foÙk ea=ky;

¼vkfFkZd dk;Z foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2040-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] foÙk ea=ky;] vkfFkZd dk;Z foHkkx ds iz'kklfud

fu;a=.kkèhu pykFkZ i= eqnz.kky;] ukf'kd jksM+] ftlds 80 izfr'kr

ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

dks ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

pykFkZ i= eqæ.kky;]

tsy jksM] ukf'kd jksM+&422101

egkj"Vª

[Qkñ lañ 11013@08@2010&fga-dk-d-]

vejukFk] funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Economic Affairs)

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2015

S.O. 2040.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify

the Currency Note Press, Nashik under the administrative

control of Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic

Affairs, whereof more than 80% of the staff have acquired

the working knowledge of Hindi:

Currency Note Press,

Jail Road, Nasik Road-422101

Maharashtra

[F.No. 11013/08/2010-HIC]

AMARNATH, Director(OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2041-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] foÙk ea=ky;] vkfFkZd dk;Z foHkkx ds iz'kklfud

fu;a=.kkèhu Hkkjr ljdkj Vdlky] vyhiqj] dksydkrk] ftlds 80

izfr'kr ls vfèd deZpkjho`an us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj

fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

Hkkjr ljdkj Vdlky]

vyhiqj] dksydkrk&700053

[Qkñ lañ 11013@08@2010&fgañdkñdñ]

vejukFk] funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½

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- 44]

ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 25—vDrwcj 31] 2015] 'kfuokj@dk£rd 3—dk£rd 9] 1937

No. 44]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 25—OCTOBER 31, 2015, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 3—KARTIKA 9, 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)

4464 GI/2015

(4233)

4234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2015

S.O. 2041.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify

the India Government Mint, Alipore, Kolkata, under the

administrative control of Ministry of Finance, Department

of Economic Affairs, whereof more than 80% of the staff

have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

India Government Mint,

Alipore, Kolkata-700053

[F. No. 11013/08/2010-HIC]

AMARNATH, Director(OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2042-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] foÙk ea=ky;] vkfFkZd dk;Z foHkkx ds iz'kklfud

fu;a=.kkèhu Hkkjr izfrHkwfr eqnz.kky;] ukf'kd jksM+] egkjk"Vª ftlds

80 izfr'kr ls vfèd deZpkjho`an us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr

dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

Hkkjr izfrHkwfr eqæ.kky;]

ukf'kd jksM&422101

egkjk"Vª

[Qkñ lañ 11013@08@2010&fgañdkñdñ]

vejukFk] funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2015

S.O. 2042.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify

the India Security Press, Nashik Road, Maharashtra, under

the administrative control of Ministry of Finance,

Department of Economic Affairs, whereof more than 80%

of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi:

India Security Press,

Nasik Road-422101

Maharashtra

[F. No. 11013/08/2010-HIC]

AMARNATH, Director(OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2043-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] foÙk ea=ky;] vkfFkZd dk;Z foHkkx ds iz'kklfud

fu;a=.kkèhu izfrHkwfr dkxt dkj[kkuk] gks'kaxkckn] ftlds 80 izfr'kr

ls vfèd deZpkjho`an us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

dks ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

izfrHkwfr dkxt dkj[kkuk]

gks'kaxkckn&461005]

e/;izns'k

[Qkñ lañ 11013@08@2010&fga-dk-d-]

vejukFk] funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2015

S.O. 2043.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify

the Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad under the

administrative control of Ministry of Finance, Department

of Economic Affairs, whereof more than 80% of the staff

have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

Security Paper Mill,

Hoshangabad-461005

M.P.

[F. No. 11013/08/2010-HIC]

AMARNATH, Director (OL)

fons'k ea=ky;

¼lhñihñohñ izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2044-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½

ds vuqlj.k esa dsanz ljdkj ds }kjk Jh vt; dqekj pkSjfl;k] lgk;d

dks 15 vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] czkflfy;k esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[la- Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015

S.O. 2044.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises Shri Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, Assistant in Embassy

of India, Brazilia to perform the Consular services as Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 15th October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh 15 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2045-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½

ds vuqlj.k esa dsanz ljdkj ds }kjk Jh euh"k dqekj nhf{kr] lgk;d dks

15 vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] fl;ksy esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[la- Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015

S.O. 2045.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises Shri Manish Kumar Dixit, Assistant in Embassy

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4235

of India, Seoul to perform the Consular services as Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 15th October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2046-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½

ds vuqlj.k esa dsanz ljdkj ds }kjk Jh jkts'k HkYyk] lgk;d dks 14

vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds dksalqykokl] cksxksVk esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[la- Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2015

S.O. 2046.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises Shri Rajesh Bhalla, Assistant in Embassy of

India, Bogota to perform the Consular services as Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 14th October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2047-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½

ds vuqlj.k esa dsanz ljdkj ds }kjk Jh jkts'k dqekj] mPp Js.kh fyfid

dks 15 vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] neldl esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[la- Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015

S.O. 2047.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises Shri Rajesh Kumar, UDC in Embassy of India,

Damascus to perform the Consular services as Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 15th October, 2015.

[No. T.4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2048-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM

¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsanz ljdkj ds }kjk Jh vfHk"ksd dqekj] lgk;d dks

15 vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] vfcntku esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[la- Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015

S.O. 2048.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises Shri Abhishek Kumar, Assistant in Embassy of

India, Abidjan to perform the Consular services as Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 15th October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2049-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM

¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsanz ljdkj ds }kjk Jh vklhr nÙkk] lgk;d dks 15

vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds izèku dksalqykokl] lSu QzkaflLdks esa lgk;d

dksalqyj vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[la- Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015

S.O. 2049.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths

and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government

hereby authorises Shri Asit Dutta, Assistant in Consulate

General of India, San Francisco to perform the Consular

services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from

15th October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2050-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM

¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dasnz ljdkj Jh vk;q"k 'kekZ] voj Js.kh fyfid

dks 23 vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds dksalqykokl gokuk esa lgk;d

dksalqyj vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh

gSA

[lañ Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015

S.O. 2050.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises Shri Ayush Sharma, UDC in Embassy of India,

Havana to perform the Consular services as Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 23rd October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

4236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2051-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM

¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dasnz ljdkj Jh jkts'k jatu] lgk;d dks 23

vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds Hkkjrh; mPpk;ksx] lqok esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[lañ Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015

S.O. 2051.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises Shri Rajesh Ranjan, Assistant in High Commission

of India, Suva to perform the Consular services as Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 23 October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2052-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½

ds vuqlj.k esa dasnz ljdkj lqJh izhfr djksfr;k] lgk;d dks 23 vDrwcj

2015 ls Hkkjr ds izèku dksalqykokl] lsaV Msful esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[lañ Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015

S.O. 2052.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises Ms. Preeti Karotiya, Assistant in Consulate

General of India, Saint Denis to perform the Consular

Services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 23

October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2053-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM

¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dasnz ljdkj Jh jkts'k nqXxy] lgk;d dks 23

vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] LVkWdgkse esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[lañ Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015

S.O. 2053.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises Shri Rajesh Duggal, Assistant in Embassy of India,

Stockholm to perform the Consular services as Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 23 October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2054-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM

¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dasnz ljdkj Jh vej dqekj] lgk;d vkSj Jh

foey oFkZoky] futh lgk;d dks 23 vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds

nwrkokl] gsx esa lgk;d dksalqyj vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus

ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[lañ Vhñ 4330@1@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015

S.O. 2054.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises (1) Shri Amar Kumar, Assistant and (2) Shri Vimal

Barthwal, PA in Embassy of India, The Hague to perform

the Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with

effect from 23 October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2055-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM

¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dasnz ljdkj Jh fot; dqekj] lgk;d] Jh uohu

uksfM;ky] lgk;d vkSj lq'khy dqekj] lgk;d dks 23 vDrwcj 2015

ls Hkkjr ds izèku dksalqykokl] oSudwoj esa lgk;d dksalqyj vfèdkjh

ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[lañ Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015

S.O. 2055.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section

2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)

Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby

authorises (1) Shri Vijay Kumar, Assistant, (2) Shri Naveen

Nodiyal, Assistant and (3) Shri Sushil Kumar, Assistant in

Consulate General of India, Vancouver to perform the

Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect

from 23 October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4237

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2056-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM

¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dasnz ljdkj Jh lquhy dqekj flUgk] lgk;d dks

23 vDrwcj 2015 ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] gsyfladh esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vfèdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[lañ Vhñ 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015

S.O. 2056.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths

and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government

hereby authorises Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, Assistant in

Embassy of India, Helsinki to perform the Consular services

as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from

23 October, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2057-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek la@

la[;k

dh frfFk

dk f'k"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@o"kZ

o"kZ@ekg

7800006811

14@08@2015

usvks jcj izksMDVl

xSl esUl] ty esUl vkSj

Hkk ek 5382 % 1985

xkyk lañ 05] vktkn uxj] njxkg jksM]

eyty ds fy, jcM+

lksukiqj] HkkaMwi & i'kehu if'pe]

lh¯yx fjax

eqacbZ & 400078

7800006912

14@08@2015

lqijVsDl oksou baMLVªht+

oL=kfn&tylg vLrj ds

Hkk ek 15351 % 2008

168@179@180] nkHksy baMfLVª;y

fy, ¼vYikarjh t+hYyhe;½

dks&vkijsfVo

ysfefur mPp ?kuRo okys

lkslkbVh fyñ

iksyhbFkkbZyhu ¼,pMhihbZ½

nkHksy xkao] ftyk % neu & 396210

cqus gq;s oL=

7800007013

17@08@2015

ih,u,l bysfDVªdy lksY;w'kal izkñ fyñ

250 oksYVl vkSj 16 ,EihvlZ Hkk ek 1293 % 2005

losZ lañ 6] IykV lañ 13] liuk b.M ]

rd jsfVr èkjk ds Iyx vkSj

bLVsV Qst 2] ljoyh xkao] fdycuZ

lkWdsV vkmVysVl

ds ihNs] fHkoaMh] Bk.ks & 421302

7800007114

20@08@2015

fejk;k fizaV~l

Iysu dkWih;j isij

Hkk ek 14490 % 1997

xkyk lañ 10] fcfYMax lañ 57] bafM;u

dkiksZjs'ku] eudksyh ukdk] nkiksMs+ jksM]

fHkoaMh] Bk.ks & 421 302] egkjk"Vª

7800007215

20@08@2015

fejk;k fizaV~l

dEI;wVj isij

Hkk ek 12766 % 1997

xkyk lañ 10] fcfYMax lañ 57] bafM;u

dkiksZjs'ku] eudksyh ukdk] nkiksMs+ jksM]

fHkoaMh] Bk.ks & 421 302] egkjk"Vª

4238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

7800007316

20@08@2015

yksMZ~l ekdZ baMLVªht izkñfyñ

dEI;qVj isij

Hkk ek 12766 % 1997

xkyk lañ 06 ,oa 07] 'khry l`"Vh

b.M] bLVsV] ds Vh baMfLVª;y ikdZ & 1]

xksjkbZ ikM+k] olbZ & iwoZ] Bk.ks & 401208

egkjk"Vª

7800007409

20@08@2015

beizsflo eYVhQkWElZ] izkñfyñ

dEI;qVj isij

Hkk ek 12766 % 1997

IykWV lañ 11] losZ lañ 185@1@1]

veyh xkao] nknjk ,oa uxj gosyh]

flyoklk & 396230

7800007510

28@08@2015

txnh'k bathfu;fjax

?kjsyw fctyh ds [kk| feDlj

Hkk ek 4250 % 1980

136] dksfguwj b.M bLVsV]

¼nzohijd vkSj xzkamMj½

osLVuZ ,Dlizsl gkbos]

xksjsxkao & iwoZ

eqacbZ & 400063

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks & bZbZbZ½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015

S.O. 2057.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and address (factory) of

Product

IS No./Part/

No.

Date

the party

Sec Year

7800006811

14/08/2015

NEO RUBBER PRODUCTS

Rubber sealing rings

IS 5382 : 1985

GALA NO. 05, AZAD NAGAR,

for gas mains, water

DARGAH ROAD,

mains and sewers

SONAPUR, BHANDUP (W)

MUMBAI - 400078

7800006912

14/08/2015

SUPERTEX WOVEN INDUSTRIES

Textiles - laminated high

IS 15351 : 2008

168/179/180, DABHEL

density polythylene (hdpe)

INDUSTRIAL, CO-OP. SOC.

fabric for canal

LTD. VILLAGE DABHEL

lining -

DISTT : DAMANN - 396210

7800007013

17/08/2015

PNS ELECTRIC SOLUTION

Plugs and socket outlets

IS 1293 : 2005

PVT LTD

of 250 volts and

SR. NO. 6, PLOT NO. 13, SAPNA

rated current up to 16

INDL. ESTATE,

amperes

PHASE 2, SRAVALI VILLAGE,

BEHIND KILBURN

BHIWANDI, THANE - 421302

MAHARASHTRA

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek la@

la[;k

dh frfFk

dk f'k"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@o"kZ

o"kZ@ekg

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4239

7800007114

20/08/2015

MIRAYA PRINTS

Plain copier paper -

IS 14490 : 1997

GALA NO. 10, BLDG NO. 57A,

INDIAN CORPORATION,

MANKOLI NAKA, DAPODE

ROAD, BHIWANDI

THANE - 421302

Maharashtra

7800007215

20/08/2015

MIRAYA PRINTS

Paper, computer -

IS 12766 : 1997

GALA NO. 10, BLDG NO. 57A,

INDIAN CORPORATION,

MANKOLI NAKA, DAPODE

ROAD, BHIWANDI

THANE - 421302

Maharashtra

7800007316

20/08/2015

LORDS MARK INDUSTRIES

Paper, computer -

IS 12766 : 1997

PVT LTD GALA NO. 6 & 7,

SHEETAL SHRUSHTI INDL

ESTATE, K.T. INDUSTRIAL

PARK-I, GORAI

PADA, VASAI (EAST)

THANE - 401208

Maharashtra

7800007409

20/08/2015

IMPRESSIVE MULTIFORMS

Paper, computer -

IS 12766 : 1997

PVT LTD PLOT NO. 11, SURVEY

NO. 185/1/1, VILLAGE

AMLI

Dadra and Nagar Haveli

SILVASAA - 396230

7800007510

28/08/2015

JAGDISH ENGINEERING

Domestic Electric

IS 4250 : 1980

136, KOHINOOR INDUSTRIAL

Food-Mixers

ESTATE, WESTERN

(Liquidizes and Grinders)

EXPRESS HIGHWAY,

GOREGAON (EAST)

MUMBAI - 400063

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-FEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2058-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os jí dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsalèkjh dk uke

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lac)

jí djus dh frfFk

la[;k

,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

2164242

n'kes'k dscYl

Hkkñekñ 694 % 1990

13-08-2015

IykWV lañ 52] baMfLVª;y ,fj;k [ksekuh]

1100 oks rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh

vksVh lsD'ku] mYgkluxj&421002

oksYVrk ds fy, ihohlh jksfèr dscy

ftyk Bk.ks] egkjk"Vª

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and address (factory) of

Product

IS No./Part/

No.

Date

the party

Sec Year

4240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

2409347

ns'kes'k dscYl

Hkkñ ekñ 1554¼Hkkx 1½% 1988

13-08-2015

IykWV lañ 52] baMfLVª;y ,fj;k [ksekuh]

ih oh lh jksfèr ¼Hkkjh M;wVh½ fo|qr dscy %

vksVh lsD'ku] mYgkluxj&421002

Hkkx 1] 1100 oksYV dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk rd

ftyk Bk.ks] egkjk"Vª

o lfgr dscy ds fy,

7067774

ns'kes'k dscYl

Hkkñ ekñ 7098¼Hkkx 1½% 1988

13-08-2015

IykWV lañ 52] baMfLVª;y ,fj;k [ksekuh]

ØklfyaDM ikWyhfFkyhu fo|qrjksèh ihohlh

vksVh lsD'ku] mYgkluxj&421002

vkofjr dscy Hkkx 1] 1100 oks- rd ,oa lfgr

ftyk Bk.ks] egkjk"Vª

dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk gsrq

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13]

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015

S.O. 2058.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name and address of the

Article/process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

licensee

standard covered by the Licence

cancellation

2164242

Dashmesh Cables

IS 694 : 1990

13.08.2015

Plot No. 52, Indl. Area Khemani,

PVC insulated cables for working

OT Section, Ulhasnagar - 421002

Voltages upto and including 1100 V

Distt: Thane, Maharashtra

2409347

Dashmesh Cables

IS 1554 : Part 1 : 1988

13.08.2015

Plot No. 52, Indl. Area Khemani,

PVC insulated (Heavy Duty) Electric

OT Section, Ulhasnagar - 421002

Cables: Part I for working voltages upto

Distt: Thane, Maharashtra

and including 1100 V

7067774

Dashmesh Cables

IS 7098 : Part 1 : 1988

13.08.2015

Plot No. 52, Indl. Area Khemani,

crosslinked polyethylene insulated

OT Section, Ulhasnagar - 421002

pvc sheathed cables: part 1 for working

Distt: Thane, Maharashtra

voltage upto and including 1100 V

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAVAINAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2059-—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

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsalèkjh dk uke

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lac)

jí djus dh frfFk

la[;k

,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4241

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal la-

Lohd`r djus dh

ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk- ek- la-¼Hkkx@

lañ

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

vuqHkkx½ % o"kZ

6500007909

20150902

esllZ xsyDlh bathfu;fjax daiuh

lkQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472 % 1998

,l ,Q lañ 316@1] eqÙkqlkeh uxj]

vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi

x.ks'k ys vkmV mÙkj] LVsueksj dEikmUM]

x.kifr] dks;Ecrwj & 641 006

6500008099

20150902

esllZ 'kkUrk bathfu;fjax izksMDV~l

lkQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472 % 1998

140@2] uok bafM;k jksM] lkSns'ojh uxj]

vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi

vkokjeiky;e] dks;Ecrwj & 641 006

6500008103

20150903

esllZ izksVsd bathfu;fjax

lkQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472 % 1998

255@2] 'kfDr uxj] ,eñdsñ iky;e jksM]

vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi

'kkSjhiky;e] dks;Ecrwj & 641 028

6500008204

20150903

esllZ gkbZVsd bathfu;fjax

d`f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

IS 9079 % 2002

,l ,Q lañ 483@2C&4A]

lkQ BaMs ikuh ds fctyh ds

d`".kEeky dkWyst dEikmUM ds

eksukslsV iEIl

ikl],YykbZ rksV~Ve jksM]

ihyesMq] dks;Ecrwj & 641 004

6500008305

20150910

esllZ ekSyh VsDyksyksftl izk;osV fyfeVsM

lkQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472 % 1998

482@4] rqfM;ywj jksM] fpUukosneiV~Vh]

vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi

dks;Ecrwj & 641006

6500008406

20150910

esllZ ekSyh VsDyksyksftl izk;osV fyfeVsM

xgjs dqvksa ds fy,

IS 14220 % 1994

482@4] rqfM;ywj jksM] fpUukosneiV~Vh]

fuEetuh; iEilsV

dks;Ecrwj & 641006

6500008507

20150918

esllZ eks;yu ,xzks ikbIl

is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

IS 4985 % 2000

SF 183@2] dj;upsV~Vh iky;e]

vIykfLVd`r ih oh lh ikbIl

okyikjS eq[; lM+d] lerwj iksLV]

iksYykph & 642 123

6500008608

20150925

esllZ gkfoZu baMLVªhl

d`f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

IS 9079 % 2002

14] jaxEeky dksfoy LVªhV] ihykesMq]

lkQ BaMs ikuh ds fctyh ds

dks;Ecrwj & 641004

eksukslsV iEIl

6500008709

20150928

esllZ dkMSbZ'ojk QwM izksMDV~l]

iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan

IS 14543 % 2004

,l ,Q lañ 791@1] osYykuSiV~Vh]

feujy ty ds vykok½

osYykuSiV~Vh ¼ih-vks½ dkykiV~Vh]

dks;Ecrwj & 641048

10- 6500008810

20150929

esllZ th vkj Vh TosylZ ¼bafM;k½

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJèkrq,a]

IS 1417 % 1999

izk;osV fyfeVsM] njoktk lañ TS 11@11]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh & 'kq)rk

dkWosjh jksM] d#axyiky;e]

,oa eqgjkadu

bZjksM & 638001

11- 6500009004

20150930

esllZ xsyDlh bathfu;fjax daiuh

xgjs dqvksa ds fy,

IS 14220 % 1994

,l ,Q lañ 316@1] eqÙkqlkeh uxj]

fuEetuh; iEilsV

x.ks'k ys vkmV mÙkj] LVsuekSj dEikmUM]

x.kifr] dks;Ecrwj & 641 006

4242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

12- 6500008911

20150930

esllZ Jh vkUMky vyxj flesaV

ikWVZysUM ikWT+tksykuk flesaV—

IS 1489 (Part 1):

izk;osV fyfeVsM] ,l ,Q lañ 1468@1]

Hkkx 1 & QyS,'k vkèkfjr

1991

ipkiky;e xkao] vksykiky;e iksLV]

dkUxs;e rkyqd] fr#Iiqj & 638701

[lañ lh,eMh@13% 11]

Mhñ izsek dqekj] oSKkfud ^Mh* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015

S.O. 2059.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulation1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl. Licence

Grant

Name and address (factory)

Title of the Indian

IS No./Part/

No. No.

