuous on such and such date he was entitled
for grant of temporary status from such date. But the
workman has utterly failed to bring any evidence to the
effect before this Tribunal that the workman was engaged
as Casual Labour and that the workman was casual labour
and it also failed to specify the date as to when the workman
completed 120 days' of continuous working, making him
eligible for grant of temporary status.
19. On the contrary the management has come with a
clear cut case that the workman was engaged as Project
Casual Labour with Construction Unit. It is also contended
by the learned authorized representative of opposite party
that there are so many projects which go on with the
Construction Unit and the workman were kept engaged in
different projects. It is also specifically pleaded and proved
by the management that the workman was granted
temporary status vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84;
but due to Supreme Court's direction in Indra Pal Yadav
Case (supra), the Railway Board vide its letter dated 11.09.86,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4055
changed the date of grant of Temporary status, as per
modified policy and accordingly, reduced the date of
Temporary Status through notice. The management has
filed photocopy of Service Record in respect of workman,
which bears entries regarding grant of temporary status to
the workman.
20. The management has made a specific pleading to
the effect that the claim of the workman's union is stale one
and time barred as the union has preferred the case before
this Tribunal after lapse of more than 20 years. The
workman's union in rebuttal has submitted that there is no
provision regarding limitation in the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947; hence their claim is maintainable.
In this regard the workman's union has relied on
N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347;
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter
delay has observed that length of delay does not matter,
acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. But
the workman's union has not given any explanation in its
pleadings as to what prevented them to raise an industrial
dispute at an early state. However, in the evidence it has
been stated that the workman/union wrote many letters to
the opposite parties and the same are pending with them;
although no copy of such letter/representation finds its
reference either on record or annexure with the affidavit.
Moreover, the management witness vide para 9 of his
affidavit has denied of submissions of any such application
by the workmen.
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board & others vs. T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772,
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights
of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reasons, approaches the
Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equiry. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may be fatal but in
most circumstances inordinate delay would only
invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors
of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction
on the part of a litigant- a litigant who has forgotten
the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the
greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit
one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring
a hazard and casues injury to the lis. In the case at
hand, though there has been four years' delay in
approaching the Court, yet the writ Court chose not
to address the same. It is the duty of the Court to
scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be
ignored without any justification."
Further, in Dr. Jawahal Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye Hospital
vs. State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11 Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the State
Government in denying the making reference of case after
22 years held that it is not expedient for State government
to refer against order of termination dated 26.6.1982 being
old and stale case, where the workman filed an application
raising industrial dispute after 22 years in 2004. Hon'ble
High Court observed that there is nothing to indicate as to
why the workman could not approach the authority under
the ID Act.
Thus, from the fact of record it is crystal clear the
workman did not bother to approach the management or
any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and the explanation forwarded by the
workman's union before this tribunal is insufficient.
21. Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case
and law cited hereinabove; I am of considered opinion that
the action of the management of Northern Railway, Lucknow
in not giving temporary status to the workman, Shri Jag
Prasad, from the alleged date of completion of 120 days of
service is neither illegal nor unjustified. Accordingly, I come
to the conclusion that the workman's union is not entitled
to any relief.
22. The reference under adjudication is answere
accordingly.
23. Award as above.
Lucknow.
22nd September, 2015.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1969-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj 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]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011@123@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I ½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2010) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Northern Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/10/2015.
[No. L-41011/123/2009-IR (B-I]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
4056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
SHRI RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 21/2010
Ref. No. L-41011/123/2009-IR (B-I) dated: 08.11.2010
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangatan Mantri
Uttar Railway Karmchari Union
283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora
PO Manak Nagar
Lucknow
(Espousing cause of Shri Ram Kumar)
AND
1. Dy Chief Engineer (Construction)
Uttar Railway, Charbagh
Lucknow.
2. Deputy Chief Manager (Stores)
Northern Railway, Stores Depot
Alambagh, Lucknow
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/123/2009-IR (B-I) dated:
08.11.2010 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 Mandal Sangatan Mantri, Uttar
Railways Employee Union, 283/63; Kh Gadi Kannora, PO.
Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the Dy. Chief Engineer
(Construction), Uttar Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow &
Deputy Chief Manager (Stores), Northern Railway, Stores
Depot, Alambagh, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknown for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the action of management of North Central
Railway, Allahabad/Kanpur in not giving Shri Ram
Kumar, T.No. 449 status of temporary from the date
of completion of 120 days of service in legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"
3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the
workman, Ram Kumar, has been engaged as casual labour
with in construction unit under opposite party No. 1 and is
presently working under opposite party No. 2. It has been
alleged by the workman's union that the workman under
dispute was to be given temporary status after completion
of 120 days of working as per P.S.N. 7850, Master Circular
48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian Railway
Establishment Manual; but they were granted temporary
status after five years' of their engagement, which is not
only unfair labour practice but also is against Article 21 of
the Constitution. Accordingly, the workman's union has
prayed that the workman concerned be granted temporary
status from the date they have completed 120 days's working
with consequential benefits.
4. The management of the North Central Railways has
filed its written statement denying the allegations of the
workman's union with submission that the workman under
dispute was initially engaged by them as Project Casual
Labour in Construction Unit with intermittent gap w.e.f.
24.04.79 and has been granted temporary status on 01.01.85
vide letter 220-E/3/Recruit dated 22/25.02.85. It has been
submitted that the railway formulated a scheme to provide
the temporary status to Project Casual Labour, circulated
vide No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 dated 1.6.84 as per directions of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav & others vs. Union
of India & others (1985) 2 SCC 648. The management has
submitted that as per modified date of grant of temporary
status, the workmen were screened and posted as Gangman
and is in fruitful employment of the opposite party for last
20 years, thus, raising the present industrial disputes after
lapse of 20 long years makes it time barred hence, not
maintainable in the eye of law. It is specifically submitted
by the management that the workman has been engaged
as project casual labour and as per existing Railway Rules
360 days' continuous service is required for grant of
temporary status, therefore, the claim of the workmen for
grant of temporary status after 120 days is not maintainable
and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the management has
prayed that the claim of the workmans union be rejected
being devoid of any merit.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein
apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the
statement claim has submitted that the workman under
dispute has not been appointed in any project, therefore,
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case
(supra is not applicable on him and he should be granted
temporary status after completion of 120 days of service.
6. The workman's union has not filed any documentary
evidence in support of its claim; rather it has stated that
the Casual Labour Court in respect of the workman and his
Service Book, is with the employers, in original.
The management has filed photocopy of Casual Labour
Card and Service Book in respect of workman.
7. The workman's union has examined workman; whereas
the management examined Sri Sita Ram Sonkar, APO in
support of their claim. The parties availed opportunity to
cross-examin the each other's witnesses apart from putting
oral arguments as well as written arguments.
8. Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties
and perused entire evidence on record.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4057
9. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that the workman was not project casual labour;
rather he was casual labour engaged in construction
division/unit. Therefore, he was eligible for grant of
temporary status from the date he completed 120 days of
service. The railway administration instead treated him as
project casual labour and granted him temporary status
after lapse of five years which is unfair labour practice. It is
also contended that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra) is not applicable on
the workman. The workman's union has relied on:
(i) Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another 2008(116)
FLR 1046.
(ii) Union of India & Others vs. Basant Lal & others
1992 SCC (L&S) 611.
(iii) L. Robert D' Souza vs. Executive Engineer,
Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124.
(iv) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy ACJ 1998
1347 SC,
(v) Kuldeep Singh vs. GM, Instrument Design
Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011
(128) FLR 121.
(vi) Din Mohammed (Dead) by LRS. vs. Union of India
& others 2002 (92) FLR 1216.
(vii) The Union of India & another vs. Grija Shankar &
others 2003 (96) FLR 1094.
10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that the working has been
project casual labour in construction unit and worked with
intermittent gap and he was granted temporary status as
per Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.86. It has been
submitted that the Railway Board vide its letter date 11.09.86
modified the date of temporary status to the workman in
view of decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra
Pal Yadav case (supra). The management has contended
that the workman was not entitled for grant of temporary
status after completion of 120 days continuous service
since he was engaged as project casual labour and as per
existing Railway Rules, 360 days' continuous services is
required for grant of temporary status to a project casual
labour. The authorized representatives of the management
has also contended that the workman has turned up after
lapse of more than 20 years and his cause is not tenable in
the eye of law being time barred. The management has
relief on Indra Pal Yadav & others vs. Union of India (1985)
2 SCC, 648.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives
of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in
light thereto.
12. The workman has come up with a case that he has
been engaged as casual labour in the Construction Unit of
the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway,
Lucknow and he was entitled for grant of temporary status
on completion of 120 days of service under P.S.N. 7850,
Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian
Railway Establishment Manual; but the management
granted him temporary status after five years' of their
appointment, amounting to unfair labour practice. The
workman's union has not filed any documentary evidence
in support of their case; rather it has pleaded that the same
is in power and possession of the Railways.