Date

of the party

Standard

Sec. Year

6500007909

20150902

M/s. Galaxy Engineering Co.

Centrifugal Regenerative

IS 8472 : 1998

SF No. 316/1, Muthusamy Nagar,

Pumps for clear, cold

Ganesh Lay Out North, Stanmore

water

Compound,

Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641006

6500008099

20150902

M/s. Santha Engineering Products

Centrifugal Regenerative

IS 8472 : 1998

140/2, Nava India Road,

Pumps for clear, cold

Sowdeswari Nagar, Avarampalayam,

water

Coimbatore 641006

6500008103

20150903

M/s. Protech Engineering

Centrifugal Regenerative

IS 8472 : 1998

255/2, Sakthi Nagar,

Pumps for clear, cold

M K Palayam Road, Sowripalayam,

water

Coimbatore 641028

6500008204

20150903

M/s. Hiteck Engineering

Electric Monoset Pumps

IS 9079 : 2002

S.F. No. 483/2C-4A, Near

for Clear, Cold Water for

Krishnammal College

Agricultural and Water

Compound, Ellai Thottam Road,

Supply Proposes

Peelamedu,

Coimbatore 641004

6500008305

20150910

M/s. Mouli Technologies

Centrifugal Regenerative

IS 8472 : 1998

Private Limited,

Pumps for clear, cold

482/4, Thudialur Road,

water

Chinnavedampatti,

Coimbatore 641006

6500008406

20150910

M/s. Mouli Technologies

Openwell Submersible

IS 14220 : 1994

Private Limited,

Pumpsets

482/4, Thudialur Road,

Chinnavedampatti,

Coimbatore 641006

6500008507

20150918

M/s. Moyalan Agro Pipes

Unplasticized PVC pipes

IS 4985 : 2000

SF 183/2, Karayanchetti Palayam,

for Potable Water Supplies

Valpari Main Road, Samathur (P.O.),

Pollachi 642123

Øe ykblsal la-

Lohd`r djus dh

ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek lañ¼Hkkx@

lañ

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

vuqHkkx½ % o"kZ

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4243

6500008608

20150925

M/s. Harvin Industries

Electric Monoset Pumps

IS 9079 : 2002

14, Rangammal Kovil Street,

for Clear, Cold Water for

Peelamedu,

Agricultural and Water

Coimbatore 641004

Supply Purposes

6500008709

20150928

M/s. Kadai Eswara Food Product

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

SF No. 791/1, Vellanaipatti,

(other than Packaged Natural

Vallenaipatti (P.O.), Kalapatti,

Mineral Water)

Coimbatore 641048

10. 6500008810

20150929

M/s. GRT Jewellers (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Gold and Gold Alloys,

IS 1417 : 1999

Door No. TS 11/11, Cauvery Road,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Karungalpalayam,

Fineness and Marking

Erode 638001

11. 6500009004

20150930

M/s. Galaxy Engineering Co.

Openwell Submersible

IS 14220 : 1994

SF No. 316/1, Muthusamy Nagar,

Pumpsets

Ganesh Lay Out North,

Stanmore Compound, Ganapathy,

Coimbatore 641006

12. 6500008911

20150930

M/s. Sri Andal Alagar Cement

Portland Pozzolana

IS 1489 (Part 1)

Private Limited:

Cement—Part 1—Fly

1991

SF No. 1468/1, Pachapalayam Village,

Ash Based

Olapalayam Post, Kangeyam Taluk,

Tiruppur 638701

[No. CMD/13 : 11]

D. PREMA KUMAR, Scientist 'D' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2060-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;eu] 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

Øe ykblsal la-

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds varxZr

jí gksus dh frfFk

lañ lh,e@,y

oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

1- 4794386

esllZ i;ksuhj IykbZoqM baMLVªhl

leqæh mi;ksx ds fy, IykbZoqM

07&09&2015

10@100@1] , ,l ih rksV~Ve]

IS 710 % 2010

lsUxksMqxkSUMu iqnqj ekxZ]

eqrqxkSUMuiqnqj] lqywj]

dks;EcÙkwj&641 402

2- 4794487

esllZ i;ksuhj IykbZoqM baMLVªhl

CykWd cksMZ

07&09&2015

10@100@1] , ,l ih rksV~Ve]

IS 1659 % 2004

lsUxksMqxkSUMu iqnqj ekxZ]

eqrqxkSUMuiqnqj] lqywj]

dks;EcÙkwj&641 402

[la- lh,eMh@13%13]

Mh- izsek dqekj] oSKkfud ^Mh* ,oa izeq[k

Sl. Licence

Grant

Name and address (factory)

Title of the

IS No./Part/

No. No.

Date

of the party

Standard

Sec. Year

4244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015

S.O. 2060.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies 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

4794386

M/s. Pioneer Plywood Industries

Marine Plywood

07.09.2015

10/100/1, A.S.P. Thottam,

IS 710 : 2010

Sengodogoundan Pudur Road,

Muthugoundanpudur, Sulur,

Coimbatore 641 402

4794487

M/s. Pioneer Plywood Industries

Block Boards

07.09.2015

10/100/1, A.S.P. Thottam,

IS 1659 : 2004

Sengodogoundan Pudur Road,

Muthugoundanpudur, Sulur,

Coimbatore 641 402

[No. CMD/13:13]

D. PREMA KUMAR, Scientist 'D' & Head

ekuo lalkèu fodkl ea=ky;

¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½

¼jktHkk"kk ;wfuV½

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2061-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e 4 ds

vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalkèu fodkl ea=ky; ¼Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa lk{kjrk

foHkkx vkSj mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½ ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa

dks ,sls dk;kZy; ds :i esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd deZpkjh&o`Un

us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS%&

1- dsanzh; fo|ky;

vehuw] rglhy o ftyk dqyxke]

tEew vkSj d'ehj&192231

2- dsUnzh; fo|ky;

lhek lqj{kk cy] lqanjcuh]

tEew vkSj d'ehj&185153

3- dsUnzh; fo|ky;

T;ksfM;ka]

tEew vkSj d'ehj&181202

4- dsUnzh; fo|ky;

lhek lqj{kk cy ifjlj]

vejdksV] iatkc&143419

[la- 11011&2@2015&jk-Hkk-,-]

lq[kchj flag laèq] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O. L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015

S.O. 2061.—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 following offices under the Ministry of Human

Resource Development, (Department of School Education

& Literacy & Department of Higher Education) as office,

whose more than 80% members of the staff have acquired

working knowledge of Hindi.

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya,

Aminoo,

Tehsil & Distt. Kulgam

Jammu and Kashmir-192231

2. Kendriya Vidyalaya,

BSF, Sunderbani,

Jammu and Kashmir-185153

3. Kendriya Vidyalaya,

Jourian,

Jammu and Kashmir-181202

4. Kendriya Vidyalaya,

BSF Campus, Amarkot,

Punjab-143419

[No. 11011-2/2015-O.L.U]

SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4245

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;

¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2062-—dsUnz ljdkj Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn

vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh èkjk 11 dh mi èkjk ¼2½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsanz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk

ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn ,rn~}kjk mDr vfèfu;e dh izFke

vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kksèu djrh gSaA

mDr izFke vqlwph esa ^^n rfeyukMq MkWñ ,eñ thñ vkjñ fpfdRlk

fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ ds ckn vkSj 'kh"kZd ^^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk** [blds ckn dkWye ¼2½ esa ;Fkk lanfHkZr] ds varxZr**] vafre

izfof"V ds ckn vkSj 'kh"kZd ^^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i** [blds

ckn dkye ¼3½ esa ;Fkk lanfHkZr] ds varxZr mlls lacafèr izfof"V esa

fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] uker%&

¼2½

¼3½

^^cSpyj vkWQ esfMflu

,eñchñchñ,lñ

vkSj cSpyj vkWQ

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

ltZjh**

gksxh tks psUubZ fpfdRlk dkWyst vLirky

,oa vuqlaèku dsanz] b#uxj] f=ph] tgka

okf"kZd izos'k {kerk 150 ,echch,l

Nk= gS] esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs n

rfeyukMq MkW- vkj-th-,e- fpfdRlk

fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ }kjk Qjojh] 2014

dks vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ

gksA½

lHkh ds fy, uksV%& 1 ,echch,l fMxzh iznku djus ds fy,

iwoZ&Lukrd ikB~;Øe dks rFkkdfFkr iznÙk ekU;rk vfèdre 05 o"kZ

dh vofè ds fy, gksxh ftlds ckn mldk uohdj.k djkuk gksxkA

2- ekU;rk ds ^uohdj.k* dh i)fr mlh izdkj gksxh ftl izdkj

ekU;rk iznku djus ds fy, ykxw gksrh gSA

3- mi;qZDr mi&[k.M ¼d½ esa ;Fkkisf{kr le; ij ekU;rk dk

uohdj.k u gksus ij lacafèr iwoZ&Lukrd ikB~;Øe esa nkf[ky fujiokn

:i ls :d tk,xkA

[la-;w- 12012@224@2015&,eñbZñ&I]

Mhñ ohñ dsñ jko] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015

S.O. 2062.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,

after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to

the said Act.

In the said First Schedule after "The Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R.

Medical University, Chennai" and under the heading

'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to

as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto

under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall

be inserted, namely:—

(2)

(3)

"Bachelor of

M.B.B.S.

Medicine and

(This shall be a recognised

Bachelor of Surgery"

medical qualification when

granted by the Tamilnadu Dr.

M.G.R. Medical University,

Chennai in respect of students

being trained at Chennai Medical

College Hospital & Reserarch

Centre, Irunagar, Trichy with

annual intake of 150 MBBS

students on or after February,

2014).

Note to all: 1. The recognition so granted to an

undergraduate Course for award of MBBS degree shall be

for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have

to be renewed.

2. The procedure for 'Renewal' of recognition shall be

same as applicable for the award for recognition.

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as

required in sub-clause (a) supra shall invariably result in

stoppage of admissions to the concerned undergraduate

Course.

[No. U-12012/224/2015-ME- I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2063-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; ds iz'kklfud

fu;a=.kkèhu lkoZtfud {ks= ds miØeksa ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa

dks] ftuds 80 ;k vfèd izfr'kr deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd

Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS%µ

1- bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM

¼i½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

xqtjkr jkT; dk;kZy;]

bafM;u vk;y Hkou

205] lksyk ¶ykbZvksoj

,lñthñ gkbos ds ikl]

vgenkckn&380060 ¼xqtjkr½

4246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

¼ii½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

èut ckWVfyax IykaV]

èut [kqnZ]

LVsV gkbos uañ 199]

rglhy & dkjatk ¼ykM½]

ftyk & okfle & 444110 ¼egkjk"Vª½

¼iii½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

lsaVªy yscksjsVjh]

^ds* vk;y baLVkWys'ku

f'koM+h VfeZuy & 2]

f'koM+h ¼iwoZ½] eqacbZ&400015

¼iv½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

[kkijh fMiks] oèkZ jksM] [kkijh]

ukxiqj & 441108 ¼egkjk"Vª½

¼v½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

bankSj fMiks]

,ñchñ jksM] eaxfy;kW xkao]

bankSj & 453771 ¼e/; izns'k½

¼vi½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

lwjr ,fj;k dk;kZy;]

?kksM nkSM+ jksM]

ch,l,u,y vkWfQl ds ikl]

lwjr & 395001 ¼xqtjkr½

¼vii½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

jktdksV eaMy dk;kZy;]

bafM;u vk;y Hkou]

jsl dkslZ fjax jksM]

jktdksV & 360001 ¼xqtjkr½

¼viii½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

jkb# fMiks Xokfy;j]

forj.k izHkkx]

iksLV & xzke% c#vk]

Xokfy;j & 474005 ¼e/; izns'k½

(ix) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

cYd isVªksfy;e fHkykbZ fMiks]

jsyos xwM~l 'ksM ds ikl]

fHkykbZ 3] ftyk & nqxZ]

NRrhlx<+ & 490021

(x) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

ukxiqj ,,Q,l]

ckck lkgc baVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ]

lksus xkao]

ukxiqj & 440005

(xi) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

vgenkckn ,,Q,l]

ljnkj oYyHkHkkbZ iVsy varjkZ"Vªh;

,;jiksVZ]

,;j dkxksZ dkWEiysDl]

es?kkuh uxj]

vgenkckn & 380016

(xii) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

baMsu ,fj;k dk;kZy;]

cgknqj jsflMsalh] nwljh eafty]

dSyk'k fogkj]

vk;dj Hkou ds ikl]

flVh lsaVj] Xokfy;j & 474011

(xiii) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

lk.kan ,yihth ckVfyax IykaV]

lk.kan fojaxe gkbZos]

vkbZvkslh iai ds lkeus]

onukxj cl fMiks ds ikl]

lk.kan & 382110

¼vgenkckn½

(xiv) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

t;ar fMiks]

t;ar dksfy;jh]

ftyk & flaxjkSyh ¼e/; izns'k½

(xv) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

bafM;u vk;y dkiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ¼foi.ku izHkkx½]

e/; izns'k jkT; dk;kZy;]

16 vjsjk fgYl] tsy jksM]

Hkksiky & 462011

(xvi) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

vkneiqj ,,Q,l]

,fo,'ku ¶;wy LVs'ku]

vkneiqj ¼nksvkck½]

ftyk & tkyaèj]

iatkc & 144102

(xvii) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

iBkudksV ,,Q,l]

ihñchñ uacj 2]

iBkudksV & 145001

`(xviii) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

uky ,,Q,l]

,vjQkslZ LVs'ku uky]

chdkusj & 334001

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4247

(xix) bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

ljlkok ,,Q,l]

,vjQkslZ LVs'ku]

ljlkok]

ftyk & lgkjuiqj & 247232

¼mÙkj izns'k½

¼xx½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

nsgjknwu ,fo,'ku Ý;wy LVs'ku]

tkWyh xzkaV ,vjiksVZ

nsgjknwu% 248003

¼xxi½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

ekuslj ,llh,Qih]

50 fdeh ekbyLVksu]

,u,p&8] ,u,lth xsV ds lkeus]

ftyk xqM+xkao & 122050 ¼gfj;k.k½

¼xxii½bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

vlkoVh Y;wc la;a=]

xzke ,oa iksLV vlkoVh]

ftyk & Qjhnkckn]

gfj;k.kk & 121102

¼xxiii½ bafM;u vk;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

uthckckn fMiks]

cYd isVªksfy;e fMiks]

vkn'kZ uxj] uthckckn]

ftyk & fctukSj ¼mÙkj izns'k½

2- fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM

¼i½ fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

mÙkj if'pe vapy & fjVsy]

igyh eafty] Jh ckykth vYQk cktkj

BkdksjthHkkbZ nslkbZ gkWy ds lkeus]

gkbZ LVªhV & 1] ykW xkMZu]

vgenkckn & 380006

¼ii½ fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

#M+dh fMiks]

IykaV uañ 2] ;w,,lvkbZMhlh baMLVªh;y ,fj;k]

yU<+kSjk] #M+dh & 247667

¼iii½ fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

y[kuÅ Y;wc fMiks]

,S'kckx] fey jksM

y[kuÅ & 226004

¼iv½ fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

vekSlh baLVkys'ku

vekSlh jsyos LVs'ku ds utnhd

y[kuÅ & 226010

¼v½ fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

xqokgkVh jhVsy {ks=h; dk;kZy;

izFke ry] ,pñ Mhñ dkWEIysDl

myqckjh] thñ ,lñ jksM]

xqokgkVh & 781007

¼vi½ fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

oMksnjk fjVsy {ks=h; dk;kZy;]

vackyky ikdZ] okWVj Vsad jksM]

dkjsyhckx

oMksnjk & 390018

¼vii½ fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

jkaph fjVsy {ks=h; dk;kZy;]

ek: Vkoj] ikapoh eafty]

dkads jksM] jkaph & 834008

¼viii½ fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

cSrkyiqj vkbZvkjMh]

xksj[kiqj & nsofj;k jksM

cSrkyiqj] nsofj;k & 274201

3- vk;y ,aM uspqjy xSl dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM

¼i½ vk;y ,aM uspqjy xSl dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM

vkbZvksthihVh] Qst&2] vks,uthlh]

iuosy] uoh eqacbZ&410221

¼ii½ vk;y ,aM uspqjy xSl dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM

dSEcs ifjlaifÙk

iksLV&dalkjh] rkyqdk% [kaHkkr

ftyk & vkuan] xqtjkr & 388630

4- Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM

¼i½ Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

jkaph fMiks] iksLV pqfV;k]

LVs'ku jksM] jkaph & 834001

[lañ 11011@1@2015 ¼fgUnh½]

Mhñ ,lñ jkor] la;qDr funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 19th October, 2015

S.O. 2063.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union)

Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the

folowing offices of the Public Sector Undertakings under

the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum &

Natural Gas, in which 80 or more percent of the staff have

acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:—

1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

(i) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Gujarat State Office,

4248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Indian Oil Bhavan,

Near 205, Sola flyover S.G. Highway, Sola,

Ahmedabad 380 060 (Gujarat)

(ii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Dhanaj bottling plant,

State Highway No. 199,

Tehsil-Karanja (LAD)

Distt-Wasim-444110 (Maharashtra)

(iii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Central Laboratory,

"K" Oil Installation, Shivadi, Terminal-2,

Shivadi (East), Mumbai-400 015

(iv) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Khapri depot, Vardha Road, Khapri,

Nagpur-441 108 (Maharashtra)

(v) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Indore depot,

A.B. Road, Mangliyagoan,

Indore-453 771 (Madhya Pradesh)

(vi) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Surat Area Office,

Ghod Daur Road,

Near BSNL Office,

Surat-395 001 (Gujarat)

(vii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Rajkot Division Office,

Indian Oil Bhawan,

Race Course Ring Road,

Rajkot-360001 (Gujarat)

(viii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Rairu depot Gwalior,

Distribution Section,

Post - Village, Barua

Gwalior-474 005 (Madhya Pradesh)

(ix) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Bulk Petroleum Bhilai Depot, Near Railway

Goods Shed, Bhilai 3, Distt - Durg,

Chhattisgarh-490 021

(x) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Nagpur AFS,

Baba Saheb International Airport,

Sonegaon,

Nagpur-440 005

(xi) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Ahmedabad AFS,

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel,

International Airport,

Air Cargo Complex,

Meghani Nagar,

Ahmedabad-380 016

(xii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Indane Area Office,

Bhadura residency, 2nd floor,

Kailash Vihar,

Near Income Tax building,

City Center, Gwalior-474 011

(xiii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Sanand LPG bottling plant,

Sanand Virangam Highway,

Infront of IOC pump, Near,

Vadnagar bus depot,

Sanand-382 1101

(Ahmedabad)

(xiv) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Jayant depot,

Jayant Koliyari,

Distt-Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh)

(xv)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division)

Madhya Pradesh State Office,

16 Arera Hills, Jail Road,

Bhopal-462011

(xvi) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Adampur, AFS

Aviation Fuel Stations,

Adampur (Doob)

Distt-Jalandhar,

Punjab-144 102

(xvii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Pathankot AFS,

P.B. No 2,

Pathankot-145 001

(xviii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Nal AFS,

Air Force station,

Bikaner-334 001

(xix) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Sarsava AFS,

Air Force station, Sarsava

Distt-Saharanpur-247 232

(Uttar Pradesh)

(xx) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Dehradun Aivation Fuel Station,

Jolly Grant Airport,

Dehradun: 248 003

(xxi) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Manesar SCFP,

50 km milestone,

NH-8, infront of NSG gate,

Distt-Gurgaon-122050 (Haryana)

(xxii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Asavati Tube plant,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4249

Village & Post, Asavati

Distt-Faridabad,

Haryana-201102

(xxiii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,

Najibabad depot,

Bulk Petroleum Depot,

Adarsh Nagar, Najibabad,

Distt-Bijnor (U.P.)

2. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

(i) Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

North west Division-Retail

Ist floor, Shri Balaji Alpha Bazar,

Infront of Thakaryi bai Desai hall,

High street-1, Law Garden,

Ahmedabad-380006

(ii) Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Rurki depot, Plot No. 2,

UASIDC Industries Area,

Landhaora, Rurki-247 667

(iii) Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Lucknow lubes depot,

Aishbagh, Mill Road,

Lucknow-226 004

(iv) Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Amausi installation near Amarshi railway Station

Lucknow-226010

(v) Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Guwahati Retail Regional Office

Ist Floor, H.D. Complex,

Ulubari, G.S. Road,

Guwahati-781 007

(vi) Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Borodara Retail Regional Office,

Ambalal Park, Water Tank Road,

Karelibagh,

Borodarad-390 018

(vii) Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Ranchi Retail Regional Office,

Maru Tower, 5th floor, Kanke Road,

Ranchi-834 008

(viii) Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Baitalpur IRD,

Gorakhpur—Deoria Road

Baitalpur, Deoria-274 201

3. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(i) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

IOGPT, Phase 2, ONGC,

Panvel, Navi Mumbai-410 221

(ii) Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd.

Cambay Assets,

Post-Kansari, Tehsil: Khambhat,

District Anand, Gujarat-388 630

4. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

(i) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,

Ranchi Depot, Post Chutiya,

Station Road, Ranchi-834001

[No. 11011/1/2015(Hindi)]

D. S. RAWAT, Jt. Director (OL)

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2064-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ lsUVªy

os;jgkmflax dkiksZjs'ku 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;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 57@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@1@2014&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th October, 2015

S.O. 2064.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2014) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15/10/2015.