13. The management of the Northern Railways, rebutting
the claim of the workman's union has come up with a clear
cut case that the workman had been engaged as Project
Casual Labour and accordingly, he was entitled for grant
of temporary status on completion of 360 days continuous
service; and accordingly, he was granted vide Railway
Board's letter dated 01.06.84. Later on with decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra), the
date of grant of temporary status was modified vide Railway
Board's letter dated 11.09.86 whereby the workmen were
given temporary status from previous date. The
management has also stressed upon the facutm of delay in
raising the present industrial dispute after lapse of more
than 20 years. The authorized representative of the
management has pointed out that the workman is working
with the railways for decades; but neither he preferred any
representation, on the issue; nor moved to the court for
redressal of his grievances. It is also stressed by the
management that the workman has raised the present
industrial dispute at a highly belated stage without any
explanation to the delay. It has also been argued that though
there is no limitation in the I.D. Act, 1947; but the same
should not be condoned for the want of any explanation
from the workman's union. He has also submitted that the
Hon'ble Apex Court in number of its verdicts has observed
that Courts should exercise their discretion, judiciously,
while condoning the delay.
14. The workman's union has adduced evidence of the
workman who stated in his cross-examination that he had
been appointed as casual labour in 1978 and he was granted
temporary status w.e.f. in 1994. Thereafter he admitted grant
of temporary status w.e.f. 1.1.81. The workman admitted
the photocopy of service record and casual labour card,
filed by the management, from paper No. M-9.
15. The workman has not filed any documentary proof
in support of their claim but has relied on the photocopy of
the service record and casual labour card of the workman,
filed by the management. The service record of the workman
shows the entry regarding grant of temporary status to the
4058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman of different dates and there after grant of revised
temporary status from different dates as per Railway Board's
circular dated 11.9.86. The photocopy of the casual labour
card, filed by the management has details regarding working
of the workman with Permanent Way Inspector
(Construction) at different-different stations.
Thus, both the parties have relied on the same set of
documents in support of their different stands.
16. After going through the rival pleadings of the parties
and documentary and oral evidence relied upon by the
parties the bone of contention is as to whether the workman
was Project casual labour or just casual labour engaged in
the railway administration. Had they been Project Casual
Labour then the action of the management was right and if
they were casual labour on the rolls of railways then they
ought to have been granted temporary status on
completion of 120 days continuous service.
The burden that lied upon the workman's union was to
come with the evidence that the workman was engaged as
Casual Labour and he completed 120 days continuous
service on this particular date, making him entitled for grant
of temporary status. Thus, it was for the workman's union
to lead its evidence on two points firstly that the workman
was engaged as Casual Labour and secondly that he
completed 120 day's of continuous working on such and
such date. But the workman failed to comply with the above
requirement. As it relied on the documentary evidence i.e.
casual labour card which was in power and possession of
the management for working detail; but when the
management field the photocopy of the same then it neither
calculated the 120 days' continuous working from it nor
disputed its genuineness. This goes to upheld the stand
taken by the management that the workman was Project
Casual Labour and accordingly he was granted temporary
status on completion of 360 days' of continuous working
vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84 and thereafter
granted them revised temporary status from a back date
vide letter dated 11.09.86 as per guidelines of Hon'ble Apex
Court.
17. The workman was relied on Union of India vs.
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar
& Another which pertains to termination of services of a
workman in violation of provisions of Section 25F, G & H
of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are entirely
different; hence not applicable in the present case. The
workman has also relied on Unoin of India & Others Vs.
Basant Lal & Others 1992 SCC (L&S) 611; wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a workman having
completed 120 days of working becomes entitled for
regularization as temporary worker and the Railway cannot
deny them the temporary status on the ground that they
had been appointed as casual labour on a project work and
not on construction work on open line and as such they
would acquire the temporary status only after completing
360 days of service. But in the present case the workman's
union failed to specify the date when the different workem
completed 120 days' of continous service, rendering them
for grant of temporary status. The workman's union has
also relied on L. Robert D'Souza Vs. Executive Engineer,
Southern Railway & Another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124 but the
fact of the case law is entirely different from the present
case hence not applicable. Likewise the facts of the case
law relied upon by the workman in the Union of India &
Another Vs. Girja Shankar & Others 2003 (96) FLR 1094,
Kuldeep Singh Vs. GM Instrument Design Development
and Facilities Centre & Another 2011 (128) FLR 123 and
Din Mhammaed (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Union Of India & Others
2002 (992) FLR 1216 are quite different from the fact of the
present case hence not appreciable.
18. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an action, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of
the action; and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking
jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden
was on the workman's union to set out the grounds to
challenge the validity of the action of the management in not
granting the temporary status to the workman after
completion of 120 days of continuous working. For this the
burden of proof was on the workman's union to come with
the evidence, that the workman under dispute has been
engaged by the management of Railways as casual labour
and under Rules they were entitled for grant temporary status
from competion of 120 days services with the employers;
but the workman's union has failed to discharge the burden
that lied upon them. The workman's union made a pleading,
to explain the reason why it is not in position to file any
documentry evidence before this Tribunal, in their statement
of claim the effect that the relevant document in support of
their claim i.e. Casual Labour Card is attached in their Service
book. The workman's union in its rejoinder required the
management to produce Casual Labour Card in respect of
the workman before this Tribunal, resultantly, the
management filed photocopy of Casual Labour Card and
Services Book in respect of the workman. The workman's
union did not dispute the service details filed by the
management i.e. Casual Labour Card and extracts of Service
Book. Therefore, when the management has field the
photocopy of Casual Labour Card as desired by the
workman's union then it was incumbent upon the workman's
union to come forward and sort out the relevant extract of
the Casual Labour Card, which bears working details i.e.
working period and number of days, to show that the
workman completed 120 days of continuous on such and
such date and he was entitled for grant of temporary status
from such date. But the workman has utterly failed to bring
any evidence to the effect before this Tribunal that the
workman was engaged as Causal Labour and that the
workman was casual labour and it also failed to specify the
date as to when the workman completed 120 days' of
continuous working, making him eligible for grant of
temporary status.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4059
19. On the contrary the management has come with a
clear cut case that the workman was engaged as Project
Casual Labour with Construction Unit. It is also contended
by the learned authorized representative of opposite party
that there are so many projects which go on with the
Construction Unit and the workmen were kept engaged in
different Projects. It is also specifically pleaded and proved
by the management that the workman was granted
temporary status vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84;
but due to Supreme Court's direction in Indra Pal Yadav
Case (supra), the Railway Board vide its letter dated 11.09.86,
changed the date of grant of temporary status, as per
modified policy and accordingly, reduced the date of
Temporary Status through notice. The management has
filed photocopy of Service Record in respect of workman,
which bears entries regarding grant of temporary status to
the workman.
20. The management has made a specific pleading to
the effect that the claim of the workman's union is stale one
and time barred as the union has preferred the case before
this Tribunal after lapse of more than 20 years. The
workman's union in rebuttal has submitted that there is no
provision regarding limitation in the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947; hence their claim is maintanable.
In this regard the workman's union has relied on
N. Balakrishnan VS M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347;
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter
delay has observed that length of delay does not matter,
acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. But
the workman's union has not given any explanation in its
pleadings as to what prevented them to raise an industrial
dispute at an early state. However, in the evidence it has
been stated that the workman/union wrote many letters to
the opposite parties and the same are pending with them;
although no copy of such letter/representation finds its
reference either on record or annexure with the affidavit.
Moreover, the management witness vide para 9 of his
affidavit has denied of submissions of any such application
by the workmen.
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board & Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772,
Honble Apex Court has observed as under:
"The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights
of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason, approaches the
Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
lis at a belated stage should be enterained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may be fatal but in
most circumstances inordinate delay would only
invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors
of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction
on the part of a litigant—a litigant who has forgotten
the basic norms, namely "procrastination is the
greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit
one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring
a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at
hand, though there has been four years' delay in
approaching the Court, yet the writ Court chose not
to address the same. It is the duty of the Court to
scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be
ignored without any justification."
Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye
Hospital Vs. State of U.P. & Others 2013 (138) FLR 11 Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the State
Government in denying the making reference of case after
22 years held that it is not expedient for State Government
to refer against order of termination dated 26.6.1982 being
old and stale case, where the workman filed an application
raising industrial dispute after 22 years in 2004. Hon'ble
High Court observed that there is nothing to indicate as to
why the workman could not approach the authority under
the ID Act.
Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear the
workman did not bother to approach the management or
any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and the explanation forwarded by the
workman's union before this Tribunal is insufficient.
21. Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case
and law cited hereinabove; I am of considered opinion that
the action of the management of Northern Railway, Lucknow
in not giving temporary status to the workman, Shri Ram
Kumar, from the alleged date of completion of 120 days of
service is neither illegal nor unjustified. Accordingly, I come
to the conclusion that the workman's union is not entitled
to any relief.
22. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
23. Award as above.
LUCKNOW.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
22nd September, 2015.
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1970-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj 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]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011@106@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
4060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2011) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Northern Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/10/2015.
[No. L-41011/106/2010-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 37/2011
Ref. No. L-41011/106/2010-IR(B-1) dated: 14.03.2011
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangthan Mantri
Uttar Railway Karmchari Union
283/63 Kh, Garhi Kananora (Premwati Nagar)
PO-Manak Nagar
Lucknow-16.
(Espousing cause of Shri Jai Lakhan Dixit)
AND
Senior Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel)
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow.
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/106/2010-IR(B-I) dated:
14.03.2011 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 Mandal Sangthan Mantri, Uttar
Railway Karmchari Union, 283/63 Kh, Garhi Kananora
(Premwati Nagar), PO - Manak Nagar, Lucknow and Senior
Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the demand of the union regarding placing
Shri Jai Lakhan Dixit S/o. Shri M.L. Dixit, Assistant
Loco Pilot, Loco-shed, Lucknow in the penal of 1983-
84 above his juniors and grant of pay benefits
accordingly is legal and justified? To what relief the
union is entitled?"
3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the
workman, was appointed as cleaner w.e.f. 01.01.1976 and
worked as such till 03.09.1981 continuously, when he had
been retrenched w.e.f. 04.09.1981 illegally. The workman
challenged his retrenchment before CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur in I.D. No. 48/83 and 163/1983 and the
Tribunal was pleased to reinstate the workman with back
wages from the date of retrenchment vide their award dated
19.02.1987 and 25.11.1985. The management challenged the
award of CGIT, Kanpur before Hon'ble High Court, which
was rejected; likewise the SLP too before Hon'ble Apex
Court was rejected; accordingly, the workman was
reinstated on 03.08.1983. It is alleged that the management
vide its order No. 220 E/1-5/Screening/Loco dated 30.08.1991
regularized the workman on the post of Loco Cleaner;
whereas it absorbed other junior workmen in the panel for
the year 1983-84 on the basis of 120 days working up to
30.09.1998, which is in violation to the provisions of Railway
Rules. It is submitted by the workman's union that Shri
Amarjeet Singh & Shri Abdul Aziz were also included in
the panel for year 1992 but later on included in the panel of
year 1983-84 on the orders of Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow.
Likewise, other workman viz. Sri Pratap Bahadur & Ahmad
Ali, who were earlier included in panel for the year 1992
were included in the panel for year 83-84 as per order of
this Tribunal. Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed
that the name of the workman, be included in the panel of
the year 1983-84 which consequential benefits.
4. The management of the railways has filed its written
statement, denying the claim of the workman's union and
has contended that the workman's union has sought the
relief placing the name of the workman in the panel of year
1983-84, which is not permissible because of the seniority
of other employees will be effected and they are not arrayed
as party in present industrial dispute and if the reliefis
granted, several other workers may prefer the matter in
courts since their seniority shall be effected. The
management has specifically submitted that the industrial
dispute has been referred after lapse of mroe than 25 years
without any rhyme or reason or any sufficient explanation;
and accordingly, the same is liable to be rejected on the
point of limitation.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein
apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the
statement claim has submitted that there is no limitation
provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. The parties filed documentary as well as oral evidence
in support of their respective case and forwarded oral
arguments.
7. Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties
at length and perused entire evidence on record.
8. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that since the termination dated 04.09.81 has
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4061
been held illegal and the workman had been reinstated
with consequential benefits, therefore he is entitled for
inclusion in the panel of year 1983-84. He has relied upon:
(i) N. Balakrishnan VS. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ
1347.
9. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that the workman was screened
and rightly placed in the seniority panel vide order dated
30.08.1991. The management has vehemently contended
that the workman is not entitled to be included in the panel
for the year 1983-84, inasmuch as the present industrial
dispute is time barred and the workman has raised this
industrial dispute when he found that some other workmen
got benefit from different Court/Tribunals. The
management has relied on :
(i) M. Ramakotaiah & others Union of India & others
2007 (6) AWC 6656 (SC).
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the learned authorized representatives
of the parties and scanned the entire evidence available on
record.
11. Admittedly, the workman had been terminated w.e.f.
04.09.1981 and his termination had been declared to be
illegal and was reinstated with back wages by the CGIT-
cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. Also, the Hon'ble Court in writ
petition, filed by the management of railways, upheld the
award regarding reinstatement and the management in
compliance of award reinstated the workman and paid him
back wages. However, the management's contention over
the issue referred to this Tribunal is, that the workman was
screened and was rightly placed in the seniority panel for
1991 and he is not entitled for inclusion in the panel for
year 1983 as he was not in service at that point of time,
more so because the present industrial dispute has been
raised after lapse of more than 25 years.
12. Thus, the question to be adjudicated is as to whether
the workman is entitled to be included in the seniority
panel of 1983-84, which was denied to him, consequent
upon his termination in the said year? It is admitted fact
that the workman was not in service due to illegal termination
in the relevant year 1983, when the seniority panel was
drawn and his name was not considered. The termination
of the workman was quashed by the CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur and in compliance thereof the management
reinstated the workman, treating the termination as notest
and paid back wages in compliance of the order of the
Hon'ble High Court.
As per award of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur,
the reinstatement order was not qualified one to be given
effect to the extent of monetary benefits only. As per settled
procedure, logically and legally reinstatment required grant
of all service benefits including seniority as if the
termination had not taken place. The management complied
with the order of reinstatement without giving seniority
and released monetary benefits to the workman. On the
quashing of termination order, it has to be assumed that
the workman was never been terminated and continued to
be in service notionally. The effect of the reinstatement is
that the workman would be deemed in service on the last
post held on the date of termination. Accordingly, he is
entitled for preference over his juniors and to be included
in the seniority panel for the year 1983-84.
13. The management of the railways has come up with a
contention that the present industrial dispute is time barred
as it has been raised after lapse of more than 25 years. The
workman's witness during his cross-examination stated that
he moved an application before DRM,but has not filed its
copy before this Tribunal. He further, stated that when the
management did not act upon his repeated representations,
then he raised the present industrial dispute. The authorized
representative has contended that the workman has not
given any reliable explanation for inordinate delay of 25
years; rather he turned up when the other got successful.
He stressed that the order of the Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow in respect of Amarjeet Singh was delivered
on 26.04.1993; but the workman has raised present industrial
dispute in 2011, without any explanation.
14. The management has relied upon N. Balakrishnan
VS M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347; wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court while dealing with the matter of delay has observed
that length of delay does not matter, acceptability of the
explanation is the only criterion.
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board & others VS T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772,
Honble Apex Court has observed as under:
"The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights
of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason, appraches the
Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may be fatal but in
most circumstances inordinate delay would only
invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors
of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction
circumstances inordinate delay would only invite
disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of
the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on
the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten
the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the
greatest theif of time" and second, law does not permit
4062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring
a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at
hand, though there has been four years' delay in
approaching the Court, yet the writ Court chosenot
to address the same. It is the duty of the Court to
scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be
ignored without any justification."
Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye
Hospital VS State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the
State Government in denying the making reference of case
after 22 years held that it is not expedient for State
government to refer against order of termination dated
26.6.1982 being old and stale case, where the workman
filed an application raising industrial dispute after 22 years
in 2004. Hon'ble High Court observed that there is nothing
to indicate as to why the workman could not approach the
authority under the ID Act. On the issue of delay the
workman has tried to explain his delay by pleading that be
kept on making representations before the authorities; but
in the absence of any copy there of his contention cannot
be relied upon. There is no other explanation about delay.
Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear that the
workman did not bother to approach the management or
any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and he approached this Tribunal when he
come to know about favourable order of courts in similar
nature of cases, which points out towards opportunities of
the workman. Moreover, the explanation forwarded by the
workman's union before this Tribunal is insufficient.
15. In the present case admittedly there is delay of
aproximately 20 years as he was screened vide order dted
30.08.1991. The workman's union failed to give any logical
explanation for this inordinate delay of 20 years. Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ajaib Singh VS. Sirhind Co-operative
Marketing-cum-Processing Services Society Ltd. & another
1999 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay of sevent
years has held that the Court can mould relief by refusing
back wages or directing payment of part of back wages.
16. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case
and the case laws cited hereinabove, I am considered
opinon that the action of the management of Central
Railway in not including the name of the workman in the
panel for year 1983-84 was illegal and unjustified.
Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman,
Shri Jai Lakhan Dixit is entitled for placement in the panel
of 1983-84 above his juniors, subject to his suitability under
Rules. He shall be entitled to services benefits under Rules;
however, he would be liable for payment of only 1/3rd back
wages, in view of delay in raising the present industrial
dispute.
17. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
18. Award as above.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
LUCKNOW
16th September, 2015.
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1971-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj 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]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 23@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@107@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2010) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between
the management of Northern Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 5/10/2015.
[No. L-41011/107/2009-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Presidding Officer
I.D. No. 23/2010
Ref. No. L-41011/107/2009-IR (B-I) dated: 09.11.2010
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangatan Mantri
Uttar Railways Karmchari Union
283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora
PO Manak Nagar
Lucknow
(Espousing cause of Shri Bhai Lal)
AND
1.
Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction)
Uttar Railway, Charbagh
Lucknow.
2.
Deputy Chief Manager (Stores)
Northern Railway, Stores Depot
Alambagh, Lucknow.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4063
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/101/2009-IR (B-I) dated:
09.11.2010 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 Mandal Sangatan Mantri, Uttar
Railways Employee Union, 283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora, PO.
Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the Dy. Chief Engineer
(Construction), Uttar Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow &
Deputy Chief Manager (Stores), Northern Railway, Stores
Depot, Alambagh, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the action of Management of North Central
Railway, Allahabad/Kanpur in not giving
Shri Bhai Lal, T.No. 56 status of Temporary worker
from the date of completion of 120 days of service is
legal and justified? To what relief the workman is
entitled?"
3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the
workman, Bhai Lal, has been engaged as casual labour
with in contruction unit under opposite party No. 1 and is
presently working under opposite party No. 2. It has been
alleged by the workman's union that the workman under
dispute was to be given temporary status after completion
of 120 days of working as per P.S. No. 7850, Master Circular
48/92 and Rules 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian Railway
Establishment Manual; but they were granted temporary
status after five years' of their engagement, which is not
only unfair labour practice but also is against Article 21 of
the Constitution. Accordingly, the workman's union has
prayed that the workmen concerned be granted temporary
status from the date they have completed 120 days' working
with consequential benefits.
4. The management of the North Central Railways has
filed its written statement denying the allegations of the
workman's union with submission that the workman under
dispute was initially engaged by them as Project Casual
Labour in Construction Unit with intermittent gap w.e.f.
24.04.79 and has been granted temporary status on 01.01.85
vide letter No. 220-E/3/Recruit dated 22/25.02.85. It has been
submitted that the railway formulated a scheme to provide
the temporary status to Project Casual Labour, circulated
vide No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 dated 1.6.84 as per directions of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav & others vs. Union
of India & others (1985) 2 SCC 648. The management has
submitted that as per modified date of grant of temporary
status, the workmen were screened and posted as Gangman
and is in fruitful employment of the opposite party for last
20 years, thus, raising the present industrial disputes after
lapse of 20 long years makes it time barred hence, not
maintainable in the eye of law. It is specifically submitted
by the management that the workman has been engaged
as project casual labour and as per existing Railway Rules
360 days' continuous service is required for grant of
temporary status, therefore, the claim of the workmen for
grant of temporary status after 120 days is not maintainable
and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the management has
prayed that the claim of the workman's union be rejected
being devoid of any merit.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein
apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the
statement claim has submitted that the workman under
dispute has not been appointed in any project, therefore,
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of Inder Pal Yadav case
(supra) is not applicable on him and he should be granted
temporary status after completion of 120 days of service.
6. The workman's union has not filed any documentary
evidence in support of its claim; rather it has stated that
the Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman and his
Service Book, is with the employers, in original.
The management has filed photocopy of Casual Labour
Card and Service Book in respect of workman.
7. The workman's union has examined workman; whereas
the management examined Sri Prabir Kumar Gupta, SPO/
Stores in support of their claim. The parties availed
opportunity to cross-examine the each other's witnesses
apart from putting oral arguments as well as written
arguments.
8. Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties
and perused entire evidence on record.
9. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that the workman was not project casual labour;
rather he was casual labour engaged in construction
division/unit. Therefore, he was eligible for grant of
temporary status from the date he completed 120 days of
service. The railway administration instead treated him as
project casual labour and granted him temporary status
after lapse of five years which is unfair labour practice. It is
also contended that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra) is not applicable on
the workman. The workman's union has relied on:
(i) Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another 2008(116)
FLR 1046.
(ii) Union of India & others vs. Basant Lal & others
1992 SCC (L&S) 611.
(iii) L. Robert D'Souza vs. Executive Engineer, Southern
Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124.
(iv) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy ACJ 1998
1347 SC.
4064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(v) Kuldeep Singh vs. GM, Instrument Design
Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011
(128) FLR 121.
(vi) Din Mohammed (Dead) by LRS vs. Union of India
& others 2002 (92) FLR 1216.
(vii) The Union of India & another vs. Girja Shankar &
others 2003 (96) FLR 1094.
10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that the workman has been
project casual labour in construction unit and worked with
intermittent gap and he was granted temporary status as
per Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84. It has been
submitted that the Railway Board vide its letter dated
11.09.86 modified the date of temporary status to the
workmen in view of decision given by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra). The management
has contended that the workman was not entitled for grant
of temporary status after completion of 120 days
continuous service since he was engaged as project casual
labour and as per existing Railway Rules, 360 days'
continuous services is required for grant of temporary status
to a project casual labour. The authorized representative of
the management has also contended that the workman has
turned up after lapse of more than 20 years and his cause is
not tenable in the eye of law being time barred. The
amangement has relied on Inder Pal Yadav & others vs.
Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives
of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in
light thereto.
12. The workman has come up with a case that he has
been engaged as casual labour in the Construction Unit of
the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway,
Lucknow and he was entitled for grant of temporary status
on completion of 120 days of service under P.S.N. 7850,
Master Circular 48/92 and Rules 2304, 2501 and 2511 of
Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but the management
granted him temporary status after five years' of their
appointment, amounting to unfair labour practice. The
workman's union has not filed any documentary evidence
in support of their case; rather it has pleaded that the same
is in power and possession of the Railways.
13. The management of the Northern Railways, rebutting
the claim of the workman's union has come up with a clear
cut case that the workman had been engaged as Project
Casual Labour and accordingly, he was entitled for grant
of temporary status on completion of 360 days continuous
service; and accordingly, he was grated vide Railway
Board's letter dated 01.06.84. Later on with decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra), the
date of grant of temporary status was modified vide Railway
Board's letter dated 11.09.86 whereby the workmen were
given temporary status from previous date. The
management has also stressed upon the facutm of delay in
raising the present industrial dispute after lapse of more
than 20 years. The authorized representative of the
management has pointed out that the workman is working
with the railways for decades; but neither he preferred any
representation, on the issue; nor moved to the court for
redressal of his grievances. It is also stressed by the
management that the workman has raised the present
industrial dispute at a highly belated stage without any
explanation to the delay. It has also been argued that though
there is no limitation in the I.D. Act, 1947; but the same
should not be condoned for the want of any explanation
from the workman's union. He has also submitted that the
Hon'ble Apex Court in number of its verdicts has observed
that Courts should exercise their discretion, judiciously,
while condoning the delay.
14. The workman's union has adduced evidence of the
workman who stated in his cross-examination that he had
been appointed as casual labour on 17.08.79 and he was
granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.1.83. The workman
admitted the photocopy of service record and casual labour
card, filed by the management, from paper No. M-8/1
to 8/12.
15. The workman has not filed any documentary proof
in support of their claim but has relied on the photocopy of
the service record and casual labour card of the workman,
filed by the management. The service record of the workman
shows the entry regarding grant of temporary status to the
workman of different dates and there after grant of revised
temporary status from different dates as per Railway Board's
circular dated 11.9.86. The photocopy of the casual labour
card, filed by the management has details regarding working
of the workman with Permanent Way Inspector
(Construction) at different-different stations.
Thus, both the parties have relied on the same set of
documents in support of their different stands.
16. After going through the rival pleadings of the parties
and documentary and oral evidence relied upon by the
parties the bone of contention is as to whether the workman
was project casual labour or just casual labour engaged in
the railway administration. Had they been Project Casual
Labour then the action of the management was right and if
they were casual labour on the rolls of railways then they
ought to have been granted temporary status on
completion of 120 days continuous service.
The burden that lied upon the workman's union was to
come with the evidence that the workman was engaged as
Casual labour and he completed 120 days continuous
service on this particular date, making him entitled for grant
of temporary status. Thus, it was for the workman's union
to lead its evidence on two points firstly that the workman
was engaged as casual Labour and secondly that he
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4065
completed 120 day's of continuous working on such and
such date. But the workman failed to comply with the above
requirement. As it relied on the documentary evidence i.e.
casual labour card which was in power and possession of
the management for working detail; but when the
management field the photocopy of the same then it neither
calculated the 120 days' continuous working from it nor
disputed its genuineness. This goes to upheld the stand
taken by the management that the workman was project
Casual Labour and accordingly he was granted temporary
status on completion of 360 days' of continuous working
vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84 and thereafter
granted them revised temporary status from a back date
vide letter dated 11.09.86 as per guidelines of Hon'ble Apex
Court.