[No. L- 42012/1/2014-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 6th October, 2015

Present:

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 57/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Central Warehousing Corporation and

Another and their workman)

4250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

BETEEN

Sri C. Kaliyaperumal

1st Party/1st

Petitioner

Sri K.R. Sundararaman

1st Party/2nd

Petitioner

Sri N Sugavanam (Deceased)

1st Party/3rd

Petitioner

Sri S. Mariya Michael

1st Party/4th

Petitioner

Smt. Yogalakshmi

1st Party/5th

Petitioner

Smt. Jayalakshmi

1st Party/6th

Petitioner

Sri S. Manikanda Rathnachalam :

1st Party/7th

(Petitioners 5 to 7 are Legal Heirs

Petitioner

of Petitioner No. 3)

AND

The Regional manager

2nd Party/1st

Central Warehousing

Respondent

Corporation

4th North Avenue, Srinager

Colony, Saidapet

Chennai—600015

The Warehouse Manager

2nd Party/2nd

Central Warehouse

Respondent

Kallarai Road

Puducherry—605001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioners

M/s K.M. Ramesh,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondents

M/s A.J. Abdul

Razak, Mr. Ashok

Menon, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/1/2014-IR (M) dated

04.07.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Warehousing Corporation in denying ex-gratia

payment taking into consideration as 60 years to

Shri C. Kaliayaperumal, K.R. Sundararaman, N.

Sugavanam and S. Mariya Michael is legal and

Justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are

entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 57/2014 and issued notices to both sides.

Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel

and filed claim and counter statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

Petitioners 1 to 4 were employed in the Respondent

establishment and retired under Special Voluntary

Retirement Scheme of 1998. The last date for applying for

the scheme was 31.03.1998. The four petitioners opted to

leave service under Special Voluntary Scheme within the

last date. The applications were accepted. As per Clause-

V(i) of the scheme ex-gratia equivalent to 1.5 months

emoluments for each completed year of service in the

Respondent establishment or the monthly emoluments at

the time of retirement multiplied by the balance months of

service left before normal date of reitrement whichever is

less is payable. Before the four petitioners could be relieved

under the scheme the service rules governing retirement

age of the employees was amended by the establishment

and the retirement age was enhanced from 58 to 60 years.

The four petitioners were relieved from service and retired

on 31.05.1998. When payment was made as per Special

Voluntary Retirement Scheme it was made on the footing

that their age of retirement is 58 years and not 60 years.

The action of the Respondent in denying the benefit of

taking into account the balance service of 2 years for the

purpose of calculating ex-gratia payment is illegal and

unjustfied. The dispute is raised accordingly. An order may

be passed holding that the action of the Respondent in

making ex-gratia payment without taking into account the

age of retirement as 60 years is illegal and unjustified and

also directing the Respondent to pay the monetary benefits

due to them on such calculation.

4. The Respondents had filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

As per Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 1998

employees are entitled to ex-gratia payment equivalent to

1.5 months emoluments at the time of retirement multiplied

by the completed years of service or for the balance months

of service left before normal date of retirement whichever

is less. The concerned petitioners submitted their

applications under the above scheme and the same was

accepted by the Management and ex-gratia payment was

made to them taking into consideration their retirement age

as 58. Since the petitioners had applied under the scheme

which came into force on 24.02.1998 and was operative

from 01.03.1998 to 31.03.1998 they cannot now take the

stand that ex-gratia should be paid on the basis of

enhanced age of retirement. The request for voluntary

retirement had been accepted well before 28.05.1998 on

which date the order raising the age of retirement was

notified. The petitioners having submitted their

applications for voluntary retirement and having avalied

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4251

the terminal benefits could not claim the benefits of

subsequent increase in the age of superannuation as 60

years. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.

W16 and Ext. M1.

6. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action of the Respondent in making

ex-gratia payment to petitioners without

considering the age of the retirement as 60 years

is legal and justified?

(ii) What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioners

are entitled?

The Points

7. Petitioners 1 to 4 were the employees of the

Respondent Corporation. All of them had opted for

voluntary retirement as per the Special Voluntary

Reitrement Scheme of 1998. The 3rd petitioner died after

the dispute was raised but before Claim Statement was

filed before this Tribunal. Supplemental petitioners 5 to 7

are the legal heirs of the deceased 3rd petitioner. They

have got themselves impleaded in the dispute before this

Tribunal.

8. The concerned employees were relieved from service

consequent to the acceptance of their application for

voluntary retirement as per Special Voluntary Scheme of

1998 As per Clasue-V(i) of the scheme ex-gratia payment

equivalent to 1.5 months emoluments for each complted

year of service or the monthly emoluments at the time of

retirement multiplied by balance months of service left before

normal date of retirement whichever was less was payable

to them. The age of retirement at the time when application

for voluntary retirement was made was 58 years. However,

the age of retirement was raised from 58 to 60 years after

the application for voluntary retirement was accepted but

before the employees were relieved from service on the

basis of the application. According to the petitioners, ex-

gratia payment was made to them treating the age of

retirement as 58 even though the age of retirement at the

time when they were of their relieved from service was 60

years. It is claimed by them that ex-gratia payment is to be

calculated considering the age of retirement as 60 years in

which case they will be monetarily benefitted. The case

advanced by the Respondents is that the application for

voluntary retirement having been accepted even before

the raise in the age of retirement was notified the petitioners

are not entitled to have the amount calculated as per the

enhanced age of retirement.

9. It is seen from Ext.W2 that Sundararaman, the 2nd

petitioner was relieved on 01.06.1998 Sugavanam, the 3rd

petitioner was relieved on 31.05.1998 as seen from Ext. W3.

Kaliyaperumal, the 1st petitioner is seen relieved on

26.06.1998 as per Ext. W5. Mariya Michael, the 4th petitioner

is seen relieved on 30.05.1998 as seen from Ext. W10. there

is not dispute regarding the dates on which these

individuals retired.

10. The only argument that is advanced on behalf of the

Respondents for denying ex-gratia payment to the

concerned petitioners based on the enhanced retirement

age is that their application for retirement was accepted

even before the order enhancing the age of reitrement was

notified. There is no dispute for the Respondents regarding

the manner in which ex-gratia payment should have been

calculated in case the age of retirement was considered as

60 years rather than 58 years. Clause-V(i) of the special

voluntary retirement scheme is very clear. As per this clause,

ex-gratia payment equilent to 1.5 months emoluments for

each completed year of service in the Corporation or the

monthly emoluments at the time of retirement multiplied by

the balance months of service left before normal date of

retirement whichever is less is payable. So the question is

what is the normal age of retirement of the concerned

petitioners, whether it is 58 or 60.

11. The counself for the petitioner has referred to th

decision of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.

1385 of 2001 marked as Ext.W 13 and also the order of High

Court of Madras in W.A. 1047 of 2010 in this respect. The

question that was considered in both the above decisions

was the same and the Central Warehousing Corporation,

the Respondent in the present proceedings was one of the

Respondents in those matters also. The High Court of

Bombay was extracted Clause-V(i) of the Special Voluntary

Retirement Scheme of the Respondent and has held:

5. Perusal of the above clause shows that for the purpose

of determining benefits under the scheme the balance

months of service left before normal date of retirement

means the date of retirement is to be taken into

consideration. Now turning to the term normal date of

retirement means the date of retirement as per the Service

Rules which were in force on the date on which the employee

concerned retired. That position is made further clear by

the Note which appears below V. That Note reads as under:

NOTE:

The Compensation/ex-gratia payment as mentioned in

Clause-V(1) above will be paid by the Corporation in lump-

sum immediately on acceptance of the request for voluntary

retirement and actual relief from the service of the

Corporation. "The Actual Pay" drawn by the employee

just before the date of voluntary retirement (irrespective of

the fact whether the employee is on probation on a higher

post) shall be taken into account for calculating the

compensation. Apart from the amount to be determined as

mentioned above, under the voluntary retirement scheme

benefits which would accrue to them under any revision of

wage/pay structure would also be admissible.

4252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

6. Perusal of above "Note" makes the position clear that

for arriving at the payment, "the actual pay drawn" by the

employee on the date of retirement is taken into

consideration. It means that for the purpose of calculating

benefits conditions of service existing on the actual day of

retirement are to be taken into consideration. If that is so, it

is clear that as on 30th June, 1998 because of amendment

of the Service Rules with effect from 28.05.1998, the age of

retirement was 60 years and not 58 years, and therefore,

the petitioner was entitled to have her benefits calculated

under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme on the

footing that her age of retirement is 60 years. So far as

defence taken by the respondents is concerned, in our

opinion, bare reading of the order dated 27.04.1998 makes

the position clear and beyond reasonable doubt.

In writ Appeal 1047 of 2010 to Madras High Court has

referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court and has

taken the same view. In this case the application for

voluntary retirement was accepted by the competent

authority on 03.04.1998. The Hon'ble High Court has

observed:

Thought the said application was accepted by the

competent authority on 03.04.1998 the fact remains as could

be seen from the order of relieving dated 01.06.1998. that

the petitioner was relieved from duty from the service of

the Corporaion only w.e.f. 01.06.1998 (AN). If that be so he

should be considered to be in service till 01.06.1998 (AN).

In the meantime the rule has been amended by enhancing

the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years which came into

force on the date of application in the official gazette on

28.05.1998. There is no communication by way of any

circular that even such of those officials who have already

availed the benefits of the scheme and opted to go on

voluntary retirement prior to the enhancement of retirement

age would be entitled for the monetary benefits as if their

age of retirement was 58 years only. In the absence of the

same the appellant who had opted for Voluntary Retirement

Scheme as per the original conditions stipulated by circular

dated 24.02.1998 would be deemed to be in service even

though his application for voluntary retirement was

accepted. In such an event the petition would be entitled

to the monetary benefits calculated as if his age of retirement

is 60 years.

12. The counsel for the Respondents has referred to the

decision of the Madras High Court in WP Nos. 7053 to

7055 of 2013 in which cases also the Central Warehousing

Corporation was the Respondent and the claim of the

petitioners was of the same nature. These Writ Petitions

claiming benefit treating their age of retirement as 60 years

was rejected by the Hon'ble Court. However, because of

the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High

Court as per Ext.W14 the same is to be followed.

13. All the concerned petitioners were relieved from

service by the Respondents only after the order enhancing

the age of retirement was notified. The notification

enhancing the age of retirement was published on 28.05.1998

so enhanced retirement age has come into effect from this

date. All the concerned petitioners were still in service as

on that date. So they would be eligible for payment of ex-

gratia calculated as if their retirement age is 60 years. So,

the peittioners are entitled to the relief claimed.

14. Accordingly an award is passed as follows:

The Respondents are directed to calculate the ex-gratia

payment to peittioners 1 to 4 treating their age of retirement

as 60 years and pay the monetary benefits, if any, due to

them on such calculation, within a month of the publication

of the award. The amount due to the deceased petitioner is

payable to petitioner's 5 to 7, the legal respresentatives. In

default of payment of the amount within the prescribed

time the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from

the date of award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronouned by me in the open court on this

day the 6th October, 2015)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witness Examined:

for the 1st Party/Petitioners

: WW1, Sri C.

Kaliyaperumal

For the 2nd Party/Management

: MW1, Sri A.T. Sankar

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

24.02.1998

Copy of Circular No. 3821

issued by the Respondent

Corporation

Ext.W2

Copy of Office Order issued by

the Respondent Corporation in

respect of K.R. Sundararaman

Ext.W3

28.04.1998

Copy of Ofice Order issued by

the Respondent Corporation in

respect of N. Sugavanam

Ext.W4

20.05.1998

Copy of Office Order issued by

the Respondent Corporation in

respect of N. Sugavanam

Ext.W5

28.05.1998

Copy of Office Order issued by

the Respondent Corporation in

respect of C. Kaliyaperumal

Ext.W6

30.05.1998

Copy of Circular No. 40/98

issued by the Respondent

Corporation

Ext.W7

30.05.1998

Copy of Relieving Order issued

in respect of S. Mariya Michael

Ext.W8

30.05.1998

Copy of Relieving Order issued

in respect of N. Sugavanam

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4253

Ext.W9

26.06.1998

Copy of Relieving Order issued

in respect of C. Kaliyaperumal

Ext.W10

14.07.1998

Copy of Office Order issued in

respect of S. Maria Michael

Ext.W11

24.07.1998

Copy of Part-II Offrice Order

issued by the Respondent

Corporation

Ext.W12

03.07.1998

Copy of Office Order issued in

respect of K.R. Sundararaman

Ext.W13

01.10.2009

Copy of judgement of the

Hon'ble Bombay High Court in

W.P. No. 1385/2001

Ext.W14

26.09.2011

Copy of judgement of the

Hon'ble Madras High Court in

W.A. No. 1047/2010

Ext.W15

26.03.2012

Letter from Respondent

Corporation to General

Secretary, Central Warehousing

Corporation Retired Officials

Welfare Association

Ext.W16

10.02.2014

Letter from Respondent

Corporation to General

Secretary, Central Warehousing

Corporation Retired Officials

Welfare Association

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

20.06.2014

High Court of Madras WP Nos.

7053 to 7055 of 2013

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2065-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ;wjsfu;e

dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k 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;&1] èuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 64@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@10@1999&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th October, 2015

S.O. 2065.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/2000)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Uranium Corporation of India and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15/10/2015.

[No. L-42012/10/1999-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

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. 64/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Uranium

Corporation of India Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri P.R. Rakshit Advocate

For the workman

None.

State

Jharkhand

Industry: Uranium Mines

dated 16/9/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/10/99/IR (M) dated 24.01.2000 the

Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers codnferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Uranium

Corporation of India Ltd, Jadugoda to appoint Shri

Md. Asraf as a casual labour and withhold his annual

increament is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference both parties are noticed.

But appearing for certain dates, none appears subsequently.

Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between

the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence

pass a No disputed Award is passed. Communicate to the

Ministry.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2066-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u

vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

4254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 799@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 15@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30011@44@2004&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th October, 2015

S.O. 2066.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 799/2005) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2,

Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s IOC Ltd. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/10/2015.

[No. L-30011/44/2004-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 799/2005

Registered on 6.9.2005

The Secretary, Contract Labour Union (AITUC) IOC

Ltd., Nabha, Distt. Patiala-Nabha.

...Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chief Plant Manager, IOC Ltd., Gas Plant, Nabha

Distt., Patiala.

2. M/s Hindustan Fabricators & Contrs. (Through Sh.

Ram Phal Begampur), Distt. Patiala, Nabha.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. H.S. Hundal Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Parminder Singh for

Resp. No.1

Sh. Paul. S. Saini for

Resp. No. 2

AWARD

Passed on 8.9.2015

Vide Order No. L-30011/44/2004-IR(M), dated 16.6.2004

the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred

by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act)

has referred the following industrial dispute for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan

Fabricator & Contractor, Haulage Contractor and

Chief Manager Plant, Gas Plant, OPC; Nahba in

terminating the services of 25 ex-temporary labourers

w.e.f. 19.11.2003 in respect of 3 workers and 20.12.2003

in respect of 22 workers without complying with the

provisions of Sections 25-F, G & H of the I.D. Act,

1947, is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

concerned workmen are entitled to and from which

date?"

In response to the notice, the workmen submitted

statement of claim. Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed separate

written statement.

The facts emerging are that respondent No. 2 gave

contract for incidental jobs such as Gardening, house-

keeping, loading/unloading, cutting of grass, etc. and

awarded the contract (work order) on 13.6.2003 to

respondent No. 1 for a period of two years, which was

extendable for a further period of one year. It is not denied

that respondent No. 1 engaged the workmen as mentioned

in Annexure-A1 to carry out the contract.

Now, according to the Union, it filed a complaint before

the Assistant Labour Commissioner, against the contractor

for not complying with the Labour Laws and on that

account, respondent No. 1 terminated the services of three

persons namely Gurpal Singh, Harvinder Singh and

Kulwinder Singh on 19.11.2003, and 22 workers on

20.12.2003 as mentioned in Annexure A-1.

The termination is illegal as no retenchment

compensation was paid to them and the management

employed new persons as find mentioned in Annexure A2

after terminating the services of the workmen. Since the

termination is illegal, they be reinstate in service.

The stand taken by respondent No. 1 is that he is a

licensed contractor vide licence dated 13.6.2003 (Annexure-

R1) and the workmen suddenly stopped coming on the

duty without any reasons and voluntarily abandoned the

services. When workmen did not join the duty, he engaged

other persons. He re-employed the persons who came to

join the duty out of the workmen in question.

Respondent No. 1, vide its separate written statement

pleaded that there was no contract between the workmen

and respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was given

contract for the incidental jobs.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4255

Parties were given opportunities to lead the evidence.

In support of his case, Jagsir Singh one of the workmen

appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit reiterating

the stand taken by the workmen-union.

On the other hand, Respondent No. 2 has examined Mr.

Vishal who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken by

respondent No. 2.

Ramphal, proprietor of respondent No. 1, appeared in

the witness-box and filed his affidavit supporting the stand

as set up in the written statement.

The learned counsel for the workman has contended

that the contractor i.e. respondent No. 1 has not maintained

the seniority-list and contravened the provisions of the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and

he terminated the services of the workmen without paying

any compensation and therefore, the termination is illegal

and they be reinstated in service.

It may be added that if the contractor did not comply

with any provision of the said Act, the same do not ipso

facto entitle the workmen for reinstatement in service. The

definite case set up by the workmen was that the services

were terminated without paying the retrenchment

compensation and respondent No. 1 engaged new persons

without giving them any notice and as such the

retrenchment is illegal.

As per section 25F of the Act, no workman who has

been continuous service for not less than one year shall be

retrenched until the conditions as mentioned in the said

Section are fulfilled. In order to calculate continuous service

for one year, the workmen had to work for 240 days in a

calendar year.

It is the case of the workmen themselves that respondent

No. 1 was given contract in June, 2003 and their services

were terminated on 19.11.2003 and 20.12.2003.

If calculated, their working days are less than envisaged

under the law to entitle them to receive the retrenchment

compensation.

It is definite case of respondent No. 1 that he did not

terminate the services of the workmen but they themselves

abandoned the job. These assertions are reiterated by Mr.

Ram Phal, proprietor of respondent No. 1, while appearing

in the witness-box. His statement remain unchallenged on

the file as he was not cross-examined regarding this fact.

Thus, the statement of Mr. Ram Phal prove that it was the

workmen who abandoned the job. In the circumstances, if

the contractor has employed certain other persons in place

of the present workmen to carry out the contract, the same

do not confer any right on the workmen to get the

employment, as they themselves are guilty of abandoning

the job.

In result, it is held that since respondent No. 1 did not

termiate the service of the workmen and therefore, any

action on his part cannot be termed as illegal. Similarly the

workmen were never employees of respondent No. 2 who

did not terminate their services.

Being so, the workmen are not entitled to any relief and

the reference is answered accordingly.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the

Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2067-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ th-lh- ik.Ms;

,.M da- 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;&1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

211@1994½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnh; ljdkj dks

15-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@37@1993&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th October, 2015

S.O. 2067.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 211/1994) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-1,

Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. G.C. Pandey & Co. and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 15/10/2015.

[No. L-29012/37/1993-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

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

4256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ref. No. 211 of 1994

Employer in relation to the management of

G.C. Pandey & Co.

AND

Their workmen

Present:

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman

None

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated: 18/9/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-29012/37/1993-IR (M), dated 10/08/1994,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/S G.C.

Pandey (Quarry owner) in terminating the service of

Prabal Kumar Mukherjee and denying him to take

back in service with full back wages is justified and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled"

2. After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed.

Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently

did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is

presumed that the disputes between parties have been

resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is

passed.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 2068-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk dksfjZxsUnqe

vkWQ iqjLdkj izdkf'kr djrk gS ¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@2007½ Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM] MkYVsuxat 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;&1] èuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@2007½ lqcsVsM QkWj publication, at page uacj 7

bu n fyLV vkWQ odZesu] serial number 57 vkbZ bZ n uke vkWQ

odZeSu es cs jhM vl santhosh dqekj lksu vkWQ Jh ljtw ram,

sahpur, pSuiqj] fMfLVªDV iykew izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnh; ljdkj

dks 07@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@27@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015

S.O. 2068.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the corrigendum of the award (I.D. No.

47 of 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Cum-Labour Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd., Daltengunj and their workmen, the award submitted

for publication at page No. 7 in the list of workmen, Sl. No.

57 i.e. the name of the workman may be read as Santhosh

Kumar S/o Sri Sarju Ram, Sahpur, Chainpur, Distt. Palamu,

which was received by the Central Government on

07/07/2015.