17. The workman has relied on Union of India vs.
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar
& another which pertains to termination of services of a
workman in violation of provisions of Section 25F, G & H
of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are entirely
different; hence not applicable in the present case. The
workman has also relied on Unoin of India & others vs.
Basant Lal & others 1992 SCC (L&S) 611; wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a workman having
completed 120 days of working becomes entitled for
regularization as temporary works and the Railway cannot
deny them the temporary status on the ground that they
had been appointed as casual labour on a project work and
not on construction work on open line and as such they
would acquire the temporary status only after completing
360 days of service. But in the present case the workman's
union failed to specify the date when the different workem
completed 120 days' of continous service, rendering them
for grant of temporary status. The workman's union has
also relied on L. Robert D'Souza vs Executive Engineer,
Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124 but the
fact of the case law is entirely different from the present
case hence not applicable. Likewise the facts of the case
law relied upon by the workman in the Union of India &
another vs. Girja Shankar & others 2003 (96) FLR 1094,
Kuldeep Singh vs. GM Instrument Design Development
and Facilities Centre & another 2011 (128) FLR 123 and Din
Mhammaed (Dead) By LRs. vs. Union Of India & others
2002 (992) FLR 1216 are quite different from the facts of the
present case hence not appreciable.
18. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an action, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of
the action; and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present
case burden was on the workman's union to set out the
grounds to challenge the validity of the action of the
management in not granting the temporary status to the
workman after completion of 120 days of continuous
working. For this the burden of proof was on the workman's
union to come with the evidence, that the workman under
dispute has been engaged by the management of Railways
as casual labour and under Rules they were entitled for
grant of temporary status from competion of 120 days
services with the employers; but the workman's union has
failed to discharge the burden that lied upon them. The
workman's union made a pleading, to explain the reason
why it is not in position to file any documentry evidence
before this Tribunal, in their statement of claim to the effect
that the relevant document in support of their claim i.e.
Casual Labour Card is attached in their Service book. The
workman's union in its rejoinder required the management
to produce Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman
before this Tribunal, resultantly, the management filed
photocopy of Casual Labour Card and Services Book in
respect of the workman. The workman's union did not
dispute the service details filed by the management i.e.
Casual Labour Card and extracts of Service Book. Therefore,
when the management has field the photocopy of Casual
Labour Card as desired by the workman's union then it was
incumbent upon the workman's union to come forward and
sort out the relevant extract of the Casual Labour Card,
which bears working details i.e. working period and number
of days, to show that the workman completed 120 days of
continuous on such and such date and he was entitled for
grant of temporary status from such date. But the workman
has utterly failed to bring any evidence to the effect before
this Tribunal that the workman was engaged as Causal
Labour and that the workman was casual labour and it also
failed to specify the date as to when the workman completed
120 days' of continuous working, making him eligible for
grant of temporary status.
19. On the contrary the management has come with a
clear cut case that the workman was engaged as Project
Casual Labour with Construction Unit. It is also contended
by the learned authorized representative of opposite party
that there are so many projects which go on with the
Construction Unit and the workmen were kept engaged in
different Projects. it is also specifically pleaded and proved
by the management that the workman was granted
temporary status vide Railway Board's letter dated 01.06.84;
but due to Supreme Court's direction in Indra Pal Yadav
Case (supra), the Railway Board vide its letter dated 11.09.86,
changed the date of grant of temporary status, as per
modified policy and accordingly, reduced the date of
Temporary Status through notice. The management has
filed photocopy of Service Record in respect of workman,
which bears entries regarding grant of temporary status to
the workman.
20. The management has made a specific pleading to
the effect that the claim of the workman's union is stale one
and time barred as the union has preferred the case before
this Tribunal after sapse of more than 20 years. The
workman's union in rebuttal has submitted that there is no
provision regarding limitation in the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947; hence their claim is maintainable.
4066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In this regard the workman's union has relied on N.
Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347; wherein
Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter delay has
observed that length of delay does not matter, acceptability
of the explanation is the only criterion. But the workman's
union has not given any explanation in its pleadings as to
what prevented them to raise an industrial dispute at an
early state. However, in the evidence it has been stated
that the workman/union wrote many letters to the opposite
parties and the same are pending with them; although no
copy of such letter/representation finds its reference either
on record or annexure with the affidavit. Moreover, the
management witness vide para 9 of his affidavit has denied
of submissions of any such application by the workman.
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board & others vs T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772,
Honble Apex Court has observed as under:
"The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the right
of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason, approaches the
Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may be fatal but in
most circumstances inordinate delay would only
invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors
of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction
on the part of a litigant-a litigant who has forgotten
the basic norms, namely "procrastination is the
greatest thief of thim" and second, law does not
permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay
does bring a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In
the case at hand, though there has been four years'
delay in approaching the Court, yet the writ Court
Chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the
Court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is
to be ignored without any justification."
Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye Hospital
vs State of U.P. & Others 2013 (138) FLR 11 Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court upholding the action of the State Government in
denying the making reference of case after 22 years held that
it is not expedient for State government to refer against order
of termination dated 26.6.1982 being old and state case, where
the workman filed an application raising industrial dispute
after 22 years in 2004. Hon'ble High Court observed that
there is nothing to indicate as to why the workman could not
approach the authority under the ID Act.
Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear the
workman did not bother to approach the management or
any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and the explanation forwarded by the
workman's union before this Tribunal is insufficient.
21. Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case
and law cited hereinabove; I am of considered opinion that
the action of the management of Northern Railway, Lucknow
in not giving temporary status to the workman, Shri Bhai
Lal, from the alleged date oc completion of 120 days of
service is neither illegal nor unjustified. Accordingly, I come
to the conclusion that the workman's union is not entitled
to any relief.
22, The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
23. Award as above.
LUCKNOW
16th September, 2015
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1972-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fVLdks 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 14@2003½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@217@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2003) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. TISCO and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 05/10/2015.
[No. L-20012/217/2002-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Ref. No. 14 of 2003
Employer in relation to the management of TISCO
AND
Their workmen
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4067
Present:
Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers : Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal.
Dated 15/9/2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/217/2002-IR (C-I), dated. 24/01/
2003, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the RCMS from
management of TISCO for providing employment to
the dependent son of Shri Hiroo Gorai the workman
discharged from service on medical ground is
justified? If so, to what relief the workmen or his
dependent entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed.
Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently
did not take any interest in the case. It is presumed that the
disputes between parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1973-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@130@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2013) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 05/10/2015.
[No. L-20012/130/2012-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 36 OF 2013
PARTIES
:
The Secretary,
Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union,
Vishwakarma Colony, Nutandih,
PO; Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad.
Vs.
The General Manager,
Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL,
PO; Kusunda, Dhanbad.
Order No. L-20012/130/2012-IR(CM-I)
dt. 08.02.2013
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union :
Mr. Pintu Mandal,
Ld.Rep
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld.Adv.
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st Sept., 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-20012/130/
2012-IR (CM-I) dt. 08.02.2013.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Gondudih
Khas Kusunda Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing
Shri Ashok Kr. Rajak, Ex. M/Loader from the services
of the Company vide letter dated 16/17.09.1997 is fair
and justified? To what relief is the concerned
workman entitled to?"
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/130/2012-IR(CM-I)
dt 08.02.2013 of the above mentioned reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference
Case No. 36 of 2013 was registered on 01.03.2013, and
accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue
notice 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
4068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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/
Petitioner and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.
Union Representative and Counsel respectively appeared.
2. The case of the workman Ashok Kumar Rajak as
represented by the Sponsoring Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor
Union in his written statement is that the workman was a
permanent employee of M/s BCCL who was posted as
M/Loader at Khas Kusunda Colliery, Kusunda area. He
was issued the chagesheet vide No. KK/97/2000 dt.
05/07.02.1997 for his unauthorized absentism. It was issued
to deal with the absence for minor punishment, so he was
given 48 hours time to reply to the chargesheet. The
contention of the workman was never considered either by
the Enquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority. He
was ultimately dismissed from the service of the Company
as per order No. 1775 dt. 16/17.02.1997. But the Disciplinary
Authority did not issue him any show Cause Notice for his
defence properly, so it was a gross illegality on the part of
the employer. Thereafter, the workman appealed before the
Appellate Authority on 17.10.1997 against the dismissal
order. But the Appellate Authority did not dispose of the
appeal in accordance with the provision the Certified
Standing Order of the Company. Non disposal of the appeal
the Appellate Authority is violation of the provisions of
the Certified Standing Orders, which are the laws. It appears
from the above facts that at every step, the principles of
the law have been violated. The workman belongs to S/C
Community. The punishment of dismissal imposed on the
workman is not in proportionate to his alleged misconduct
of absentism. Under such circumstances; the action of the
Management in dismissing Shri Rajak was not unjustified.
The workman in his rejoinder filed on the behalf of the
Secretary of the Union has specifically denied all the
allegations of the O.P./Management, further alleging that
the charge as levelled was not established nor any
documentary proof was brought in course of the enquiry,
nor any 2nd Show Cause Notice was served upon him, so
it amounts to denial of natural justice.
3. Whereas the counter statement of behalf of the O.P./
Management is that the workman Ashok Kumar Rajak, the
Ex.-M/Loader had absented unauthorizedly from 29.4.1996
to 04.02.1997, so he was issued the charge sheet dt.
5/7.2.1997 for his unauthorized absentism under 26.1.1 of
the Certified Standing Orders. The workman had submitted
his reply to the charge sheet, but it was not satisfactory.
Hence the Disciplinary Authority decided for the Enquiry
into it by appointing Shri B. Pandey, Dy P.M., Kusunda
Colliery and Shri N.N. Adkhikary as the Enquiry Officer
and the Management Representative, respectively as per
the letter No. 291 dt.24/25.2.1997 which was duly received
by the workman.
On the notice of the enquiry, the workman fully
participated in it. He was given full opportunity for his
defence. The enquiry was held according to the principles
of natural justice. The enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry
report, holding the charge of habitual absentism as fully
established against the workman. On application of his
mind and consideration of the workman's past three years'
attendances, viz, 34, 92 and 90 days in the year 1996 to 94
respectively, the Disciplinary Authority had finally decided
to impose upon the workman the penalty of dismissal from
services, endorsing to the Chief General Manager. The
workman was served with the 2nd Show Cause Notice as
per the Letter No. 1375 dt. 23/25.8.1997. The reply of the
workman to it was also found unsatisfactory. The
Management dismissed the workman from the serviced of
the Company as per the Office Order No. 1775 dt. 16/
17.09.1997, directing him to vacate the Company's quarter
and to get his dues from the office. It is evident from the
above facts that the action of the Management in dismissing
the workman from the service of the Company was quite
just and justified for his absentism. So the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
The O.P./Management in its simultaneous rejoinder has
categorically denied the allegations of the workman as
incorrect, further submitting to provide a chance to produce
afresh evidence to prove the charge against the workman,
if the enquiry is found unsatisfactory.
FINDINGS WITH REASONS
4. In the instant case, at the preliminary point over the
fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Union Representative
for the workman by filing a petition on 20.08.2014, accepted
the enquiry fair and proper, so the Tribunal as per the order
No. 11 dt. 20.8.2014 held not other-wise except fair. The
copies of the documents of both the parties on their
consensus were marked for proper appreciation of fact in
issue.
Mr. Pintu Mandal, the Union Representative for the
workman, has submitted that in this case according to the
charge sheet (Ext.1), the workman concerned had absented
from his duty w.e.f. 29.04.1996, but in fact he got absent
from his duty due to sickness of his father under his look
after under intimation to the Management. Since the
chargesheet does not reveal the precise nature of any
misconduct, it is not legally sustainable. Moreover, the
Manager had granted 48 hours time in the charge sheet to
the workman for his reply. It clearly meant for initiation of
the disciplinary proceeding for minor punishment, but the
Manager of the Khas Kusunda Colliery passed the order
of dismissed towards the workman which is not justified,
and even 2nd Show Cause notice was also not issued;
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4069
thus it has been urged on behalf of the workman that in
such circumstances the workman is entitled to his
reinstatement with full back wages and consequential
benefits.
5. Just contrary to it, Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld. Counsel for the
OP/Management contends that the workman was a habitual
absentee from 29.04.1998 just as his past three years record
of service; on the 2nd Show Cause Notice as per the
Management's letter No. 1375 dt. 23/25 August, 1997, to
which the workman has given his reply, but after finding it
unsatisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority as per the letter
dt. 16/17.09.1997 imposed upon him the punishment of
dismissal (Ext. M.10) Which is just and justified; therefore
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
6. On the perusal and consideration of the materials as
produced on behalf of both the parties, I find the facts as
under:
(i) The reply of the charge-sheeted workman
dt.6.2.1997 as also stated before the Enquiry Office
clearly all along displayed the fact he was so
inxtricablely involved or engaged in the look after
and medication for his over-sick father that he
got unable to attend to his duty at the relevant
time.
(ii) The secondly, the past three years record of the
Service Records of the workman apears to be
unaccounted in course of the enquiry.
(iii) Thirdly, there is no proof of the 2nd Show Cause
to the workman prior to his dismissal, or his reply
to it, and
(iv) Fourthly, the punishment of his dismissal for his
misconduct of absentism for the relevant period
appears to be not only harsh but also
disproportionate to the nature of his misconduct
under clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Order
of the Company. So the dismissal of the workman
is liable to be set aside under Sec. 11 A of the
Industrial Disputes 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 Gondudih Khas Kusunda
Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Shri Ashok Kr. Rajak,
Ex. M/Loader from the services of the Company as per the
letter dt. 16./17.09.1997 is quite unfair and unjustified.
Therefore, the workman concerned is entitled to his
reinstatement in the service of the Company without back
wages for the relevant period.
Hence the OP/Management is directed to implement
the Award within a month from the date of its receipt after
the publication of it by Government of India in the Gazette.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1974-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 57@2007½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@80@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2007) 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. CCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 05/10/2015.
[No. L-20012/80/2007-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. 57 OF 2007
PARTIES
:
Shri Bhola Sao,
S/o Late Kolha Sao,
Vill: Central Saunda 7 No. Barrack,
PO: Saunda, Hazaribagh.
Vs.
The Project Officer,
Central Saund Colliery of M/s CCL,
Post Saunda, Hazaribagh.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union :
Mr. S. N. Goswami,
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. D. K. Verma,
Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 10th Sept., 2015
4070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
"The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise
of the powers coferred 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-20012/80/
2007-IR(CM-I) dt. 31.08.2007/ 07.09.2007.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Saunda Colliery of M/s CCL in dismissing the
services of Shri Bhola Sao, Loader, w.e.f. 24.04.2004
is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman is entitled?"
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/80/2007-IR(CM-I)
dt. 31.08.2007/ 07.09.2007 the above mentioned reference
from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,
the Reference Case No. 57 of 2007 was registered on
18.09.2007 and accordingly an order to that effect was
passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to
the 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 Ld. Counsels,
respective, appeared in, and contested the case.
2. The case of workman Bhola Sao as represented in his
claim statement is that he is a bona fide worker, as he was
employed as Miner/Loader as proved from his Identity
Card which was issued by the Management of the Central
Saunda Colliery of M/s C.C.L., His photograph along with
his personal particulars has been certified by the Competent
Officer of the Company. He has also submitted his sworn
affidavit from the court of the Magistrate. It has proved his
genuineness, as he has been issued the Identity Card by
the Election Commissioner, as the son of Late Kolh Sao as
certified by him. The office of the Dy. Commissioner,
Hazaribagh as per his reference no. 1100472 has certified
his family details, the names of his family members for the
issuance of his Ration Card. All the documents prove him
a genuine worker of the Central Saunda Colliery of M/s.
CCL. He was not impersonating anybody. Further alleged
that workman Bhola Sao, son of Kolha Sao was also issued
by the Management the Service Excerpt in 1987 containing
all his family details who are supposed to be based on the
details entered into the Form B of the Colliery maintained
under the Mines Act, 1952 and its Rule. He had also
objected to his date of birth 01.05.1944 having been
recorded in place of the year 1954 in his service Excerpt. He
had been working in the said colliery since 26.5.73. But he
was suddenly issued the charge sheet by the Management
on 29.08.2001 that he was factually Gultu Sao by name, but
he had been impersonating the real workman named Bhola
Sao who had died in the year 1995.
3. Further alleged by the workman is that the entire
enquiry was concocted which was not properly but in
volition of the principle of natural justice conducted in
English, not in Hindi version. It is remarkable to note the
neither Management lodged an FIR for the cheating by
personation which is a criminal offence u/s 416 of the Indian
Penal Code nor any punishment was awarded to Shri Bhola
Sao by the Criminal Court. Though the Management
Reprsentative produced a Death Certificate issued by a
local body in the enquiry, neither cause of death nor any
document to that effect produced in the enquiry in respect
of the person being impersonated. The other Bhola Sao,
who later on died in the year 1995, had never complained.
Moreover, in respect of the impersonation of any other
Bhola Sao by the workman, the officials of the Management -
the Attendance Clerk, the Mining Sardar or the Overman -
did not report of it to the Personnel Officer, the Asst.