[No. L-40011/27/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

vuqcaè

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèdj.k&lg&Je&U;k;ky; la- 1]

èuckn

lanHkZ la- 47@2007@1093

fnukad 14-10-2015

izcaèu] ch-,l-,u-,y-] MkyVsuxat

,oa

muds dkexkj

fo"k;% lanHkZ la[;k 47@2007 ds 'kqf)i= ds fo"k; esa

vkns'k la[;k L-40011@27@2007 IR(DU) fnukad 08@07@2014

egk'k;]

i=kad la[;k 47@2007@749 fnukad 08@07@2014 ds rgr iapkV

izdk'ku ds fy, izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlds fujarjrk esa] dkexkj dh

lwph esa iapkV ds i`"B la[;k 7 esa Vadu@fyfidh; =qfV ds dkj.k

deZdkj dk uke lhfj;y uacj 57 esa NwV x;k gSa ¼vkosnu layXu½ tks

vkids i=kad la- ,y 40011@27@2007 vkbZ vkj ¼Mh-;w-½ fnukad

4 vxLr 2015 ds rgr fgUnh esa ekaxk x;k Fkk fuEufyf[kr :i esa gSa

lqèkj dj fn;k tk,A

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4257

Øe

deZdkj dk uke

firk dk uke

LFkk;h

vLFkk;h

dk;Z dh

dk;Z dk fooj.k

dk;Z dk

la-

irk

voèh

LFkku

57-

larks"k dqekj

Jh ljtw jke

lgiqj]

2005

gsYij

MkYVsaxat

pSuiqj

ftyk&

iykew

mijksDr v'kqf) dks lqèkj dj 'kqf) i= ;Fkk'kh?kz izdkf'kr fd;k tk;A

vkj-ds- lju] ihBklhu inkfèdkjh

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, DHANBAD

Ref. No. 47/2007/700

Dated 07-7-2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of BSNL, Daltengunj

And

Their workmen

Sub. Issuance of Corrigendum in Ref. No. 47 of 2007

Order No. L-40011/27/2007 IR (DU) dated 20.09.2007

Sir,

In continuation of letter No. 47/2007/749 dated 08/07/2014, award submitted for publication but a typographical/clerical

error pointed out in the award page No. 7 in the list of workmen. Sl. No. 57 i.e. the name of the workman is left, detailed is as

under (petition enclosed) may be corrected.

Sl. No.

Name of worker

Father's name

Permanent Address

Tem. Add.

Date from work

Description of work

place

57.

Santosh Kumar

Sri Sarju Ram

Sahpur, Chainpur

2005

Helper Daltongunj

Distt.-Palamu

This may be corrected and corrigendum be published in urgent basis.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM

nSfud Hkksxh etnwj la?k

iykew izeaMy ¼MkyVuxat½ >kj[k.M

Before

The Presiding Officer,

C.G..I.T. No. 1,

Dhanbad.

Ref. No. 47 of 2007.

Order No. L-40011/27/2007-IR (DU) Petition for issuance of a corrigendum by the Ministry of the Award

The employer in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Daltengunj.

4258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Sl.

Name of

Father's

Permanent

Temporary

Date

Description

Work

No.

Worker

Name

Address

from

of work

Place

supervisory

Work

officer

begins

Santosh

Sarju

Sahpur,

—

2005

Helper

Daltanjganj

SDE

Kumar

Ram

Chainpur,

Phones

Dist.-Palamu

Vrs.

Their Workmen

It is submitted that the Award was passed on 04.07.14

as per Schedule entrusted by the Ministry as under:—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Dainik Bhogi Mazdoor

Sangh for regularisation of services of Sri Sanjeev

Kumar & 109 other workmen, as per annexure, by the

management of B.S.N.L., Ranchi and Daltenganj is

legal and justified. If yes, to what relief the workmen

are entitled to and from which dates.

That, the Award contain the name of all the persons but

by in advertance being clerical error the Sl. No. 57 i.e. the

name of the person concerned could not be reflected with

the details as under:—

It is very humbly prayed on behalf of the above named

Awardee that his name with details as above available in

the record may be got incorporated by issuance of a

corrigendum so that he may also be in a position to get the

benefit of the award alongwith other co-awardees.

And for this the Union shall ever pray.

Sudama Paul, President

Dainik Bhogi Mazdoor Sangh of B.S.N.L. Palamu

VERIFICATION

I, Sudama Paul do hereby declare that the facts and

details mentioned above are true to the best of my/our

knowledge, belief and information available as per record.

I sign this verification today at Dhanbad on 3rd day of

July, 2015.

Sudama Paul, President

Dainik Bhogi Mazdor Sangh of B.S.N.L. Palamu

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2069-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

19@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@10@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@106@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015

S.O. 2069.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 19/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribnal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 20.10.2015.

[No. L-40012/106/2006-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR,

Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 19/2007

Ref. No. L-40012/106/2006-IR (DU) dated 14.05.2007

BETWEEN

Sri Shailendra singh S/o Sri Rampal Singh

Through Sri M.K. Singh, R/o A-927/3 A Block Indira

Nagar Lucknow

AND

The Sub-Divisional Engineer Phones (Ext.) Central BSNL

Kaiser Bagh

Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L-40012/106/2006-IR (DU) dated 14.5.2007

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4259

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial disputes between Sri Shailendra singh S/o Sri

Rampal Singh, Indira Nagar, Lucknow and the Sub-

Divisional Engineer Phones (Ext.) Central, BSNL, Kaiser

Bagh, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the Management of BSNL,

Lucknow in terminating the services of their workman

Sri Shailendra Singh w.e.f. 01.06.2005, is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

3. As per the claim statement, the applicant in brief has

stated that he was appointed for cleaning work in the

Telephone Exchange, Charbagh on 01.07.2000 under the

subordination of SDO Phones, Central Lucknow, no

appointment letter in writing was ever given to him, neither

any letter was issued, that he was appointed on contract

on some project and he would be engaged there as per the

requirement and his services would be terminated after

completion of work. It has been stated therein that as per

the directions of the SDO Phones, he had been working

there with sincerity and honesty and there was no occasion

for any complaint regarding his work or conduct, his

attendance was procured in the attendance regarding, at

the end of every month. The payment was ensured to him

on ACG Form 17, and signatures were also obtained. The

workman has stated that he had worked up to 01.06.2005

continuously without any break, and he had worked for

more than 240 days in every year which is covered under

Section 25B of the I.D. Act and his rights are projected

there by, he was also entitled for getting the facility of

TSM, and in this regard the required report was also sent

from time to time, the workman has also made several

representation and personally met the competent

authorities but his representation was not decided neither

he was given temporary status of TSM, rather on being

aggrieved for his request for regularization the opposite

party terminated him from service on 01.06.2005. For being

not given the status of TSM neither for regularization he

had moved before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C)

Lucknow through union on 22.04.2005 the conduct of the

opposite party casued financial loss to the workman since

his services were terminated without any reason without

following the prescribed procedure under law in accordance

with I.D. Act, in violation to the provisions contained in

Section 33 A of the Act.

4. If has further been stated in the claim statement that

the conduct of the opposite party is prime-facie nul and

void illegal and liable to be set aside. Since no prior

information or notice was given to him, neither any

retrechment compensation was given to him, Section 25F

was violated. The workman has prayed that he has moved

under Section (2A) of the I.D. Act for redressal of his

grievance, and he has prayed for setting aside the

termination order with reinstatement and payment of back

wages etc.

5. The workman has filed certain document as per list C-

10.

6. The opposite party has filed written statement M-13

wherein the main allegations of the claim statement have

been denied. The opposite party has stated that the

engagement of the applicant was purely on daily wages

and he was engaged whenever required, he was not

engaged on permanent basis, neither was he provided

temporary status. The management has asserted that the

applicant was never made to sign any attendance register

since his engagement was purely on daily wages, there

was no need of any signature on attendance register, he

had never completed 240 days in any financial year and the

contention of the applicant is not supported with any

documentary evidence. The opposite party has admitted

that prior to this case the employee had moved a application

before ALC @ Lucknow, the opposite party had also

submitted its version before him, it has been emphasized

by the opposite party that regularization and grade of

seniority are only to the confirmed employees the daily

wager was only on whenver required basis, so he was not

provided temporary status. The management has stressed

that the claim statement of the workman is neither

substainable nor maintainable and it liable to dismissed

out rightly since it lacks merit.

7. The rejoinder W015 has been filed wherein the

allegations of the written statement have been denied and

the pleas raised in the claim statement have been reiterated.

8. The workman Shailendra Singh filed his affidavit W-

16 and he was duly cross-examined by the management.

The opposite party has not adduced any evidence.

9. Arguments of both the parties heard at length and

record has been scanned thoroughly.

10. The authorized representative of the workman has

contended that the workman worked continuously from

01.07.2000 to 01.06.2005 for more than 240 days in each

year and the action of the management of BSNL, in

terminating his services, without any notice or notice pay

was in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1945. It has also been argued by

the workman's representative that the workman moved a

compliant before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Lucknow on 22.4.2005 for not granting him temporary status

and not regularizing him and the management without

following legal procedure terminated his services during

pendency of above complaint, which amounts to violation

of provisions of Section 33 A of the Act.

11. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has submitted that the workman had been

engaged by the department as daily wager as and when

required and was paid accordingly. It has been contended

4260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

by the management that the workman had never been

engaged on permanent basis nor was given temporary status

and he never completed 240 days of regular and continuous

work in any financial year.

12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival contention of the parties' representative and perused

record available on file.

13. The case of the workman is that he had been engaged

with the opposite parties without any formal appointment

order and was made payment through ACG-15 form. It is

also the case of the workman that he worked continuously

since 01.07.2000 till 01.06.2005 when his services have been

terminated by the management of BSNL without any reason

or rhyme in violation to the provisions contained in 25F as

he worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year.

Further, it is also the case of the workman that his

termination during pendency of his complaint case before

the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) was in

violation to the provisions of Section 33 A of the Act.

Per contra, the opposite party management has come

up with a case that the workman had been engaged as

daily wager as and when required and was paid accordingly.

The management has submitted that the workman was

never been engaged permanently or granted temporary

status.

14. The workman in order to prove his contentions has

filed photocopy of numerous documents, including details

of his working, paper No. 10/4, purported to be a letter

dated 24.5.2001, which shows that the workman had worked

as Part Time Casual Labour w.e.f. 01.07.2000 to 30.05.2001

for 6 hours per day. There is also a document on record,

paper No. 10/7 which shows that the working hours was

erroneously been mentioned as 6 hours instead of 8 hours.

The workman also filed paper No. 10/11 to 10.14 regarding

left out cases of casual labours; wherein the name of

workman finds is reference. Apart from above the workman

has also filed office order dated 06.07.2000 whereby his

duty hours have been raised to full time, 8 hours. The

workman has adduced himself in support of his pleadings

and documentary evidence and was cross-examined by

the authorized representative of the management.

The workman was cross-examined on 08.08.2011 and

the management was extended opportunity to adduce its

oral evidence; but the management did not avail the same

in spite of ample time has been provided. Ultimately, the

opportunity of management evidence was closed vide order

dated 23.08.2013 and date was fixed for arguments. The

management did not bother to recall the order dated

08.08.2011; however it argued their case.

15. The workman union has well proved its case by

submitting the affidavit; wherein he has stated that he had

been engaged with the opposite parties without any

appointment order and was made payment through ACG-

17 form. It is also the case of the workman that he worked

continuously since 01.07.2000 till 01.06.2005 when his

services have been terminated by the management of BSNL

without any reason or rhyme in violation to the provisions

contained in 25 F as he worked for more than 240 days in

each calendar year.

16. Though the management of the BSNL has disputed

the claim of the workman by filing a written statement but

has failed to substantiate its pleadings by the way of

evidence i.e. by filing any affidavit or by producing its

witness for examination/cross-examination. Moreover, it

utterly failed to file any documentary evidence in support

of its contentions and to cross-examine the workman's

witness. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble

Apex Court in (2006) 3 SCC 276 State of U.P. vs. Sheo

Shanker Lal Srivastava & others; the statement of the

witness, having not been controverted would be deemed

to be admitted, there is no reason to disbelief the statement

of the workman.

17. In view of the discussions made above, I am of

considered opinion that the workman, Shailendra Singh

was engaged on daily wages by the management of BSNL

and was later converted into full timer and he worked

continuously for more than 240 days in a year preceding

the date of his alleged termination on 01.06.2005, without

any notice or noice pay in lieu thereof, in violation to the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Further, from perusal

of the records it is evident that the workman earlier moved

a compliant regarding regularization of his services, which

was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order

dated 15.11.2006,which was registered as I.D. case No. 33/

2006; whereas the workman had been terminated w.e.f.

01.06.2005, which goes to prove the contravention of the

workman that his services have been terminated in

contravention to the provisions contained in Section 33 A

of the Act.

18. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. vs.

Mahendra Pal Singh & another 2012 (2) ALJ 325 while

scrutinizing the validity of the award of the Labour Court

found that the findings of the Labour Court were not

perverse; wherein the Labour Court drawn out a finding

that the workman had continuously worked for more than

240 days in claendar months prior to termination of his

services; and the termination of services was without any

notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation;

and accordingly, Hon'ble High Court held that the relief of

reinstatement with 60% of back wages, awarded by the

Labour Court was justified. Hon'ble High Court in para 47-

50 of its judgment, has referred decision of Hon'ble Apex

Court in Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana

State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana)

(2010) 3 SCC 637; (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 787 as under:

‘‘47. .................the appellant worked as a daily wager

under the respondent from 1.6.1988. His services were

terminated in December, 1993. He served a notice of

demand dated 30.12.1997 on the respondent

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4261

contended that his services were terminatede orally

without complying with the mandatory provisions

of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that he may

be reinstated in service with full back wages from the

date of illegal termination and he may be regularized

accordingly to the Government policy. The

respondent did not respond to the demand made by

the appellant and by and order dated 23.7.1999, the

State Government referred the dispute under Section

10 of the Act to the Labour Court. Thereupon the

Labour Court passed the award dated 18.7.2006

holding that the appellant had admittedly completed

267 days from 1.6.1988 to 30th April, 1989 and his

services were terminated without any notice or notice

pay and without payment of retrenchment

compensation and the termination was, therefore, in

violation of Section 25-F of the Act and the appellant

was entitled to be reinstated in his previous post

with continuity of service and 50% back wages from

the date of demand notice i.e. 30.12.1997.

48. The respondent challenged the award of the Labour

Court before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in writ

petition and by order dated 9.12.2008, High Court allowed

the said writ petition and set aside the award dated 18.7.2006

of the Labour Court and directed the respondent instead

to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant.

Aggrieved by order dated 9.12.2008 of the High Court, the

appellant filed appeal before the Apex Court. By placing

reliance upon earlier decision rendered by the Apex Court

in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra), I allowed the appeal

and set aside the impugned order dated 9.12.2008 passed

by the High Court and directed that the appellant will be

reinstated as a daily wager with 50% back wages forthwith.

49. While dealing with the question of discretionary

powers of the Labour Court, in para 17 of the decision,

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

‘‘17. Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the

Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute

relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman

and if the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction

in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct

reinstatement of a workman with 50% back wages

taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties

and the evidence on record, the High Court in

exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India will not interfere with the

same, except on well settled principles laid down by

this Court for a writ of certiorari against an order

passed by a court or a tribunal."

50. In the said case while drawing distinction between

the cases of this nature and State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi

(2006) 4 SCC 1 : (AIR 2006 SC 1806 SC 1806) in para 22 of

the said decision Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

22. The decision of this Court in State of Karnatak v.

Umadevi (3) cited by the counsel for the respondent relates

to regularization in public employment and has no relevance

to an award for reinstatement of a discharged workman

passed by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act

without any direction for regularization of his services."

19. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the

case, discussions made hereinabove and law cited above,

it is established that the workman, Ashok Kumar, who was

engagted as part time daily wager, which was later converted

into full time engagement by the management of BSNL;

and had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year

preceding the date of his termination; further that his

services have been illegally termination on w.e.f. 01.06.2005

by the management of the BSNL without following the

mandatory provisions of the Section 25 F & 33 A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, I am of the

considered opinion that the workman, Ashok Kumar is

entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service along

with 60% of back wages within 08 weeks of publication of

the award, failing which; the back wages shall carry simple

interest @ 8% per annum.

20. The reference is answered accordingly.

LUCKNOW

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

13th October, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2070-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafnjk xkaèh jk"Vªh;

eqDr fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 104@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015

S.O. 2070.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 104/2014) of the

Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Indira Gandhi National Open University,

Chennai and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 20/10/2015.

[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

4262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 9th October, 2015

Present:

K. P. Prasanna Kumari, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 104/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause 2(A)(2)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as

amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010). between the

Management of Indira Gandhi National Open University

and Another and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri V. Thennarasu

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Registrar

: 2nd Party/1st

Indira Gandhi National

Respondent

Open University

Maidan Garhi

New Delhi-110068

2. The Regional Director

: 2nd Party/2nd

Indira Gandhi National

Respondent

Open University

Regional Centre, G.R. Complex

3rd Floor, 407-408, Anna Salai

Nandanam

Chennai-600035

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitiner

: M/s Balan Haridas,

Advocates

For the 1st and 2nd Party/

: M/s

Genicon

Respondents

Associates,

Advocates

AWARD

This is an Industrial Dispute taken for adjudication on

the file under sub-section 2A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).

1. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are as below:

The petitioner, a Graduate, was engaged to do clerical

work in the post of Junior Asistant-cum-typist in the Second

Respondent Centre from 1996 onwards. He worked in

Chennai Regional Centre till November 2007 and was

deputed to Madurai regional Centre in December 2007. After

one year at Madurai he was deputed to Vijayawada Regional

Centre. After three years at Vijayawada the petitioner was

brought back to the Regional Centre at Chennai, in May

2011. The petitioner had been working continuously without

room for any complaint. The petitioner was paid wages on

daily wage basis. He was paid only for the actual working

days and no weekly off wages was paid. While so, the

petitioner was orally terminated on 28.06.2013. He was paid

@ Rs. 467/- per day at the time and it was paid on monthly

basis. The petitioner had worked continuously and is

entitled to be made permanent. He had worked for more

than 240 days continuously within a period of 12 calendar

months. Termination of the petitioner without notice, notice

pay and retrenchment compensation is in violation of

Section-25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Many of the

juniors of the petitioner are still working in the Respondent

Institution. So, termination of the petitioner is in violation

of Section-25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act also. The

petitioner had given representation to the Second

Respondent requesting to reinstate him. However, the

petitioner did not get any reply to the representation. The

petitioner has raised Industrial Dispute before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai consequently. But

attempt for reconciliation failed. The petitioner is entitled

to be reinstated in service with full backwages, continuity

of service and other attendant benefits.

2. The Respondents have filed a common counter

statement contending as below:

The claim of the petitioner that he was engaged to do

Clerical Work in the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist

from the year 1996 onwards in the Second Respondent

Institution is false and misleading. The Respondent

Institution has a network of 40 Regional Centres which are

independent of each other. Each centre is confined to its

own jurisdiction for implementing all its activities. One

Regional Centre cannot impose anything on other Regional

Centres. There is no vacancy for the post of Junior

Assistant-cum-typist at Regional Centre, Chennai. Some

of the activities like admission, examinations, etc. are

seasonal in nature and there would be scope to engage

services of some people on daily wages to complete the

task on time. The Regional Centres are permitted to engage

people on daily wages during admission period,

examinations, etc. The Respondent University has not

issued any appointment letter or extension letter to the

petitioner. The University can transfer only its permanent

employees from one Regional Centre to the other. Since

the petitioner is only a seasonal worker/daily wager and is

not a permanent employee, the question of deputing him to

another Regional Centre does not arise. Other centres might

have offered to engage the services of the petitioner on

daily wages. The petitioner has worked less than 240 days

within a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of

his termination. As per the records, he has worked only 226

days during the period. So notice under Section-25(F) of the

ID Act is not required. The Second Respondent has stopped

engaging daily wagers as it does not require additional

assistance. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4263

3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying all

allegations in the counter statement and reiterating his case

in the Claim Statement.

4. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W50. The

Respondents did not adduce any evidence either oral or

documentary.

5. The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the termination of the petitioner from the

service of the Second Respondent is illegal and

unjustified?

(ii)

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of

reinstatement as claimed?

The Points

6. The petitioner who had been working with the Second

Respondent in the post of Junior Assistant-cum-typist on

daily wages is said to have been illegally terminated from

service on 28.06.2013. He has claimed the relief of

reinstatement with backwages and other benefits. The

Respondents have contended that the petitioner was only

a daily wager, that he has not completed 240 days of work

days in the Second Respondent establishment in the 12

calendar months preceding the date of termination and

therefore he is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement. It

is further contended by the Respondents that at present

there is no necessity for daily wagers in the establishment

since seasonal work in the University has come down and

for this reason also the petitioner could not be reinstated

in service.

7. The petitioner has filed affidavit asserting his case in

the Claim Statement. As seen from the Claim Statement and

Affidavit the petitioner had started working with the First

Respondent establishment in the year 1996 itself. Initially

he was engaged by the Second Respondent, the Regional

Centre of the First Respondent at Chennai. Then he is said

to have been shifted to the centre at Madurai and then to

Vijayawada where he worked for about 3 years. He was

then brought back to Chennai in May 2011 and he is said

to have worked continuously at Chennai Centre until

28.06.2013 on which date he was terminated from service.

8. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the

petitioner had worked with the second Respondent until

28.06.2013. However, according to the Respondents each

Regional Centre would be engaging persons independently.

It was not a question of the petitioner being deputed from

one centre to the other.

9. The documents produced by the petitioner would

show that he had been working with the First Respondent

University from 1996 itself. Ext.W1 is an order for payment

of arrears to the daily wage staff including the petitioner.

This order pertains to the period from 01.07.1996 to

31.03.1998. Ext.W6 is the acquittance regarding daily wage

payment to the petitioner and another in May 2003. Ext.

W7 is the copy of Attendance Register of Daily Wage Staff

for May 2003 in which the name of the petitioner also

appears. Ext.W8 shows that the petitioner also was hired

for clerical work during April 2004. Other documents would

also show that the petitioner was working with the

Respondents all along.

10. Exts.W15 and Exts.W16 are two certificates given

by the Regional Directors of Chennai and Madurai Centres

respectively to the petitioner. Ext.W15 states that the

petitioner has been working as Daily Wager since 1996.

Ext.W16 states that the petitioner has worked at Madurai

Centre from 10.12.2007 to 08.08.2008. Ext.W17 is the

representation by the petitioner to the Regional Director at

Vijayawada to regularize him as Attendant in the Centre at

Vijayawada. This was rejected, as seen from Ext.W18. The

petitioner seems to have continued as daily wager at

Vijayawada and subsequently at Chennai Centre again.

11. The petitioner has claimed that he has worked for

more than 240 days continuously within a period of

12 calendar months and therefore his termination without

notice, notice pay or compensation is in violation of Section-

25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act. Though the documents

produced by the petitioner would show that he was working

at one or other Centres of the First Respondent

continuously, these documents would not show that he

had worked for more than 240 days continuously in any 12

calendar months as a daily wager. The case that is put forth

by the Respondents is that the petitioner had worked only

for 226 days in the 12 calendar months preceding his date

of termination and thus he having failed to complete 240

days of working days in the establishment, there is no

violation of Section-25(F) of the ID Act in terminating him.

As already stated, documents produced by the petitioner

will show that he had been working for the First Respondent

at its various centres including the Second Respondent

from 1996 onwards. However, documents would not

disclose that he was in continuous service for more than

240 days as stated under Section-25(B)(2)(ii) of the ID Act

in which case alone he will be entitled to notice, notice pay,

compensation, etc. The counsel for the petitioner has

argued that the petitioner has placed whatever evidence

available before this Court regarding his continuous service

and thus he has discharged his initial burden of proving

that he was in continuous service. According to the counsel,

the peitioner having discharged his burden it has shifted

on the Respondents to prove that the petitioner actually

did not work for 240 days within 12 calendar months

preceding the termination. In this respect the counsel has

referred to two decisions of the Apex Court. In the decision

KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. VS. SHAMIM

MIRZA reported in 2009 1 SCC (L&S) 70 the Apex Court

has held that it is trite that the burden to prove that a

claimant was in the employment of the particular

4264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

management primarily lies on the person who claims to be

so, but the degree of proof so required varies from case to

case. It is neither feasible nor advisable to lay down an

abstract rule to determine the employer-employee

relationship but it is essentially a question of fact to be

determined having regard to the cumulative of the entire

material placed before the adjudicatory forum by the

claimant and the management, it was further held. In the

decision in Director, Fisheries Terminal Department Vs.

Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda reported in 2010 1 SSC 47

the Apex Court has held that the workman having come

forward and deposed that he has worked for 240 days the

burden has shifted to the employer to prove that he did not

complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to

constitute continuous service. However, the argument

advanced by the counsel for the petitioner based on the

above decisions is of no consequence in view of the

admission made by the petitioner during his cross-

examination regarding the number of days worked by him.

It is the specific case of the Respondent in the Counter

Statement that the petitioner worked only for 226 days in

12 calendar months preceding 28.06.2013, the date on which

the petitioner was terminated. Except for making such a

statement in the counter statement the Respondents did

not produce any evidence to prove this. They did not

examine anybody or produce any documents to prove this

aspect. But the version given by the petitioner during his

cross-examination has made it unnecessary for the

Respondent to produce any document or adduce or any

oral evidence in this respect. The petitioner has admitted

during his cross-examination that he has received

Rs. 99,200/- for the last 226 days he had worked before his

termination. He further admitted that this 226 days'

calculation is from July 2012 to June 2013. Thus there is

unreserved admission on the part of the petitioner that he

had worked only 226 days in the 12 calendar months

preceding the date of the termination.

12. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that

weekend offs and holidays are also to be considered as

days worked and if these are also added to 226 days admitted

by the Respondents it would make out 240 days and

therefore in any case there is violation of Section-25(F) of

Industrial Disputes Act. The counsel for the Respondents

met this argument by referring to the American Express

case and other decisions that followed it in this respect. In

the case of workmen of American Express International

Banking Corporation Vs. the Management of American

Express International Banking Corporation reported in AIR

1986 SC 458 it is held referring to Section-25(B)(2)(a)(ii)

which is the relevant provision that the expression "actually

worked under the employer" in the section cannot mean

those days only when the workman worked with hammer,

sickle or pen but must necessarily comprehend all those

days during which he was in the employment of the

employer and for which he had been paid wages under

express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of

statute, orders, etc. In the decision in Lagwad Adhikari and

Others vs. Yasin Hamid Sayyad and Others reported in CDJ

2007 BHC 1697, referring to the American Express case it

was held that if a workman is paid on daily wages he does

not get the benefit of weekly holidays and paid holidays

for being taken into consideration for deciding the working

days and only when a workman is monthly rated such

days are counted for calculating 240 days for a continuous

period of 1 year within the meaning of Section-25(B) of the

Industrial Disputes Act. This was the dictum laid down in

the decision in Mukhyadhikari Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur

Vs.Vishal Vijay Amrutrao reported in CDJ 2015 BHC 1674 as

well. In the present case the petitioner has stated in the

Claim Statement itself that he was paid wages on daily

wage basis and was paid for the actual working days and

no weekly off wages was given. So the case advanced at

the stage of the argument that weekly off days should also

be added to the 226 days to make out 240 days would not

hold good. So the case of the petitioner that there is violation

of Section-25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act could not

be accepted.

13. However on the basis of the contention advanced

by the petitioner that his termination is in violation of

Section-25(G) of Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner is

entitled to relief. He has stated in the Claim Statement itself

that many of his juniors are still working in the Respondent

University. This contention is not seen denied in the

Counter Statement. The petitioner has specifically stated

in his Claim Statement that his juniors were retained. In

spite of this the Respondents have not adduced any

evidence to disprove this.

14. The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the

decision of the Apex Court in Surendranagar District

Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh reported in CDJ 2005

SC 820 to meet the case of the petitioner that he is entitled

to relief under Section-25(G) of the Act. In the above

decision the Apex Court has observed that in the absence

of regular employment of the workman the appellant was

not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees

engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof

by the workman regarding existence of the seniority list

and his so called seniority no relief could be given to him

for non-compliance of Section-25(G) of the Act. The counsel

seems to be arguing for the position that in the case of

daily wagers the employers are not excepted to maintain a

seniority list and in the absence of any proof regarding the

same the petitioner could not ask for relief under Section-

25(G) of the Act. However, as already stated, the

Respondent has not even questioned the contention of

the petitioner that his juniors were retained in the

establishment while he was sent out. No case is put forth

on behalf of the Respondent that juniors are not retained.

So also there in no case that in the absence of a seniority

list the petitioner could not raise such a contention at all.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4265

The absence of any plea in the Counter Statement and the

absence of any evidence, oral or documentary belie the

case of the Respondent. The petitioner has stated in

assertive terms that he was terminated while his juniors

were retained. Section-25(G) does not make any difference

whether the workman is permanent, temporary or daily

wager. He need not even complete 240 days of continuous

service to be eligible for relief under Section-25(G). The

petitioner, as could be seen from the documents, has been

engaged by the Respondent from 1996 onwards. He was

always engaged in one or other Regional Centres of the

University. Lastly, from May 2011 onwards he had been

working at the Chennai Regional Centre under the Second

Respondent. It is while working here he was terminated

from service retaining those who came after him. What is

intended by Section-25(G) is only that the last person who

was employed in the category should be sent out first

whatever is the class of the workman. The action of the

Respondents in terminating the petitioner was against this

mandatory provision. So the petitioner is entitled to be

reinstated in service.

15. On the basis of my above discussion, an award is

passed as follows:

The Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner

in service within a month of the publication of the award,

with 50% backwages by the same date. Default of payment

will entail interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the

award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

9th October, 2015)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW1,

Sri

Thennarasu

For the 2nd Party/Management :

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

06.05.1998

Order regarding payment of

revised wages.

Ext.W2

28.05.1998

Payment of arrears of daily wages.

Ext.W3

01.10.2001

Receipt of payment of wages.

Ext.W4

01.11.2001

Order of the Respondent for

payment of wages.

Ext.W5

03.06.2003

Office note regarding wages for the

month of May 2003.

Ext.W6

May 2003

Acquitance for the month of May

2003

Ext.W7

May 2003

Attendance for May 2003.

Ext.W8

06.04.2004

Office Order regarding wages for

the month of March 2004.

Ext.W9

March 2004 Acquittance for the month of

March 2004.

Ext.W10 March 2004 Attendance Sheet.

Ext.W11 31.10.2005

Office Order regarding wages for

the month of October 2005.

Ext.W12 October 2005Acquittance for October 2005.

Ext.W13 02.01.2006

Office Order regarding wages for

the month of December, 2006.

Ext.W14 Dec. 2005

Acquittance for December 2005.

Ext.W15 23.11.2007

Certificate issued by the Regional

Director of the Respondent.

Ext.W16 08.08.2008

Certificate issued by the Regional

Director.

Ext.W17 11.08.2008

Representation of the petitioner.

Ext.W18 03.09.2009

Letter of the Respondent returning

the application.

Ext.W19 28.04.2011

Letter from the 1st Respondent to

provide details of employees

engaged.

Ext.W20 02.05.2011

Letter of 2nd Respondent to the

1st

Respondent

regarding

employment details of the

petitioner.

Ext.W21 24.05.2011

Office Order allocating work.

Ext.W22 19.09.2011

Representation of the petitioner.

Ext.W23 02.12.2011

E-mail sent by student and being

attended by the petitioner.

Ext.W24 14.11.2011

Letter from 1st Respondent to 2nd

Respondent which was attended

to by the petitioner.

Ext.W25 26.12.2011

E-mail sent by student and being

attended by the petitioner.

Ext.W26 19.04.2012

Representation of the petitioner.

Ext.W27 04.05.2012

E-mail sent by student and being

attended by the petitioner.

Ext.W28 03.05.2012

E-mail sent by student and being

attended by the petitioner.

Ext.W29 04.05.2012

E-mail sent by student and being

attended by the petitioner.

Ext.W30 04.05.2012

E-mail sent by student and being

attended by the petitioner.

4266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ext.W31 06.06.2012

E-mail sent by student and being

attended by the petitioner.

Ext.W32 06.06.2012

E-mail sent by student and being

attended by the petitioner.

Ext.W33 04.07.2012

Consolidated payment statement

for study centre and program

study centre.

Ext.W34 05.07.2012

Consolidated payment statement

for study centre and program

study centre.

Ext.W35 13.07.2012

Duty Roster to the petitioner.

Ext.W36 31.07.2012

Bill for remuneration to staff for the

month of July 2012.

Ext.W37 31.07.2012

Bill for remuneration to staff for the

month of July 2012.

Ext.W38 03.09.2012

Bill for remuneration to staff for the

month of July 2012.

Ext.W39 12.10.2012

Work

allocation

the

Administration, Finance and

Accounts Section.

Ext.W40 15.10.2012

Consolidated payment statement

for study centre and program

study centre.

Ext.W41 28.05.2013

Consolidated payment statement

for study centre and program

study centre.

Ext.W42 17.06.2013

Consolidated payment statement

for study centre and program

study centre.

Ext.W43 14.03.1999

Office Order regarding Tenth

Convocation.

Ext.W44 —

Plan of Work-I.

Ext.W45 —

Plan of Work-II.

Ext.W46 12.03.2002

Office Order regarding 13th

Convocation.

Ext.W47 10.01.2004

Office Order of IGNOU, Regional

Centre, Chennai.

Ext.W48 08.12.2011

Work Order for the B.Ed-2012

Admission Counselling.

Ext.W49 06.11.2012

Indira Gandhi National Open

University Regional Centre,

Chennai.

Ext.W50 29.11.2012

Work Order for the B.Ed-2013

Admission Counselling.

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj 2015

dk-vk- 2071-—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 34@1995½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22072¼398½@1993&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2071.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/1995) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Ambara Colliery, WCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/10/2015.

[No. L-22072(398)/1993-IR (C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/34/95

Dy. General Secretary,

Coal Mine Engineering Workers Association,

Branch Kanhan Area, Karmveer Road,

Ambara Colliery,

Post Palachuri,

Junnardeo, Chhindwara

...Workman/Union

Versus

Manager,

Ambara Colliery.

Western Coalfields Limited,

Post Junnardeo,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27th day of August 2015

1. As per letter dated nil by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22072(398)/93-IR

(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Ambara

Colliery in dismissing Shri Surendra Singh S/o Adhar

Singh Ex Driver in 1982 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4267

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/3.

Case of 1st party workman is that workman Surendra Singh

S/o Azad Singh Driver was dismissed on charges of theft

of coal. Chargesheet was issued to workman. Enquiry was

conducted against workman on 7-1-81, report of incident

was submitted to the police of Post Ambara, PO Junnardeo

for offence under Section-379/34 & 474/81 was registered

against workman. On 13-10-82, workman was acquitted from

criminal case. Evenafter his acquittal, enquiry was

conducted against him is not proper. The findings of

Enquiry Officer that charges proved against workman is

not legal. From report of Enquiry Officer, it is clear that

workman was not present in the Enquiry Proceedings. The

material witnesses Token Clerk in 3rd shift of 6-1-81 was

not examined. Chakriman in Kasturba Incline present on 6-

11-1981 was not present. Watchman/gate keeper, weighing

clerk present on duty on 6-11-1981 were not examined.

Enquiry is not legal. Workman was not supplied Slip No. 69

loading dumper No. 2794 not supplied to him. the

chargesheet was issued to workman after more than 10

days of the incident of his suspension is not legal. Workman

prays for reinstatement with backwages.

3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/4

opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that on

6-1-8 night, workman was on duty at Tipper No. MTG 2794.

His slip supervisor Bhaiyalal instructed workman Shri

Surendra singh to carry coal from No. 11 Incline of Mohan

colliery. Instead of following the instructions of the

supervisory Officer, he disobeyed the same and went to

Kasturba Incline on his own. Workman submitted reply to

chargesheet dated 20-11-81. Shri R.K. Singh was appointed

as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was fixed time to time on 1-2-81,

5-2-81, 1-2-81 & 20-12-81. Workman was intimated by

management's representative. on 20-12-81, workman

requested adjournment was allowed. On 22-12-81, workman

appeared and requested that instead of Doodhram Pathak,

Ramesh Lakhera be permitted to appear in the enqiry as his

co-worker. Mangement examined 4 witnesses Shri R.K.

Yadav, Bhaiyalal Tiwari, Waman Rao and Shri Sukhram.

Witnesses of management were cross-examined by co-

worker. Enquiry was conducted. Enquiry Officer submitted

his report. Punishment of removal from service was imposed

on the basis of proved charges against workman. It is

reiterated that enquiry is properly conducted. Workman is

not entitled to any relief.

4. As per order dated 16-6-01, enquiry conducted against

workman is found proper and legal.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the charges alleged

In Affirmative

against workman is proved

from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

removal from service imposed

against workman is proper

and legal?

(iii) If not, what relief the

Workman is

workman is entitled to?"

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

6. Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

Point whether charges against workman are proved from

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs to be decided on

basis of evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. The documents

of enquiry are produced. Chargesheet Exhibit M-I pertains

to committing act of theft, fraud, dishonesty and disobeying

orders of the superiors. Management's witness Shri R.K.

Yadav in his evidence says on 7-11-81 around 8 AM, when

he reached to the garage supervisor, Bhaiyalal Tiwari told

him that in night shift of 6-1-81, coal of one trey was not

tallied. Rather his evidence is based on the information

given by Bhaiyalal Tiwari. On direction of Bhaiyalal Tiwari,

he along with Subhansh went to the way bridge and

palachauri siding for checking the record. When pole of

Slip No. 69 was done at Palachouri siding but he did not

find record of dunmping coal of slip no. 69. Witness

Bhaiyalal has given detailed evidence that directions given

to the workman and workman had transported coal in

dumper No. 2794 from mine. After information received from

labour, he had seen that coal was dumped at some distance

from road in the forest. Witness Shri R.K. Yadav in his

cross says oral instructions used to be given. He has also

narrated about time of his checking the record. Evidence of

both the witnesses on material point is not shattered.

Witness No. 3 Wamanlal, Witness No. 4 Sukhram have

corroborated evidence of Shri R.K. Yadav and Bhaiyalal

Tiwari on material points. The degree of proof in

departmental proceeding is not required as in criminal case

to prove the charges beyond boubt. In departmental

proceedings, probabilities is to be considered. The

evidence cannot be appreciated as Appellate Authority.

Therefore detailed discussion of evidence of management's

witness is not required. Evidence of all management's

witnesses is sufficient to establish that workman

disobeyed instructions of his supervisor Bhaiyalal Tiwari

and he had transported coal from other incline of different

place.

7. Learned counsel for management Shri A.K. Shashi

relies on ratio held in

Case of Emco Transformers Ltd versus S.P. Shouche

and another reported in 1997 LLR 649. His Lordship held

the findings of Labour Court as such that no reasonable

4268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

person reasonably instructed in legal principles could have

arrived at them and hence perverse and that as such this is

one such exceptional cases where interference with the

findings of fact is a must.

In present case, the evidence of all management's

witnesses examined before Enquiry Officer supports the

allegation of management. Ratio cannot be applied to

present case as facts are not comparable.

In case between Union of India versus B.K. Srivastava

reported in AIR-1998-SCC-300 relied by Shri A.K. Shashi

for management. their Lordship dealing with the matter

under Administrative Tribunals Act Section 4-power of

Tribunal, power of Tribunal of judicial review their Lordship

held Disciplinary Authority duly considered report of

Enquiry Officer and examined whole Enquiry Proceedings

being satisfied that charges are proved imposing penalty

of dismissal. The Appellate Authority by reasoned order

was satisfied that delinquent officer was guilty of charges

for which he imposed penalty of dismissal. There is no

abuse of powers by Disciplinary and Appellate Authority.

Tribunal setting aside enquiry report and dismissal order

was held wrongly exercises its jurisdiction.

The learned counsel for 1st party workman submitted

bunch of citations. Ratio held in case of Commissioner of

Police Delhi versus Jai Bhagwan reported in 2011 (6) SCC-

376. Their Lordship held suspicion cannot take place of

proof. The reinstatement by High Court without backwages

was upheld.

Ratio held in case of Suresh Chand versus Union of

India reported in 2012 (1) MPLJ-102. The ratio relates to

mere non-supply of Enquiry Officer's report will not render

enquiry illegal.

The ratio has no bearing to merit of the mater as enquiry

conducted against workman is found proper and legal. Said

order is not challenged. Ratio cannot be applied to case at

hand.

Ratio held in 2005 M.P.L.S.R. 61 (DB) pertains to when

enquiry said to be vitiated cannot be applied at this stage.

The evidence of MW-2 Bhaiyalal in enquiry is clear that

the coal was found at a distance from road in the forest

remained unshattered. The evidence of management's

witness in enquiry is clear that workman had not obeyed

directions of his superiors regarding transporting coal and

dumping at the place directed therefore charges against

workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

8. Point No. 2- The charges proved workman pertains to

committing fraudulent act, transporting coal from Kasturba

mines as per slip No. 69 was not done with the siding is of

serious nature. Charge of disobeying direction of superior

is proved against workman. Punishment of removal from

service of workman cannot be said disproportionate. In my

considered view, interference in the punishment is not

justified. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No. 2 in Affirmative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Ambara colliery

in dismissing Shri Surendra Singh S/o Adhar Singh

Ex Driver in 1982 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2072-—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 deZdkjkas 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 60@2006½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@101@1989&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2072.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2006) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Parbelia Colliery of M/s. ECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/10/2015

[No. L-22012/101/1989-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. 60 OF 2006

PARTIES:

The management of Parbelia Colliery of

M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Amiya Kumar Roy

REPRESENTATIVES

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das. Ld. Adv. (ECL)

For the union (Workman):

Sri U.S. Agarwal, Ld. Adv.

(Workman)

Industry: Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated: 07.10.2015

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4269

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/

101/1989-IR(C-II) dated 17.08.2006 has been pleased to refer

the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Parbelia

Colliery of M/s ECL in dismissing the services of Sri

Amiya Kumar Roy and also denying of re-

instatement is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?

Having received the Order No. L-22012/101/1989-IR

(C-II) dated 17.08.2006 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 60 of

2006 was registered on 18.09.2006 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 parties are absent.

On perusal of the case record I find that the workman

last appeared on 10.10.2012 and after that neither he nor

his advocate appeared before the tribunal. Registered

notice was issued on 29.09.2014 and after that two dates

were granted. It seems that the workman now has lost his

interest to proceed with the case further. The case is also a

old one i.e. of the year 2006. So I think it proper and just not

to keep this old reference pending while the workman is

not taking any step after 10.10.2012. As such the case is

closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' is 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] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2073-—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 deZdkjkas 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 101@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@282@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2073.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award(Ref. No. 101/2007) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL

as show in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 26/10/2015.