Manager or to the Project Officer of the colliery during the
life time of the other person. None appeared on behalf of
the impersonatee to prove his impersonation against the
workman. The charge as established in the faulty enquiry
in incorrect; rather it is malafide intention. So the
punishment of dismissal as awarded by the Management
is baseless and unjustified; the workman Bhola Sao is,
therefore entitled to reinstatement with full back wages
and all consequential benefit.
4. The workman petitioner in his rejoinder has specifically
denied the allegations of the O.P./Management,
emphasizing no misconducts under clauses 26.1, 26.9, 26.13
and 26.22 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company.
The principles of natural justice were ignored in the enquiry.
5. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the
Industrial Dispute in law and on facts, the contra case of
the OP/Management is that since the workman had
committed the misconducts under the provisions of the
Certified Standing Orders of the Company, he was issued
the charge sheet cum suspension letter No. PO/CS/01/2132
dt. 23/29.08.2001 for impersonation as under:
"Your elder brother Bhola Sao was offered
employment at Toppa Project, CCL. Kuju Area in the
year 1973 vide letter No. CWB/Assess-Man Power/
73/3894-99 dated 25/26.5.1973 and later on he was
transferred to Barkakana Area vide order dated
23.12.1975. In conspiracy with your said elder brother
Shri Bhola Sao, you fraudulently entered into the
employment of CCL in place of him as an impersonator
during the year 1976 and you have since been
impersonating and working as Bhola Sao in CCL even
after his death on 30.12.1995.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4071
During the period of employment in CCL under the
identify of you elder Brother, you further played fraud
and cheating on the Company. First of all tempted by
your apparent younger look and more sound health
(as against your brother who was nearly 10 years
older and very weak), you attempted to gain an
employment in terms of No. of years by disputing
the recorded age of Bhola Saw in service records
through service sheet excerpts. Thereafter, in
connivance with the officials of CCL you managed
substitution of the name of your wife and children in
statutory and other official records in place of your
brother's. Though the original worker Bhola Saw had
nominated his wife Sonia Devi for the purpose of
statutory payments as per Form-declaration (under
CMPF) executed by him on 1-5-1974 but you
substituted the above nomination by nominating
Makri Devi, your wife through statutory form PS-4
executed on 27.05.1998. Similarly through statutory
form PS-3, you also declared Meghan Saw and others
as children of Bhola Saw whereas in reality Shri
Doman Saw, Mahabir Saw and Bodhan Saw are sons
of Bhola Saw is his nephew, and son of his younger
brother, that is your son. You further attempted to
mislead management through a wrong statement on
4-5-2000 recorded by the investigating officer
appointed by the Area Authority about the identity
of Bhola Saw and his family member. Even in voter's
list of Central Sounda, you got fraudulently declared
yourself as Bhola Saw, Makri Devi as W/o Bhola Sao
and Meghan Saw as son of Bhola Saw.
Being an impersonator, you have been also
fraudulently drawing salary wages and other fringe
benefits like medical, LTC/LLTC etc. even since 1976,
and thus you have caused huge financial loss to the
Company.
Your above illegal acts if proved would constitute
serious misconducts within the meaning of SO. Nos.
26.1, 26.9, 26.13 and 26.22 of the Certified Standing
Orders of CCL by which your services are governed
in the Company. The said four SO Nos. read as under:
"26.1 :Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with
the employer's business or property.
26.9 : Giving false information regarding one's name,
age, father's name, qualification etc. in connection
with his employment.
26.13 : Tempering with company's records with
ulterior motive.
26.22 : Any willful and deliberate act which is
subversive of discipline or which may be detrimental
to the interest of the company".
Further stated by the O.P./Management is that the
workman concerned had submitted his reply dt. 27.09.2001.
Being dissatisfied with it, the Authority concerned as per
the Office Order No. CS/PO/Enquiry/03/160 dt. 20/
21.01.2003 directed for a detailed enquiry into it, appointing
Shri Deepak Kumar, Personnel Manager (EE), CCL, Ranchi,
and Shri B.N. Dutta, Dy. FM(Vig), CCL as the Enquiry Officer
and the Management Representative respectively. After
holding the domestic enquiry in accordance with the
principle of natural justice in presence of the workman
concerned, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report,
holding the charges as levelled as proved against the
workmen. The workman was furnished with a copy of the
Enquiry Report with the copies of all proceedings as well
as with the 2nd Show Cause Notice as per the letter No.
CS/PO/SC/04/1043 dt. 08.04.2004. On consideration of all
the materials and gravity of the charges, the Management
as per the approval of the Competent Authority dismissed
the workman from the services of the CCL. w.e.f. 24.04.2004,
as not any extenuating circumstances existed to think
otherwise. The dismissal of the workman is legal and justified.
However, the O.P./Management had sought for permission
to afresh prove the charges, in case the domestic enquiry
held as unfair. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
6. The O.P./Management in its simultaneous rejoinder
has categorically denied all the allegations of the workman
concerned as incorrect and irrelevant, further stating the
charges levelled against the workman having been entered
into the employment of the company fraudulently by
impersonating himself as Bhola Saw whereas he was not
the actual Bhola Saw were duly proved. Thus the action of
the Management is alleged as legal and justified.
FINDINGS WITH THE REASONS
7. In the instant reference, at the preliminary point of
fairness of the enquiry, the Tribunal on consideration of all
relevant facts as per the order No. 31 dt. 25.11.2013 held the
domestic enquiry as fair, proper and in accordance with the
principle of natural justice.
In result, it came up for hearing the final arguments of
both the parties on merits. Mr. S.N. Goswami, the Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner/workman as per his written
arguments has submitted that despite submitting all the
relevant documents such as Identity Card No. 6985 with
the particulars, appointment dt 26.5.1973 and the CFP A/c
No. R-55-2799, the certificate of Vocational Training bearing
No. 370, Service Excerpts duly verified by the Manager
concerned dt. 26.10.1988, the affidavits dated 24.1.1998 and
11.03.2003 of his family details before the Notary Public
and the Executive Magistrate Ramgarh respectively, the
Certificate issued by the Gram Panchyat concerned and
his Identity Card of the Election Commission of the India
and Ration Card and the letter dt. 8.10.2001 related to the
workman, these documents were not considered in course
of the enquiry; so the enquiry was held biasedly, and
accordingly the report of the enquiry being perverse is
unsustainable. Further it is submitted on behalf of the
petitioner workman that after about 26 year of his
4072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
continuous service by the workman Bhola Saw, he has
been dismissed by the O.P. /Management on the ground of
impersonation which has not been proved, because neither
the impersonatee brought any complaint against him before
the Management, and lastly that under these
circumstances, the dismissal of petitioner workman for his
alleged misconduct is shockingly disproportionate, illegal
and unjustified, so it is liable to be set aside. As such the
petitioner workman is legally entitled to reinstatement and
full back wages with all the benefits from the date of the
dismissal.
8. Just contrary to it, the contention of Mr. D.K. Verma,
the Ld. Counsel for the O.P./Management, is that real Bhola
Sao, the elder of alleged instant workman by the same name,
was offered employment at Topa Project, CCL Kuju Area in
the year 1973; when he was transferred to Barkakana Area,
aforesaid real workman Bhola Sao had not joined there, but
the instant petitioner workman who is his younger brother
Gultu Sao by impersonating his elder brother Bhola Sao,
the real workman, joined there; for this reason, the instant
petitioner workman working as Bhola Sao was
chargesheeted by the O.P./ Management for his aforesaid
grave misconducts under the Certified Standing Order of
the company. Further submitted by Mr. Verma is that after
due enquiry into it, wherein three prosecution witnesses
were examined and relevant documents were also marked
Exhibits in support of the misconducts of the instant
petitioner workman. In the enquiry, it was found and proved
that the instant petitioner workman was Gultu Sao who
was working by impersonating his elder brother Bhola Sao,
the real workman even after the death of the latter. As such
on the basis of the proved charge for his misconduct, the
instant petitioner workman was dismissed from the service
of the Company for his fraudulently getting the employment
in the Company, through impersonation of his elder brother
Bhola Sao; thus in view of the gravitity of the misconduct,
the dismissal of the petitioner workman is quite
proportionate to the nature of his misconduct as specified
under the Certified Standing Order of the Company; hence
the petitioner workman as Bhola Sao is not entitled to any
relief.
9. Heard of the arguments of both the Learned Counsels
for the respective parties. Perused the materials of both the
parties as available on the case record, I find the facts as
under:
(i) First real workman was Bhola Sao S/o Late Kolha
Sao of Vill. Nimadih, P.S. Mandu, Dist; Hazaribagh
(then State Bihar) was originally but first by
appointed as M/Loader in Topa Colliery under
Kuju Area of M/s. C.C.L. in the year 1973 at the
time of N.C.D.C. He was transferred from there to
the Central Saunda colliery under Barkakana Area
as per the letter S.P.P/II/5175/ 1 dt. 23rd Dec., 1975.
Thereafter, he fell sick, and due to his bad health,
he executed the Ekrarnama on 11.01.1976 ( Ext.
ME 6/1) and entrusted his service to his younger
brother Gultu (Goltu) Sao before Gram panchsy
Charhi, Hazaribagh, subject to the condition that
he (Gultu Sao) would pay for the maintenance of
minor sons (i) Doman Sao and (ii) Mahavir Sao
and (iii) Bodhan Sao, out of whom, on maturity of
said Doman Sao, he(Gultu Sao) would give him
back the service.
(ii) secondly : the instant workman working as Bhola
Sao after fraudulently entry into the service of
the company at Central Saunda got the name of
Sonia Devi, wife of Bhola Sao, Change as Makri
Devi in his voter lists as well as in his service
record as nominee in collusion with the officials
of the Management. (DE 1 Series). On the repeated
complaints dt. 31.12.1997 and 21.1.1998 of Mahavir
Sao, the son of Late Bhola Sao to the Authorities
concerned about the aforesaid events, the
initiation of domestic enquiry into the chargesheet
started. After fairly holding the departmental
enquiry into it, the charges of fraudulent gaining
the employment as a Coal Loader at the Central
Saunda Colliery in the year 1975 in the name of
real workman named Bhola Sao have been proved
as evident from the Enquiry Proceeding and
Enquiry report (Ex.M.8)
(iii) On second show cause Notice dt.18.4.2004 in view
of the grave misconduct of the instant workman,
he was dismissed by the O.P/Management from
the service of the C.C.L. Company. w.e.f 24.04.2004
(Ext. M.10). The appeal of the workman
impersonating Bhola Saw who also accordingly
dismissed as per the office order dt.26.5.2005 of
the Appellate Authority (Ex.M.11).
10. Considering all the aforesaid cogent facts, I am of
the view that the alleged workman Bhola Sao does not
deserve any relief under Sec. 11 A of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947, as his dismissal for his grave misconduct proved
under the Certified Standing Order of the Company is quite
proportionate to his misconducts of gross/serious nature.
11. In result, it is, in the terms of the referenced, hereby
responded and accordingly awarded that the action of the
Management of Central Saunda Colliery of M/s CCL. in
dismissing the service of alleged Shri Bhola Sao, Loader
w.e.f. 24.04.2004 is quite justified and legal. Hence, the
workman concerned is not entitled to any relief whatsoever;
rather he is liable to be legally prosecuted for the offence
of impersonation of his elder brother Bhola Sao who had
illegally abandoned his service in favour of his said brother
Gultu Sao to act as Bhola Sao following his transfer to
Saunda Colliery, due to his ill health.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4073
ubZ fnYYkh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1975-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lgkjk bafM;k
lsaVj 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] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
40@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@32@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñdsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2009) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Delhi as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Sahara India Centre and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/10/2015.
[No. L-11012/32/2008-IR (CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
PRESENT: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. NO. 40/2009
Sh. Ajay Kumar& Others
D-35 A, Shyam Vihar ,
Phase-I, Dinpur, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
.....Workman
Versus
M/s. Sahara India Centre, 8th floor,
2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj,
Luknow-226024.
.....Management
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-11012/32/2008-IR (CM-I) dated 15.06.2009
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication:—
"I. Whether the demand of Sh. Vinod kumar 7 Other
(as annexed) for their absorption in jet Lite by the
management of Jet Airways with reference to the
Share Purchase Agreement of dated 01.04.2007
entered by the management of Jet Airways (India)
Limited, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited
and others Sahara Airlines Limited is justified and
legal?
II. To what reliefs are the workmen concerned
entitled?''
On . 02.07.2009 reference was received in this Tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 40/2009 and claimants were
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from
date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workmen/claimants filed claim
statement on 23.10.2009. Wherein they prayed as follows:—
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that claimants
be absorbed in service in jet Lite by Management of jet
Airways , giving benefits of their seniority and all
consequential benefits on the facts and circumstances as
mentioned above.
1.
Vinod Kumar
EC. 40555
2.
Kapil Dev Bhal
EC. 42630
3.
Amar Singh
EC. 43319
4.
Ajay Kumar
EC. 46788
5.
Naveen Ram
EC. 42462
Against claim statement management filed written
statement on 23.04.2010.
Through which he prayed as follows:—
In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that
the present alleged Industrial dispute may kindly be
answered in favour of the M/s. Sahara India commercial
Corporation Ltd. And against the claimants/workmen and
an Award may accordingly be passed in favour of M/s.
Sahara India commercial Corporation Ltd. Holding that the
claimants are not entitled to get any relief.
On 20.02.2014 framed following issues:—
"i. Whether the demand of Sh. Vinod Kumar & Others
(as annexed) for their absorption in Jet Lite by the
management of Jet Airways with reference to the Share
Purchase Agreement of dated 01.04.2007 entered by the
management of Jet Airways (India) Limited, Sahara India
Commercial Corporation Limited and others and Sahara
Airlines Limited is justified and legal? If so, its effect?
ii. What relief the workmen are entitled to?
Fixed 03.04.2014 for workmen evidence.
When workmen have not filed their affidavit inspite of
several opportunities then this tribunal on 25.08.2014 closed
the right of workmen to adduce their evidence and fixed
10.10.2014 for managment evidence.
Burden to prove issue no. 1 lies on workmen. But they
adduce no evidence. Management no. 1 Management in
its evidence produce MW1 Sh. Bharat Bhushan Yadav
who tendered his affidavit in evidence of management
4074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2015/ASVINA 18, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
which is exhb.MW1/A. Which bears his signature at point
and A and B. He also placed reliance on documents Exh.
MW 1/1 to Ex. MW1/3. None on behalf of workmen present
to cross-examine him. So cross-examination marked nil. I
have heard the arguments of Ld. A/R for the management.
On 17.08.2015 and reserve award allowing workmen to argue
their case before passing award. But none turn up on behalf
workmen to argue the case. In these circumstances issue
no. 1 is liable to be decided in favour of management and
against workmen on the basis of uncontroverted evidence
of management. Which is accordingly decided.
Issue no. 2 is relating to relief but issue no. 1 has already
been decided against workmen and in favour of
management. Hence workmen are entitled to no relief. So,
issue no. 2 is not required to be decided.
Reference is liable to be decided against workmen and
in faour of management. Which is accordingly decided.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated: 3.9.2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYYkh] 5 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1976-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2009½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 05@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@04@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2015
S.O. 1976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 14/2009 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 05/10/2015.
[No. L-20012/04/2009-IR (CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD.
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act. 1947.
Reference No. 14 of 2009
Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area,
M/S. BCCL
And
Their workman.
Present:
Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers :—
Shree D.K. Verma, Advocate.
For the Workman :—
Shree S.P. Rakshit, Advocate.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated: 7/9/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/04/2009 IR-(CM-1), dated
26/03/2009, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE.
"Whether the action of the management of P.B. Area
of M/S BCCL in not regularising the service of
Sri Shiv Prasad Yadav as Banks man is justified and
legal? (ii) To what relief is the workman concerned
entitled and from what date ?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
13.04.2009. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement
on 16/08/2010. After long delay the management files their
written statement-cum-rejoinder on 19.12.2012. Two
witnesses examined on behalf of the workman and
document of workman marked as W-1 to W-4.
3. The case of workman is that the management is not
promoting the concerned workman as Banksman since
2002. The aforesaid post is a permanent post and prior to
the concerned workman another workman was holding
same post and after retirement, the present workman is
holding the post from the date of his retirement i.e. from
2002. The concerned workman has not been paid with the
Banksman salary from the year 2002. But the management
forcefully taking the work of Banksman from the workman
concerned. It is also said the concerned workman is
performing the duties as Banksman without getting salary
of Banksman. The demand of the workman is to regularise
him in the service as Banksman, from 2002.
4. The case of the management is that the workman
concerned is permanent employee and designated as
onsetter. Since the job of onsetter and Banksman are similar,
he was deployed temporarily to work as Banksman against
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 10] 2015@vkf'ou 18] 1937
4075
leave and sick vacancy. The workman is an underground
workers. The underground worker is not entitled tor
regularision in surface.
5. The workman claims that though he is working as
Banksman in the mines from 2002 as per the direction of
mines manager, he be given the designation of Banksman.
6. The management does not dispute the position, but
deny to give him the designation.
7. On quarry, it is learnt, that there will be no financial
loss to the management on which the manager of south
Balihari colliery recommend and putting the note that the
workman is performing the duties as Banksman since long.
He also reported that the post of Banksman is shortage as
per manpower Budget. He also recommended as he has
been working as Banksman properly.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case
and perusing the documents of parties, I hold that the
action of the management of P.B. Area of M/S. BCCL in not
regularising the service of Sri Shiv Prasad Yadav as
Banksman is not justified. Hence the management is
directed to give the workman Banksman designation soon
after the publication of the award and regularised him in
the said post.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
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.