[No. L-22012/282/2007-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. 101 OF 2007

PARTIES :

The management of Bhanora

Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Sanjit Kumar Banerjee

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. (ECL)

For the union (Workman):

Sri Rakesh Kumar, President

(KMC)

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated: 01.10.2015

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/

282/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 10.12.2007 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL

by stopping one increment of Sri Sanjit Kumar

Banerjee? If not, to what relief the workman entitled?

Having received the Order No. L-22012/282/2007-IR

(CM-II) dated 10.12.2007 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 101 of

2007 was registered on 31.12.2007 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

4270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

Case called out Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of the Union

(Koyala Mazdoor Congress) representatives of the

workman is present but none present on behalf of the

management.

Sri Rakesh Kumar submits that the case may be closed

and a 'No Dispute' award may be passed in this case as the

workman has already retired from service and now not at

all interested to proceed with the case further. Since the

workman has already retired from service and not interested

to proceed with the case further the case is closed and

accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' is 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 fnYYkh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2074-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2074.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Indus. Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/14/2011) as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the SCCL and

their workmen, which was received by the by the Central

Government on 26/10/2015.

[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL.DIST. &

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.

Present:-

SRI G.V. KRISHNAIAH,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 14 of 2011

Wednesday, the 30th day of September, 2015

Between :

AKKAPAKA LINGAIAH, S/o. Pocham, Age 50 years,

Occ: Ex-Coal Filler, E.C. No. 0922147,

R/o. Gunjapadugu village,

Mandal Manthani, Dist. Karimnagar.

-- Petitioner

And

The Chief General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Ramagundam Area,

P.O. Godavarikhani, Dist. Karimnagar.

The Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,

P.O. Kothagudem, Dist. Khammam.--Respondents

This case coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri S. Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

respondents; and having been heard and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered

the following:-

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act

challenging the dismissal of the petitioner by the

respondents praying for his reinstatement into

service with continuity of service, all attendant

benefits and full back wages.

Petitioner was dismissed from service by the

respondents vide office order dt. 30-03-2003 with

the following charge.

CHARGE:—

"Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause".

Petitioner challenges his dismissal on the following

grounds:—

(a)

The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler by the

respondents company. The petitioner discharged

his duties to the fullest satisfaction of his superiors

till his dismissal from service on 31-03-2003 by the

2nd respondent.

(b)

The petitioner used to remain absent to his duties

in the year 2001 because of his ill-health and other

family members. The respondent issued charge

sheet and conducted an exparte enquiry behind

back of the petitioner.

(c)

The petitioner served the company for more than

19 years and he successfully discharged his duties

without any remarks.

(d)

The 1st respondent did not conduct fair and proper

enquiry and the petitioner was not given fair

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of

management and the respondents have adopted

unfair labour practice against the petitioner.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4271

(e)

Punishment of dismissal from service is extremely

harsh, highly excessive and shockingly

disproportionate. Hence, the petitioner prays to

allow the petition.

4. In response to this challenge, respondents filed

counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The

respondents company being mining industry is a Central

Government subject and the petitioner ought to have

approached the CGIT, Hyderabad. This petition is not

maintainable before this Court and is liable to be dismissed.

The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be

made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of

three years from the date of discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in sub-section (1). The petitioner was dismissed

from service in the year 2003. The petitioner kept quiet for

all these years and filed this petition after lapse of 8 years

which is barred by limitation U/Sec.2A(3) of Industrial

Disputes Amendment Act, 2010. The petitioner was

appointed in the respondents company as Badli Filler on

28-04-1980 and was promoted as Coal Filler on 04-01-1982.

The petitioner was irregular to his duties. According to

Section 52(2) of the Mines Act, 1952 an underground

employee is required to put in minimum musters of 190 and

surface employee is expected to put in minimum of 240

musters. The following attendance particulars of the

petitioner indicate the fact that the petitioner was not regular

to his duties and in no year he had put in 190 musters

during the period from 1998 to 2003.

Sl. No.

Year

No. of musters.

1998

151

1999

114

2000

123

2001

2002

2003(Feb)

During the period from January, 2001 to December, 2001,

the petitioner had put in only 98 musters. As the above act

amounted to misconduct under Standing Orders Clause

No. 25.25 of the company, the petitioner was charge

sheeted. After considering the documentary evidence and

other evidence on record, the enquiry officer submitted his

unbiased report holding that the petitioner is guilty of

misconduct under company standing orders.

5. Though the petitioner received enquiry notices and

show-cause notice, he failed to submit his explanation to

them. So the respondents conducted exparte enquiry. The

respondents company after considering the past record of

the petitioner and on findings that there were no

extenuating circumstances for taking a lenient view was

constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service. The

respondents company conducted the enquiry proceedings

duly in accordance with the principles of naturals justice

and law giving full opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore,

the respondents pray to dismiss the petition without

granting any relief to the petitioner.

6. During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex. W-4 and

Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-8 are marked.

7. Counsel for the petitioner filed Memo U/Sec. 11-A of

I.D., Act stating that he is not challenging the validity of

domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents and

prayed this Tribunal to decide the quantum of relief to

which the petitioner is entitled to.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on

record.

9. Respondents filed written arguments.

10. On a consideration of respective contentions of the

parties, the following points require to be determined:—

"Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction?"

"Whether the punishment of dismissal of the

petitioner is justified and proportionate?"

11. POINT No: 1. As per the Judgement of the Hon'ble

High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11 between U.

Chinnappa And Cotton Corporation of India, this Court

has got jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the

petitioner. Hence, the point is accordingly answered in

favour of the petitioner.

12. POINT No: 2.

Charge sheet is marked as Ex.M-1 and it is seen that the

petitioner did not give any explanation thereto. Enquiry

notices are marked as Ex.M-2 &M-3. Enquiry proceedings

and enquiry report are marked as Ex. M-4 and M-5. Show-

cause notice and acknowledgment of the petitioner thereto

are marked as Ex. M-6 & M-7. Order of dismissal dt.

30-3-2003 is marked as Ex. M-8.

13. Admittedly the petitioner having been appointed as

Badli Filler on 28-4-1980, worked for more than 20 years as

an underground Coal Filler. The percentage of attendance

of petitioner steadily decreased from 1998 onwards.

Petitioner was born in the year 1955 and prior to the date of

this award, he attained the age of superannuation.

Unfortunately, petitioner did not submit any explanation

to the charge sheet and he did not participate in the enquiry.

Hence it cannot be said that initiation of the disciplinary

proceedings by the respondents was uncalled for. However,

taking into consideration the service of the petitioner for

20 years, proportionality of punishment has to be

considered, particularly when the Industrial Disputes Act

is a social welfare legislation.

14. It cannot be said that every workman would maintain

perfect health and put in the minimum musters. It would be

unfair to presume that a coal filler (petitioner) who had

4272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

worked for more than 20 years would suddenly resort to

unauthorized absenteeism without any reason. Obviously

the petitioner did not know the consequences of the charge

sheet issued by the respondent, he neither gave an

explanation nor did he participate in the enquiry. Apparently

he did not know the consequences of not attending to

work regularly and not participating in the domestic enquiry.

The management also did not consider the various options,

before imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from

service on the petitioner. Absenteeism may have caused

inconvenience to the production of respondents company,

but it by no means a sort of misconduct which is harmful to

the interest of the company. In a decision reported in 1982

LAB.IC.1031 BETWEEN: R.M., PARMAR VRS.,

GUJARATH ELECTRICITY BOARD, it was held that the

length of service based on good record and the socio

economic condition of the delinquent workman are

considerations which should weigh with the Tribunal while

exercising discretion.

15. It is true that there is delay in approaching this court

by the petitioner. A worker is entitled to legal aid as per the

provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Even

though this Industrial Tribunal has been functioning in

this place since 1988, there is no awareness for legal aid for

industrial workers. As the petitioner put up unblemished

service of more than 20 years, this Tribunal is constrained

to set aside the dismissal order so that his unblemished

service is counted in a manner beneficial to the worker.

Accordingly, the dismissal order dt. 30-3-2003 under

Ex.M-8 is set aside. The petitioner is deemed to have

voluntarily retired from service w.e.f., the date of his last

attendence in 2003. The difference of service benefits, if

any shall be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner is not

entitled to any back wages and dependent employment.

16. In the result, the order of dismissal dt. 30-03-2003

marked as Ex. M-8 is set aside. The petitioner is deemed to

have voluntarily retired from service with effect from the

date of his last attendance in 2003 and the respondents are

directed to pay difference of service benefits if any to the

petitioner within (30) days from the date of publication of

this award. However, petitioner is not entitled to any back

wages and dependent employment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 30th day of September, 2015.

SRI G.V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman:—

For Management:—

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

19-07-2006

Demand letter

Ex.W-2

Dt.

30-03-2003

Dismissal order. X.copy

Ex.W-3

Dt.

30-03-2003

Office Memo. X.copy

Ex.W-4

Dt.

-02-2002

Pay sheet slip. X.copy

For Management:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

14-03-2002

Charge sheet

Ex.M-2

Dt.

17-07-2002

Enquiry notice

Ex.M-3

Dt.

27-09-2002

Enquiry notice

Ex.M-4

Dt.

04-10-2002

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-5

Dt.

17-10-2002

Enquiry report

Ex.M-6

Dt.

13-11-2002

Show cause notice

Ex.M-7

Dt.

02-12-2002

Acknowledgement to

show cause notice

Ex.M-8

Dt.

30-03-2003

Office order (dismissal

order).

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2075-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-

ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vqucaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th october, 2015

S.O. 2075.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Indus. Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/24/2013) as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employees in relation to the management of SCCL and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 26.10.2015.

[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4273

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present :

SRI G.V. KRISHNAIAH,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 30 day of September, 2015

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 24 OF 2013

Between :

Gaddala Mallesh S/O Gaddala Rajam aged about 45 years,

Occ: Coal filler R/o Thilaknagar H.No. 14-4-427,

Sick Hospital E. Seva, Vittalnagar, Godavarikhani,

District Karimnagar

...Petitioner

And

General Manager,

SC Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri, Area Mandamarri

Chairman Managing Director

SC Company Ltd., Hyderabad,

Singareni Bhavan Lakdikapool,

Hyderabad,

...Respondents/Employer

This case coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri S. Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

Respondents; and having been heard and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered

the following:-

AWARD

1. This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act

challenging the dismissal of the petitioner by the

respondents praying for his reinstatement into service with

continuity of service and full back wages.

2. Petitioner who was appointed as Badili Filler in the

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., on 19-12-1990 was

removed from service on 3-9-1999 on the ground of

unauthorized absence. Petitioner is a qualified Mining

Diploma holder. It is stated that due to ill health petitioner

was absent to his duties. Even though petitioner submitted

his explanation to the charge sheet it was not considered

and he was terminated from service. Petitioner sent mercy

appeal to high power committee as there were negotiations

in the year 2000. Petitioner's case was reviewed by high

power committee and a letter addressed by a Colliery

Manager to the petitioner was received by him on

1-11-2000. Petitioner attended interview on 16-11-2000.

Subsequently no intimation was given to the petitioner

about the out come of the interview. Later petitioner came

to know about the dismissal of mercy appeal. There was

another settlement dated 22-4-2011 between representing

union and Management to review cases of absenteeism

from 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2010. Respondent did not properly

consider the case of the petitioner as per the settlement.

Hence the petitioner may be reinstated into service with

continuity and other attendant benefits with full back wages.

3. R1 filed counter adopted by R2. The following

objection are taken in the counter of R1.

(1) Petitioner approached the Court after a lapse of 14

years. He was appointed into the service of the company

as Badili filler on 27-12-1990. He attended for 88 days in

1995. 101 days in 1996, 80 days in 1997, 62 days in 1998 and

15 days in 1999. As the petitioner did not attend minimum

musters charge sheet was issued to him on 15-11-1998 for

"habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause".

(2) Respondent company is not concerned with the

educational qualification of petitioner as he was appointed

as Badili filler on compassionate grounds. Petitioner

participated in the enquiry proceedings which took place

on 8-2-1999 but he did not choose to cross-examine the

management witness. Enquiry Officer gave report that

peritioner is guilty of mis conduct.

Case of the petitioner was reviewed by high power

committee on 16-11-2000 but he was not considered for

reappointment. The criteria for reappointment is as follows:-

(a)

Age of the ex-employee shall not be more than 55

as on the date of of M.O.S. dated 21-2-2000.

(b)

The ex-employee shall put in 190/240 Musters

(Underground/Surface) in two calendar years or

150/200 Musters (Underground/Surface) in four

calendar years during the period of 5 years

preceding the year of dismissal and the year of

dismissal will be treated as qualified for selection.

As the petitioner was dismissed with effect from

3-8-1999 this case does not fall under the Memorandum of

settlement dated 9-8-2011 and High Power Committeee did

not consider the petitioner for reappointment after taking

into consideration the period of absenteeism.

Respondent's company employs more than 62000

persons and if employees do not attend regularly the work

of the company will be effected.

Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

4. During course of enquiry Exs. W-1 to W-3 are marked

on behalf of workmen and Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-8 are marked on

behalf of the Management.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Now the points for considerations are:

(1)

Whether there is satisfactory explanation for the

poor attendance of the petitioner during the year

1997?

(2)

Whether the delay on the part of the petitioner in

approaching the Tribunal is a ground to dismiss

the petition?

4274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(3)

Whether the petitioner can be reinstated?

7. POINT No.1:

Prior to the enquiry, petitioner gave explanation under

Ex.M-2 that due to illness he took treatment in the company

hospital from January, 1997 and therefore he could not

attend regularly. He further stated that he had heart problem

to the petitioner. Even according to his version he is an

educated person being a person trained in mining

operations. During the enquiry or in these proceedings the

petitioner has failed to produce any tangible evidence to

show that he was sick from January, 1997 onwards. In his

reply dated 6-6-1999 to the proceedings of Chief General

Manager RGI, that the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of

the charges, petitioner stated that his absence from 1998

was due to illness. But the period of absenteeism is during

1997 as per Ex.M-1 charge sheet. Therefore, I am unable to

see any reason to accept the explanation of the petitioner

for his unauthorized absence from duty.

8. POINT No. 2:-

The petitioner was dismissed from service in the year

1999. His case was reviewed in the year 2000 and he was

not considered for reappointment. Petitioner is an educated

person and he kept quiet for 13 years. Further father of the

petitioner worked in the respondent company and the

petitioner is aware of the rights of workmen and petitioner

was appointed on compassionate appointment. Therefore,

there is no reasonable cause for the petitioner to approach

the Tribunal with long delay. This point is accordingly

answered against the petitioner.

9. Point No. 3:-

As per the finding on the foregoing points petitioner is

not entitled to any relief . Accordingly the petition is

dismissed.

10. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this

the 30th day of September, 2015.

SRI. G.V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined

For workman:-

For Management:-

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman:-

Ex. W-1

Dt.

28-07-1999

Dismissal Order

Ex. W-2

Dt.

10-07-2011

Demand Letter

Ex. W-3

Dt.

7-11-2000

Interview Letter issued to

petitioner to attend High

Power Committee Xerox

copy

For Management:-

Ex. M-1

Dt.

9/15-11-1998 Charge sheet, office copy

Ex. M-2

Dt.

19-11-1998

Reply to charge sheet.

Ex. M-3

Dt.

15-11-1998

Enquiry Proceedings

Ex. M-4

Dt.

15-11-1998

Enquiry report

Ex. M-5

Dt.

20-05-1999

Show cause notice

Ex. M-6

Dt.

04-06-1999

Acknowledgement to

Show cause notice.

Ex. M-7

Dt.

06-06-1999

Representation

Petitioner submitted to

the Explanation to the

Show cause notice

Ex. M-8

Dt.

28-7-1999

Dismissal Order

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2076-—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 41@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@312@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2076.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2004) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Kumardihi 'A' Bankola Area, M/s. E.C.L.,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/10/2015.

[No. L-22012/312/2003-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

ASANSOL

Reference No.: 41/ITC/2004

Management of Kumardihi 'A' Colliery under Bankola of

E.C.L.

V/s.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4275

Sri Jiten Soren

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 04th September, 2015 at CGIT-cum-LC, Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is

resolved in the Lok Adalat and the workman has joined in

service. Award is passed and signed accordingly.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2077-—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 lanHkZ la[;k 37@2006 dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@215@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 37/2006 of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol a 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

26/10/2015.

[No. L-22012/215/2005-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. 37 of 2006

Parties:

The Management of Prabelia Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri R.N. Mondal

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Adv.

(ECL)

For the union (Workman): Sri Ganesh Roy, Ld. Adv.

(Workman)

Industry:

Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated: 13.10.2015

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/

215/2005-IR (CM-II) dated 01.08.2006 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of ECL,

Parbelia Colliery in retiring Sri R.N. Mondal, Clerk

from service w.e.f. 01.07.2004 (i.e. w.e.f. the middle of

the year of retirement), ignoring the actual date of

birth viz. 01.10.1944 recorded in his Matriculation

Certificate, is justified, fair and legal? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?"

Having received the order No. L-22012/215/2005-IR

(CM-II) dated 01.08.2006 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 37 of

2006 was registered on 14.08.2006 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 concered.

Case called out, Sri P.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate

on behalf of the management is present. But union/

workman is absent.

On persual of the case record I find that Sri Ganesh Roy,

Learned Advocate for the workman last appeared before

the Tribunal on 26.02.2008. thereafter 36 dates have been

granted so far. Registered notices also issued on 03.01.2012,

06.06.2012, 28.07.2014 and 15.10.2014 but the union/

workman did not turn up though the case is running for

evidence of workman. It seems to me the workman is now

not at all interested to proceed with the case further. As

such the case is closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute

Award' is 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] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2078-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

4276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 53@1997 dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@360@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 53/1997 of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Damagoria Colliery of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/10/2015.

[No. L-22012/360/1996-IR (C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Offider

REFERENCE NO. 53 OF 1997

PARTIES:

The Management Of Damagoria

Colliery, B.C.C.L.

Vs.

Shri R.N. Sanyal & Seven others.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

(BCCL)

For the union (Workman): Shri Subhas Kr. Singh, Br. Secy.

(JMS)

Industry: Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated: 12.10.2015

AWARD

In exercise of powers coferred 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/

360/96-IR(C-II) dated 27/29.08.1997 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh for

payment of Overtime Allowance from 16.02.1987 to

15.05.1991 to Sri R.N. Sanyal and 7 other workmen

(List enclosed) is legal and justified? If so, to what

relief are the workmen entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/360/96-IR (C-II)

dated 27/29.08.1997 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 53 of 1997

was registered on 15.09.1997 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.

The workmen have stated in their written statement that

Sri R.N. Sanyal and seven other workmen have worked in

overtime from dated 16.2.87 to 15.5.91 as ordered by the

competent authority.

The details of the employees and working hours are

given below:—

Sl.

Name

Designation

Allowance

No.

(Dues of

O.T. hours

from

16.02.1987

15.05.1991)

Sri R.N. Sanyal

Foreman in Charge 153 Hrs.

Sri Lakha Singh

Foreman

735 Hrs.

Sri R.K. Tangari

Fitter

161 Hrs.

Sri A.K. Banerjee

Fitter

200 Hrs.

Sri Uday Prasad Singh

Fitter

166 Hrs.

Sri Jiten Turi

Fitter

523 Hrs.

Sri Yudhistir Saho

Fitter

102 Hrs.

Md. Siraj

Sr. Mech.

238 Hrs.

As per section 33 of Mines Act, 1952 Workmen

concerned are entitled to get wages @ twice of their

ordinary rate of wages. The workman has stated in their

written statement that they have raised an issued before

the Agent, Damagoria Colliery and the then Agent Sri S.N.

Tiwari has ordered to pay Allowances/Overtime

Allowances/Wages. But the order of Agent, Damagoria

Colliery, B.C.C.L. was not complied. The workman has

raised an issue before different level of management, but

due to adamant and discrimnatory attitude on the part of

management, overtime allowance is still unpaid. The

management of B.C.C.L. has violated the norms/acts/rules

of the companies regarding non payment of Overtimes

wages. The workman has prayed that management of

B.C.C.L. be directed to pay overtime allowance with interest

to all the workmen.

Management of B.C.C.L. has stated in their written

statement that concerned workmen are employees of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4277

Damagoria Colliery. The workmen concerned were engaged

on overtime in a prescribed ceiling from the year 1986

onwords for extreme emergency of work to attend major

breakdown of machines. As per guidelines of the company

the limit of overtime is only thirty hours per month and the

said limit cannot exceed under any circumstances. But the

limit of overtime hours are exceeded beyond prescribed

limit. The excess overtime hours could not be considered

as accumulation of wages under the established norms of

the company. The concerned workmen Sri R.N. Sanyal and

seven others were engaged for overtime works for exigency

of the mines, claim of overtime wages are only payable up

to the ceiling limit as prescribed by the competent authority

of the company. For the excess period of overtime hours

no overtime is payable as claimed by the Union in their

written statement. The management of B.C.C.L. has never

violated any norms/acts/rules by not paying the Overtime

Wages. The claim of the Union is hereby denied by the

management. The management has stated that tribunal may

be pleased to hold this reference as no dispute award.

The workmen have stated in their rejoinder written

statement that contention of management of B.C.C.L. is

illegal, unjustified and hence denied. As per sub-section 1

of section 33 of mines Act, 1952 the workmen are entitled to

get overtime allowance as wages.

Workman has filed list of workmen employed by the

B.C.C.L. for overtime work Management of B.C.C.L. has

filed a copy of letter of Director of Finance dated 25.01.1999.

Neither party has filed any oral evidence.

I have heard the argument of both sides and perused

the file.

Leanred cousel of B.C.C.L. has argued that workmen

are not entitled for overtime allowance beyond prescribed

ceiling limit, even if they have worked as per guidelines of

the B.C.C.L. company. Whereas the Union leader has

argued that workmen are entitled for overtime allowance

for the period work done.

It is admitted by the management that all concerned

workmen are employees of Damagoria Colliery, B.C.C.L. It

is also admitted by the management in para 4 & 5 of their

written statement that concerned workmen have worked in

overtime. Workman has filed the list of workmen who have

worked in overtime. All the eight workmen mentioned in

the written statement are described in the list. The list has

been issued by the concerned official of B.C.C.L.

Section 33 of Mines Act, 1952 provides as follows:—

"Extra wages for overtime—(1) Where in a mine

person works above ground for more than nine hours

in any day, or works below ground for more than

eight hours in any day or works for more than forty

eight hours in any week whether above ground or

below ground, he shall in respect of such overtime

work be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his

ordinary rate of wages, the period of overtime work

being calculated on daily basis or weekly basis,

whichever is more favourable to him."

After perusal of above section it is clear that if any

workman works for more than prescribed hours he is entitlted

to wages @ twice of his ordinary rate of wages. The period

of overtime worked will be calculated on a daily basis of

weekly basis which more favourable to workman.

The management has relied on a letter of Sri N.K. Bajaj,

Director of Finance dated 25.01.1999 which is as below:—

"Your attention is drawn towards CMD's letter No.

CMD: ES: F.20:98:957 dated 16th Nov. 1998 through

which overtime limit has been reduced to 12 hrs. per

month against 20 hrs. We hope necessary step has

been taken from your end to ensure that overtime

does not exceed the limit EDP Deptt. has been

advised to put a check in the system accordingly. In

case of under extremely urgent cases overtime limit

un-evitable to be maintained, sanction against

specific person is to be obtained from the concerned

Director and pay office to be advised accordingly,

failing which, it will be difficult to bill overtime beyond

the normal limit."

It is clear from perusal of above letter that letter has

been issued on 25.01.1999 with reference to previous letter

dated 16.01.1988. Workman has worked in overtime from

16.02.1987 to 15.05.1991 much prior to the issuance of letter

of the Director of Finance. The instruction of the Director

of Finance cannot have retrospective effect. Moreover the

departmental guideline/direction or instruction cannot

overwrite the Mines Act, 1952. The Mines Act, 1952 is the

Central Act which is binding all mines situated in India.

The provisions of Mines.

Acts are binding on the Coal Mines Companies. Since,

it is clear that eight workmen as referred in written statement

of workmen have worked in overtime. They are entitled to

get Overtime Allwance/Wages as per sub-section 1 (1) of

section 33 of mines Act, 1952. The demand of Janta Mazdoor

Sangh for Overtime Allowance from 16.02.1987 to 15.05.1991

to Sri R.N. Sanyal and seven others as mentioned in written

statement is legal and justified. All eight workmen are

entitled to get overtime allowance for the period as shown

against their names in the written statement.

The management of Damagoria Colliery of B.C.C. Ltd. is

directed to make payment to Sri R.N. Sanyal and Seven

others as per provisions of section 33 of Mines Act, 1952

for the period from 16.02.1987 to 15.05.1991 for overtime

worked by each workman separately described in their

written statement.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above

discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

4278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and

needfuly. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2079-—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

vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 82@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@42@2007µvkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2007) of the

Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between

the management of Bansra Colliery of M/s. ECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/10/2015.

[No. L-22012/42/2007-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. 82 OF 2007

Parties :

The management of Bansra Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Late Sri Gopali Sah

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

: Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. (ECL)

For the union (Workman) : Sri S. K. Pandey, Gen. Secy.

(CMC)

Industry

: Coal

State

: West Bengal

Dated : 05.10.2015

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-22012/42/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 28.09.2007 has been

pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bansra

Colliery in not providing the employment to the

dependant of Late Shri Gopali Sah is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief is the dependent of the

deceased workman entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/42/2007-IR(CM-

II) dated 28.09.2007 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 82 of

2007 was registered on 09.10.2007 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 S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of

the Union (CMC) representative of the workman is present

and Sri P. K. Das Learned Advocate on behalf of the

management is also present but not filed his authorization yet.

Sri S. K. Pandey submits that the dependants of the

workman are not traceable. So the case may be closed. He

has also written it on the order-sheet. Since the dependants

of the workman are not traceable and the union does not

want to proceed further the case is closed and accordingly

a 'No Dispute Award' is 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] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2080-—vkSn~;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 vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 62@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@357@2004µvkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4279

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2005) of the

Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial disputes between

the management of Ghusic Colliery of M/s. ECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/10/2015.

[No. L-22012/357/2004-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.62 OF 2005

Parties

The management of

Ghusic Colliery of M/s.

ECL

vs.

Sri Labin Bouri

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate.

ECL

For the union (Workman)

Sri S. K. Pandey, Gen. Secy.

CMC

Industry

Coal

State

West Bengal

Dated : 30.09.2015

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/

357/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 20.07.2005 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Ghusic

Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. ECL in dismissing

Sri Labin Bouri, Wagon Loader from service w.e.f.

31.03.1992 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled and from which date?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/357/2004-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. 62 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.

In brief, the delinquent workman Sri Labin Bouri has

stated in his written statement that he was in employment

of the company as a Wagon Loader of Ghusic Colliery

under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Due

to sickness he was absent from duty for the period of 3

(Three) months. He submitted sick certificate etc. before

the management but he was not allowed to join his duty

rather he was charge sheeted vide Charge Sheet No. ECL/

GC/C-6/37/23, dated 07.01.1992. Workman replied to the

charge sheet and appeared before the enquiry officer. It is

learnt that though he was not found guilty of charges, but

his name was deleted from the company's role w.e.f.

31.03.1992, without giving the workman, copy of the enquiry

proceedings, reports, etc. in spite of regular persuasion

from the workman as well as union. Even management failed

to supply copy of enquiry proceeding, charge sheet and

even dismissal letter. The name of the workman was deleted

without following any rules and regulations. The workman

is sitting idle without any job. His whole family is at the

stage of starvation. The dismissal of Sri Labin Bouri from

the services of the company is illegal and unjustified.

Workman has prayed that management of Ghusic Colliery

of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited be directed to reinstate

him in service with full back wages from the date of dismissal

till reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

Management of Ghusic Colliery of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited has denied the allegation of the workman

in his written statement. Management has stated in his

written statement that reference is misconceived. Sri Labin

Bouri was absent from duty unauthorizedly without any

prior permission or sanctioned leave. Therefore

management issued Charge Sheet on 07.01.1992 as per the

provision of Model Standing Order. Concerned ex-workman

submitted his reply to Charge Sheet. Reply was found to

be not satisfactory and as such demestic enquiry was held

into the said charge sheet by the Enquiry Officer. The ex-

workman duly participated in the Enquiry Proceeding. After

holding enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted his report,

holding the ex-workman to be guilty of the charges of

misconduct, charges of misconduct was established by

the Enquiry Officer. The ex-workman was dismissed from

his service w.e.f. 31.03.1992. The Order of Dismissal was

duly communicated to the ex-workman. The Order of

dismissal was in accordance with the gravity of misconduct

by the workman. It is false that ex-workman due to his

illness could not perform his duty or that he ever submitted

sick certificate before the management. It is false that the

workman was dismissed without following the rules and

regulations. The action of the management is totally

justified in dismissing the workman from his duty. The

workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

4280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Workman has filed following documentary evidence;

(1) Copy of the letter from union to ALC(C), (2) Application

of workman to the Agent dated 28.04.1993, (3) Application

of workman to General Manager, Sripur Area asking for

enquiry proceeding etc., (4) Copy of the letter of union

dated 18.01.1994, (5) Copy of the letter of Enquiry Officer

to the workman asking him to appear in the enquiry

proceeding. Sri Labin Bouri has filed affidavit in his oral

evidence. He was cross-examined by the management.

Management has not filed any documentary or oral

evidence.

I have heard the argument of Sri S.K. Pandey, General

Secretary of the union on behalf of the workman and

Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate on behalf of the

management.

Sri S.K. Pandey, union representative has argued that

the workman Sri Labin Bouri was absent only for three

months for which he was wrongly dismissed. He was

dismissed from service even without following procedure

of enquiry. He was never charge sheeted. He also argued

that the Tribunal has directed the management on 05.12.2006

to submit the enquiry report. But the management did not

care to submit enquiry report, enquiry proceeding, show

cause notice, etc. On other hand Sri P. K. Das, Learned

Advocate of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has argued

that workman Sri Labin Bouri was absent un-authorized for

3 (Three) months for which he was charge sheeted. Afer

getting reply from the workman, enquiry was conducted

against the workman for the said charges. After completion

of enquiry proceeding, management rightfully dismissed

Sri Labin Bouri from service.

I have heard argument of both the sides and perused

the file.

It is not disputed that the delinquent workman, Sri Labin

Bouri was Wagon Loader of Ghusic Colliery of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited. It is also not disputed that he was absent

from duty. As per workman he was absent for 3 (three)

months due to his sickness. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

has denied the allegation of the workman that he was absent

from duty due to his sickness. Delinquent workman

Sri Labin Bouri has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He

has stated in his affidavit that he was charge sheeted in the

year 1992 and subsequently dismissed from the service of

the company. He was not supplied any paper in connection

with the enquiry proceeding, dismissal, etc. In cross-

examination he stated that he was present at the enquriy

proceeding. He does not know that his Medical Papers are

not in the record. He informed the office of the company

about his absence.

In the copy of letter of delinquent workman addressed

to the Agent of Ghusic Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited dated 28.04.1993 he has requested to the Agent of

Ghusic Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, due to

his illness he was absent for 3 (Three) months. He submitted

sickness certificate during enquiry proceeding but he has

not been informed about the result of the enquiry.

Delinquent workman has written letter to General Manager

of Sripur Area and asked reason about his dismisal. The

union representative asked Ghusic Colliery of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited about non-supply of papers relation to

enquiry proceeding. The workman has filed copy of letter

of the Agent of Ghusic Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited dated 16.03.1992 regarding notice of enquiry.

Domestic enquiry in Industrial Law has acquired great

significance. Industrial adjudication attaches considerably

importance to such enquiry. In number of cases, the hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed that an enquiry is not an

empty formality, but an essential condition to the legality

of the disciplinary order. In other words before the

delinquent workmen can be dismissed for misconduct, the

employer shall hold a fair and regular enquiry into the

misconduct. Dismissal without holding a regular enquiry

would be an illegality. It is well settled that disciplinary

enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry. It should be

held according to principles of natural justice and Enquiry

Officer has a duty to act judicially because the charges of

misconduct, if proved, will result not only in deprivation of

livelihood of the workman, but also attach stigma to his

character.

In dealing with domestic enquiries held in industrial

matters, the fact that the large majority of cases employees

are likely to be illiterate and ignorant, should be borne in

mind. The Enquiry Officer has to take care in the facts and

circumstances of such case that the defence of the workman

is not prejudiced in any manner. The rules of natural justice

require that the workman proceeded against, should be

informed clearly of the charges leveled against him, witness

should be examined in his presence. The workman should

be given a fair opportunity to examine witness, in support

of his defence.

Unfair or wrongful discharge or dismisal of industrial

workmen as a measure of disciplinary action is one of the

major causes of industrial dispute though the employers

have always regarded the right of disciplinary action as a

concomitant to the efficient attainment of the objectives of

industrial activity. On the other hand, the workers and their

unions have tended to regard protection from arbitrary or

unjustified disciplinary action as one of the most important

functions of the trade union activity.

In all cases of detrirmental action taken against a worker,

for misconduct, the employer has to establish whether the

action was taken for "Just and sufficient reasons". An

industrial worker is always entitled to question the proprietary

of punitive or detrimental action taken against him.

Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in GR Venkateshwara

Reddy v/s Karnataka State Road Transport Corp. has laid

down the following requirements of reasonable procedure:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4281

(a)

The employee shall be informed of the exact

charges which he is called upon to meet;

(b)

he should be given an opportunity to explain any

material relied on by the management to prove the

charges.

(c)

the evidence of the management witness should

be recorded in the presence of the Delinquent

employee and he should be given an apportunity

to cross-examine such witnesses;

(d)

the delinquent employee shall either be furnished

with copies of the documents relied on by the

management or be permitted to have adequate

inspection of the documents relied on by the

management;

(e)

the delinquent employee should be given the

opportunity to produce relevant evidence-both

documentary and oral which include the right to

examine self and other witnesses; and to call for

relevant and material documents in the custody of

the employer;

(f)

whenever the inquiring authority is different from

disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee

shall be furnished with a copy of the inquiry report

and be permitted to make a presentation to the

disciplinary authority against the findings recorded

in the inquiry report.

Management has not filed copy of charge sheet, Enquiry

Proceeding, Enquiry Report, Show Cause Notice and

Dismissal Order. The tribunal has directed the management

of Ghusic Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited on

05.12.2006 to submit Enquiry Proceeding and fixed the date

31.01.2007. But management failed to submit copy of Charge

Sheet, Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report, Dismissal

Order, etc. so far. Adverse presumption under section

114(G), Indian Evidence Act can safely be drawn against

management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited that there

was no enquiry at all against the delinquent workman

otherwise enquiry proceeding, enquiry report, etc. ought

to have been filed on to the file of reference of Tribunal. On

perusal of the enquiry proceeding, enquiry report and other

related document, tribunal could arrive at conclusion that

the enquiry proceeding was conducted according to the

principal of natural justice. But in absence of the enquiry

proceeding, enquiry report and other document adverse

inference can only be drawn against the mangement, that

there was no enquiry at all against the delinquent workman,

by the management.

Without holding any domestic enquiry no workman can

be dismissed. From perusal of the reference file, it transpires

that there was no enquiry against the workman by the

management for alleged un-authorized absent from duty.

Though of course un-authorized absence from duty is

misconduct under model standing order for which the guilty

workman can be punished by the management. But

domestic enquiry against delinquent workman must

precede before passing order of punishment. Another

question which needs consideration is that even if for

imagination, if it is presumed that domestic enquiry against

delinquent workman was duly conducted, even then the

punishment of dismissal for alleged absence of 3 months is

harsh and quite disproportionate to the alleged guilt

committed by the delinquent workman.

When different categories of penalties can be imposed

in respect of the alleged fault, one of which is dismissal

from service, the disciplinary authority per force is required

to consult himself for selecting the most appropriate penalty

from out of range of penalties available, that can be imposed.

The disciplinary authority should have regard to the nature,

context and gravity of the default. If the lesser penalty can

be imposed without seriously jeopardizing the interest of

the management, the disciplinary authority should not

impose the maximum penalty of the dismissal from service.

The punishment must be commensurate with the nature

and gravity of the misconduct proved against him. Failure

to take these material into account before awarding, the

punishment will be fatal to the order of punishment.

In view of discussion above the punishment of dismissal

for absence of 3 months under compelling circumstances

is not just and proper rather it is too harsh a punishment

which is totally disproportionate to the alleged un-proved

misconduct specially without holding domestic enquiry

against the workman. Such punishment is in utter violation

of principal on natural justice.

In view of this matter, I think it just and proper to modify

and substitute the same be exercising the punishment under

section 11(A) Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Impugned order

of dismissal is set-a-side. If delinquent has not already

reached the age of superannuation the management is

directed to reinstate the workman with the continuity of

service. Delinquent workman be imposed a punishment of

stooping of increment with cumulative effect. It is further

directed that the workman concerned will get 25% of back

wages till date of reinstatement or till date of superannuation

as the case may be.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above

discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for informing and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2081-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

4282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

U;k;ky; uñ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&2012@43@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 43/2013) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 26/10/2015.

[No. L-20012/43/2013-IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10(1)(d)(2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 43 of 2013

Employer in relation to management of Sindih

workshop, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their Workman

Present:

Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Shri S. Kundu, in Person

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 21.8.2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/43/2013-IR(CM-I), dated,

23.09.2013 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 Sinidih

workshop of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Suranjan

Kundu from the service w.e.f. 01.04.2005 is fair and

justified? To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

04.10.2013. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed. The workman files their written statement on

10.10.2013. After long delay the management files their

written statement-cum-rejoinder on 04.04.2014. No

witnesses examined from both side. But document of both

side is marked as W-1 to W-10 and M-1 to M-9 as exhibit.

3. The workman's case is that a charge sheet was issued

to him on 8.02.2002 under clause 26.1.11 and 26.1.15 of the

certified standing orders of the company for the allegation

of theft of the company's property. The workman under

suspension, ultimately after enquiry workman is dismissed

from service w.e.f. 01.04.2005. He also says that the Dy.

Chief Engineer (Excavation), workshop in charge was not

having the proper disciplinary power to issue the charge

sheet/show cuse notice to the workman as he is not the

appointing authority. The mercy petition was filed by the

workman to resume his duties as the management has not

suffered any monetary loss. In fact there was no mis-

appropriation of any kind committed by the workman. That

the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary authority was

dis-proportionate in the eye of law.

4. The management's case is that the workman concerned

committed serious misconduct for that he was charge

sheeted by the management under clause 26.1.11 and 26.1.15

of the certified standing order of the company. Thereafter

the management dismissed him from the service of the

company for proved misconduct, after conducted domestic

enquiry in presence of concerned workman.

5. The workman has been dismissed from service after

proper enquiry on the ground of theft of machinery which

was recovered from his company quarters. A criminal case

was started, though the workman was convicted initially,

acquitted in the appeal.

6. The workman presently claimed that he has been

falsely implicated in the criminal case and has been

dismissed.

7. Perused the departmental enquiry report and records

and which has been held fair and proper and the workman

has not challenged the same in any court. Therefore it has

been held final.

8. In the Preliminary domestic enquiry the workman

himself accepted the misconduct and issued parts of the

machinery returned to officials from his quarter. During

the domestic enquiry the concerned workman also written

a mercy petition, in which he accept the misconduct, he

also submitted that he will never repeat the same. Marked

in Ext. M-5 Series.

9. From the enquiry and charges, it revealed that the

issued parts were recovered from the quarters of the

workman. Therefore the action of dismissal has been taken.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4283

10. One point that is left that if a person is acquitted

from the criminal case, can the allegation in the departmental

enquiry will be automatically terminated? The answer is

no. Because the standard proof in criminal case and the

departmental enquiry is different.

11. The management is at liberty to take any action taking

the gravity of charges. The present case is of theft and

misappropriation. The workman has not come forward to

prove his innocence in the enquiry.

12. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case,

I hold that the action of the management of Sinidih

workshop of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Suranjan Kundu

from the service w.e.f. 01.04.2005 is fair and justified. Hence

the workman is not entitled to get any relief what so ever.

This is my award

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2082-—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 01@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20013@2@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]

,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad (filed

under Sub-Section (2) of the Section 2A in the matter of

I.D. No. 01 of 2013) as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. CCL and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 26.10.2015.

[No. L- 20013/2/2015-IR (C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an application under Sub-Section (2)

of the Sec 2A of the Industrial Dispute, Act, 1947 and the

Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act. 2010 (24 of 2010)

I.D. CASE NO. 01 OF 2013

PARTIES :

Md. Jabbar, S/o Late Amanat,

R/o Subhash Nagar Argada. Qtr. No. BDS/70,

PO: Argada.P.S. Ramgarh, Dist: Ramgarh

...Applicant

Vs.

The Project Officer,

Sirka Group of Collieries, Central Coalfields Ltd.,

8, Sirka, PO: Argada. Dist: Ramgarh,

The Director (P)

M/s Central Coal Fields Ltd., Darbhanga

House, Ranchi-834001

...O.P. Party

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union : Mr. N.M. Kumar, Ld.

Advocate

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. D.K. Verma Ld.

Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st August, 2015

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Sirka

Group of Collieries of M/s CCL in dismissing Md.

Jabbar Dumper Operator from the services of the

Company from 11.02.2009 is fair and justified? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

On filing of the petition u/s 2-A of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947, (Amendment Act-2010), on 29.03.2013, it was

reported that there was no delay in filing it, as after the

dismissal of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.02.2009, he had filed his

appeal before the Appellate Authority who was pleased to

reject his appeal as per Order dt. 13.10.2011 consequent

upon the order dt. 28.06.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court,

Jharkhand at Ranchi in his WP (S) No.1983/200; and on the

failure of the conciliation proceedings before the ALC (C ),

Hazaribagh, a Certificate to that effect was issued on 31st

Jan, 2013 to file the case under the aforesaid Sec. of the

Amendment Act. So there was no delay in filing the I.D.

Case. Hence it was admitted on 30th April, 2013, directing

to issue Notices to the O.P. concerned for needful. Notices

were issued to the O.P.

Mr. N.M. Kumar, Ld. Advocate for the petitioner/

workman and Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the O.P./

Management appeared and contested the case.

2. The case of workman Md Jabbar as represented in his

application dt. 7.2.13 u/s 2 A of the Industrial Dispute

Act,1947 is that he had been rendering his service to the

Management satisfactory to it since his appointment on

21.08.1998.Though he had unblemished record of his

service, he was issued the chargssheet dt.10.12.1998 by

4284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the Project Officer of Sirka Group of Colliery on false and

fabricated allegations. He submitted his explanation to it,

denying the allegations levelled against him. In spite of

his reply satisfactory, the Project Officer, O.P. No. 1 initiated

the departmental enquiry in quite violation of the principles

of natural justice. After due verification of their joint

verification and record by the Committee, recommendation

of the Project/Area Management, and approval by the Area

G.M. He was given the employment in M/s Central Coalfields

Ltd. against the Voluntary Retirement of her mother-in-law

Madina Khatoon, Ex-Earth Cutter under the V.R.S.in the

year 1978 on account of his marriage having been held

with her only daughter Rokina Khatoon.

3. The Enquiry Officer after due enquiry submitted his

report, holding therein that the workman was not guilty of

the charges/misconducts under clause 17(i) (a) and (o) of

the Certified Standing Orders respectively. The workman

had not committed any misconduct: theft, fraud or

dishonesty with the employer's business and property, or

giving any false information, regarding his name, age,

father's name, qualification or previous service at the time

of getting the employment. The Enquiry Officer came to

the conclusion that the workman had solemnized the

second marriage after the death of his first wife. So the

misconduct in the charge sheet was not proved during the

enquiry as also held by the Enquiry Officer. Yet the

Disciplinary Authority had not accepted the findings of

the Enquiry Officer, came to different finding without

hearing the workman, and issued him 2nd Show Cause

Notice after lapse of one year and seven months. On filing

his show cause to it, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed

him as per the Order dt.11.02.2009.

4. Being aggrieved with the said order of the Disciplinary

Authority, the appeal preferred before the Appellate

Authority on 16.02.2009 under the Certified Standing

Orders finally resulted in dismissal of his appeal as per

order dt.13.10.2011 of the Appellate Authority. His appeal

was thus disposed of subsequent upon the order dt.

28.6.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in his WP (S)

No. 1983/2009 with I.A. No. 819/2011 with a direction to the

Appellate Authority to dispose of the his appeal within

three months. Then the industrial dispute raised by the

President of Sirka Branch and Executive Member of the

Central Committee of United Coal Workers Union in respect

of the dismissal of the workman before the ALC,

Hazaribagh. But its failure in its conciliation resulted in

granting him its Certificate dt. 30.01.2013 with an advice to

file a petition under Sec. 2 A of the I.D. Act,1947 before the

Tribunal.

Then the instant ID, filed before the Tribunal on 29.03.13

for an adjudication in the terms of its schedule. Since the

dismissal of the workman after 30 years of his service is

illegal and improper, malafide arbitrary and discriminatory,

so it is liable to be set aside; therefore, the workman is

entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

5. The workman petitioner in his rejoinder has specifically

denied all the allegations of the OP/Management as

incorrect, false, fabricated and baseless except the points

Nos., 7 to 10, 14. Further stated is that the name of Sabra

Khatoon as wife is written by the Management of Sirka

Colliery, CCL in the Service-sheet excerpt of the workman

issued by the Management on 24.03.1998 (Annexure 3)

which also declares the name of Rokina Khatoon as wife as

nominee in the Form 'F' of Gratuity as recorded while his

joining in the CCL on 21.08.1978, and thereafter his aforesaid

first wife Rokina Khatoon died on 03.09.1982 (Annexure-

2). The Management accepted the information of the Death

Certificate of Rokina Khatoon as evident from the Service

Sheet of the workman (Annexure-4). It is the accountability

of the OP/Management to maintain the Service Sheets of

the workman. Non production of Madina Khatoon's Service

sheet or its denial by the Project Officer of Sirka Colliery

before the Enquiry Officer during the domestic enquiry on

09.11.2009 merely on the ground of the old documents and

the date of appointment dt. 21.08.78 being too old to trace

out denotes not properly maintenance of their service

sheets. Accordingly any default/wrong entry, if any, in the

service sheet was the main responsibility of the

Management to maintain it. It is also alleged that the death

report along with death certificate was submitted by the

applicant workman to the Management on 30.01.1984. The

Management had written the name of his aforesaid 2nd

wife in the Service Sheet at Page No. 4 under S.No. 2. The

workman claims to have replied that he had solemnized his

marriage with Sabra Khatoon on 06.05.1983, after the death

of his wife Rokina Khatoon, (D/o Madina Khatoon) with

whom his marriage was solemnized on 11.4.1975. The

Enquiry Officer had accepted the documents as Annexure

DE 5 and DE 3 respectively. Further alleged by the petitioner

that both Madina Khatoon and her husband Saffaruddin

had their separate service sheets. Since her daughter Rokina

Khatoon married with the petitioner workman on 1.4.1975.

6. Her name was not got entered by Md. Saffruddin into

his service sheet only with a view to maintain rule of LLTC/

LTC, as her name was already written in her mother's

service-sheet. So Md. Sarfruddin's service sheet with

Madina Khatoon's name had no relevancy. Only to hide

the facts, Sri S.H.N. Singh was brought into notice, but no

service sheet of Madina Khatoon was produced before

the Enquiry Officer. The Project Officer constituted the

enquiry committee, but he did not abide with the findings/

conclusion of it just as he arbitrarily unaccepted the findings

of the Enquiry Officer.

7. Whereas the contra case of the O.P./Management is

that the present application filed by the petitioner workman

under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 is unmaintainable in

law or on facts, as he filed it on 07.02.2013 after three years

of his dismissal from the services of the Company as per

the Order dt. 11.2.2009 for his proved misconduct, so it is

time barred.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4285

Further alleged on behalf of the O.P./Management is

that the petitioner /workman was issued charge sheet dt.

10.12.1998 for the commission of his misconducts as under:

"(i) "That under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of

CCL, you obtained employment in Sirka Colliery as PR

Worker on 21-8-1978 against the voluntary retirement of

Smt. Madina Khatoon by declaring yourself to her be son-

in-law. You claimed to have married Rokina Khatoon, the

only daughter of Smt. Madina Khatoon in the year 1975

but in the nomination Form 'F' for gratuity, you have

mentioned the name of Smt. Sahara Khatoon as your wife

who is not the daughter of Smt. Madina Khatoon.

Subsequently you submitted an application to Labour

Welfare Officer, Sirka, on 8-5-88, stating that your first wife

Smt. Rokina Khatoon had expired and you had married

second wife Smt. Sahara Ithatoon, but in support of such

statement you did not submit any death certificate.

(ii) That in your service sheet maintained at Sirka Colliery,

the copies of your application for employment under the

VR Scheme and appointment letter are not available and

also there is no mention of appointment letter in the

specified column at page 2 of the our service sheet which

raises doubt about the genuineness of your employment

in CCL under the VR Scheme."

8. The aforesaid acts of the petitioner come under the

clause 17(i)(a) and 17(i)(o) of the Certified Standing Order;

theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with employer's

business or property and giving false information regarding

one's name, age, father's name, qualification or previous

service at the time of employment respectively. He also

submitted his reply to the charge sheet, but it was found

unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority

appointed Sri. R.N. Kumar, Dy. C.S.O./C.C.L., Ranchi as the

Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry in respect

of the charges. The domestic enquiry was conducted by

him in the presence of the petitioner in accordance with the

principle of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted

his report to the Disciplinary Authority, holding therein

charges unproved. The Disciplinary Authority, after going

through the Enquiry Report, had disagreed with his findings

for the specified reasons and issued the 2nd Show Cause

Notice to the petitioner accordingly. On the specified

reasons as under as per Enquiry Report, Md. Jabbar could

not produce any evidence or any materials in his defence

except raising frivolous and baseless allegation against

the Management. The Enquiry proceedings reveal the

matter of death of his 1st wife Rokina (Rokina) Ithatoon

remains shrouds in mystery as contrasted with the

statement of petitioner/workman Md. Ajabbar about the

death of his wife during delivery in 1982 at Sirka Colliery, as

well as her expiry on her way between Ranchi and Ramgarh

as contradictory. His application filed, before the Welfare

Officer, Sirka Project, endorsed on 8.5.1983 also, did not

mention the date of Robina (Rokina) Khatoon's death or

the date of his 2nd marriage with Sabra Khatoon. While

filing the application on the date, supporting documents:

such Death Certificate etc. were missing and could not be

brought on record of the proceedings. These manoeuvers

succinctly intended malafide on his part in the inquiry false

and misleading information to the Management time and

again.

9. It is further alleged by the Management that event of

his 2nd marriage with Sabra Khatton solemnized in 1983 is

considered to be true for the time being, then it ought not

to have been concealed from the knowledge of the

Management till 1988. The statement of the workman as a

defence witness ought not have been relied upon by the

Enquiry Officer, as it lacks veracity or truthfulness in it. As

the Nikhanama (DE-03) in support of marriage does not

speak of it with any daughter of Smt. Madina Khatoon.

Rather it declares Rokina Khatoon as the daughter of one

Md. Saffruddin The Service Linked Documents of Madina

and her husband Saffruddin undisclosed that he had not

any living daughter named Rakina Daughter. It contrarily

established that he had a single son named Nasim, that the

contention of the petitioner as the real of son-in-law of

Smt. Madina Khatoon conclusively unestablished. The

preponderance of probabilities indicate towards the guilt

of the petitioner in fraudulently getting employment in the

company through concealment of materials of facts and

his false claim as the son-in-law of Smt. Madina Khatoon.

Further it has been alleged on behalf of the OP/

Management that the Project Officer concerned in the 2nd

Show Cause Notice found the charges levelled against

petitioner/workman conclusively proved in view of the

evidence on the record and on the balance of probabilities,

so it warranted a major penalty. The petitioner had

sumbitted his explanation to the 2nd Show Cause. On

consideration of petitioner's explanation to it, the

Diciplinary finally came to the finding the aforesaid charges

conclusively proved against the petitioner on the basis of

the evidence on the record. In views of the gravity of the

charges, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of his

dismissal based on sufficient materials enough for

preponderance of probabilities.

10. Further the Appellate Authority, the Director (Pers.),

CCL, Ranchi, is alleged to have dismissed the appeal of the

petitioner workman on the grounds:

(i)

The Diciplinary Authority extracted cogent

materials from the records of the enquiry.

(ii)

Prior to the regular enquiry, proceeding holding a

preliminary enquiry by the Enquiry Officer himself

on 02.09.1999 at the affirmation or negation of the

charges by the delinquents concerned, giving them

fair opportunity, is well within the arena of the

principles of Natural Justice.

(iii)

The Management witness (MW1) in the first

sitting of the departmental enqiry on 21.10.2000 is

stated to have relied upon the VR Scheme

4286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

circulated in January 1978 under which the

petitioner secured his employment, declaring

himself as son-in law of Madina Khatoon.

(iv)

There was nothing on the record to show that

despite repeated requests of the petitioner, the

management could not submit it, then he submitted

the copy of his appointment letter (DE): however,

he could have harp on that for his defence.

In the Joint application by the petitioner and Smt.

Madina Khatoon for her V.R. and his appointment

in her place respectively under the V.R. Scheme in

vogue at the relevant time which was approved by

the GM (A) Sirka on 27.07.1978, following the

recommendation of the Colliery Manager, Sirka,

and consideration of the Sub Area Manager, Sirka

Group, the petitioner had never declared himself

as a dependent son-in-law of Smt. Madina

Khatoon, though Madina had declared himself to

be his monther-in-law; in the manner, it proves

that the petitioner was not her dependent son-in-

law as also in the face of the proof on the record

that Md. Safaruddin, husband of Madina Khatoon,

had no daughter named Rakina Khatoon with

whom he allegedly married. So the recommendation

and approval of the petitioner's case by the

Authorities concerned do not absolve him from

the charge of his fraudulently entry into the

employment of the Company as son-in-law of Smt.

Madina Khatoon.

(v).

No mentions as such serial no.

(vi)

As per the statement of the management witness

(MW1), it refers to the VR Scheme circulated in

January 1978 (ME-1). It rebuts the allegation of

the petitioner about the production of a totally

different circular on V.R. Scheme. There was

nothing on the record to deny or dispute the

validity of the said V.R. Scheme.

(vii)

On the demand of the petitioner for a copy of the

female V.R. Scheme, the Management submitted

the copy of VRS Scheme dt. 14.07.1978 as an

additional documents along with other documents

in the departmental enquiry held on 10.02.2014.

Further alleged that on the insistence of the

petitioner for a copy of female V.R.S. the

prosecution clearly stated the copy of the said

VRS Scheme not available with the Management,

though the Management was a contact with the

CIL Management. Then on the demand of

petitioner/defendant, a copy of the Minutes of

JBCC Meeting dt. 31.07.1971 was produced by the

persecution on 02.07.1971 for their defence in the

enquiry proceedings on 02.07.2005 while

submitting the 2nd Show-Cause reply, the

petitioner/defendant is alleged to have not

submitted a copy of the V.R.S. in support of his

case, though he had submitted his documents in

support of his documents in support of his case in

the enquiry on 30.07.2007.

(viiii)

So far the exoneration of the concerned Personnel/

Executive who had allegedly recommended the

case of Smt. Madina Khatoon for the employment

of the petitioner in lieu of her under VRS is

concerned, it is to bring on the record that Executive

Shri S.H.N. Singh, the then Personnel Officer was

proceeded under Major Penalty provision for

charges of falsely certifying the petitioner's case

as genuine which was not included in the case of

petitioner, so even in the matter, the case of the

petitioner is defferent from that of aforesaid Shri

S.H.N. Singh.

(ix).

Though the allegation of the petitioner about the

observations of formalities in his interview by a

duly

constituted

Committee

and

its

recommendation in his favour appears to be

unpleaded on behalf of the petitioner, yet the

recommendation of the Committee, following his

interview by it, does not ipso-facto does absolve

the petitioner from the charge of fraudulent entry

into the employment of the Company.

(x).

So far as the allegations of the petitioner under the

relevant paras 16 to 19 of his appeal about the

other VR Scheme in existent at the relevant time,

the failure of the Management to produce the

relevant VR Scheme at the relevant time and the

approval of the Competent Authority, i.e., G.M.,

Argada, for his case, following the recommendation

of the Area Consultative Committee, were merely

vague assumption, and the same were of no

assistance in his defence as contrasted with the

facts existent on the record that Md. Safruddin,

husband of Madina Khatoon, had no daughter

named Rakina (Rokina) Khatoon with whom the

petitioner had allegadly married. On the application

of the principle of preponderance of the

probabilities, the Appellate Authority appears to

have taken his opinion about the charges levelled

against the petitioner as established.

(xi)

Lastly alleged that the petitioner in his additional

appeal dt. 31.3.2009 had stated inter alia about

the dismissal order having been passed on

extraneous circumstances, the dismissed

punishment was harsh and unwarranted. In that

regard, the Appellate Authority appears to have

found that the disciplinary Authority in the 2nd

Show-Cause Notice relied upon the "Nikahnama"

of the petitioner and the Service Linked Documents.

of Md. Safruddin, and found that neither

"Nikahnama" of the petitioner nor the Service

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4287

documents of Safruddin spoke or disclose his

marriage with any doughter of Madina Khatoon

or the existence of any daughter named Rokina

Khatoon of Safruddin, as Md. Safruddin had only

one son Nasim, Accordingly, the Disciplinary

Authority is alleged to have held the petitioner

guilty of the misconducted of the aforesaid

misconduct for fraudulently getting the

employment as the son-in-law of Madina Khatoon

on the basis of preponderance of probablities. The

Appellate Authorities held the dismissal Order

based on bona fide grounds, expressing his opinion

the punishment of dismissal to the petitioner quite

proportionate to the nature of his conduct.

In the view of the above facts, the Appellate Authority

the Director (Presonnel) CCL, Ranchi appears to have

dismissed the appeal of petitioner as devoid of merits. The

O.P./ Management in their written statement has sought

has sought for permission to adduce afresh opportunity

for the proof of the charges, in case the enquiry is held

unfair and improper; under the circumstance, the petitioner

workman is not entitled to any relief.

11. The O.P./ Management in their simultaneous

rejoinder apears to have categorically denied all the

allegation of the petitioner/ workman as incorrect, Further

alleging his case totally false, and fabricated. It is also

stated on behalf of the Management that the Project Officer

after going through the enquiry proceedings and the

evidence on the record found the sufficient evidence

proving the misconducts of the petitioner workman as

started in change in charge sheet. Since the finding of the

Enquiry Oficer was not according to the evidence recorded

during the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority after giving

the petitoner full opportunity held him guilty of the charges.

The Disciplinary Authority has the full authority to accept

and disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The

petitioner workman had also given full opportunity in

accordance with principle of natural justice. The instant

petition being meritless is liable to be dismissed.

FINDINGS WITH THE REASONS

12. On perusal of the case record, it is evident that at the

preliminary point over the issue of fairness of domestic

enquiry, the Tribunal as per Order No. 13 dt 21.5.2014 held

the domestic enquiry fair, proper in accodance with

principle of natural justice on the basis of the petition

dt.21.5.2014 filed on behalf of the petitioner and moved by

his Ld. Counsel Mr. N.M. Kumar whereby the fairness of

the domestic enquiry was accepted. Accordingly, the

photocopies of their respective documents concerned of

the petitoner and of the Management (on the formal proof

waive) have been marked respectively for the proper

appreciation of the facts in issue as per the Schedule to the

instant petition under Sec. 2A of the I.D.Act.

Mr. N.M. Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner

workman Md. Jabbar has submitted that he was, in the

year 1975, legally married to Rokina Khatoon as per the

Nikahnama (Ext.W.1). She was the only daughter of Smt.

Madina Khatoon, the female employee of Sirka Colliery

under the C.C.L. Smt. Madina Khatoon had her only

dependent daughter, Rokina Khatoon, so she had given

her to her son-in-law workman Md. Jabbar under the Female

Voluntary retirement Scheme in the year 1978. Rokina

Khatoon died in the year 1982 as per her valid Death

Certificate Ext.- W.3). After the death of Rokina Khatoon,

the workman was married to Sabra Khatoon. The concerned

workman was appointed on 21.08.1978, since then he had

rendered his service for long 20 years without any complaint

from any corner. After twenty years of his service on

10.12.1998, the workman was served with a charge sheet

that he claimed to have married Rokina Khtoon, the only

daughter of Madina Khatoon in the year 1975, but he had

mentioned the name of Smt. Sabra Khatoon in the

Nomination Form-F on 18.05.1988—thus for his

misconducts: Md. Jabbar committed the fraud and

dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or

property an secondly giving false information regarding

name, age, father's name, qualification or previous service

at the time of employment under clause 17(i)(a) & 17(i)(o)

of the Certified Standing Orders respectively. But the

workman has not committed any of the aforesaid

misconducts as also held by Sri R.N. Kumar, Addl. CSO/

CCL as the Enquiry Officer after considering and holding

the enquiry into it as per his enquiry report dt. 27.12.2006.

But the Disciplinary Authority in a slipshod manner issued

Show Cause Notice to the workman on 28.07.2008,

disbelieving the Enquiry Officer unreasonably, and

accordingly he dismissed him with same vague observation:

"Certain vital evidence adduced by the Management

sited before the Enquiry Officer were not considered in

correct perspective and under reliance was placed upon

the evidences adduced from the defence side."

The impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority is

not a speaking one and it suffers from malafide biasness.

The Disciplinary Authority must record his reason for such

disagreement, and then record his own finding, but not

reasonably. In case of his dissatisfaction with the findings

of the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Kumar has relied upon the case

of Ramkrishan reported in 1995-71-FLR 929 wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the

absence of any ground or reason in the 2nd Show Cause

amounts to an empty formality which would cause great

prejudice to the delinquent and result in injustice to him;

and even if some reason is given to disagree, it can not

cure the defect.

According to Mr. Kumar Ld. Counsel for the workman,

the Disciplinary Authority ought to have set up an afresh

Enquiry proceeding by any other Enquiry Officer. The

workman had preferred any appeal against it. But the

4288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Management delayed its disposal. Finally, on the direction

of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, the

Appellate Authority of the Management disposed of his

appeal as dismissal in the same manner. Consequently, the

Industrial Dispute filed before the ALC(C) concerned, in

which due to the failure of its conciliation, resulted in the

instant I.D. under Sec. 2A of the I.D. Act (Amendment Act

2010) which was filed without any delay for an adjudication.

So the action of the Management in dismissing the

workman from the service of the Company of the M/C.C.L.

is not justified, and the workman is entitled to be reinstated

with full back wages and consequential benefits w.e.f.

11.02.2009.

13. Whereas Mr. D.K. Verma, Learned Counsel for the

O.P./Management, has contended that in the instant

Industrial Dispute, in case of no dispute over the point of

fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Tribunal as per the

Order No. 13 dt. 21.05.2004 has held the domestic enquiry

fair and proper. In such circumstances, Mr. Verma submits

that the Sec. 11 A of the I.D. Act 1947 clearly stated that if

the enquiry is held fair and proper, the Tribunal has to act

as the Revisional Authority to appreciate the materials. It

is the settled law that in such case preponderance of proof

rather than standard of proof is required for appreciation

of facts, but no new documents are to be appreciated. Mr.

Verma, Ld. Counsel for the O.P./Management has pointed

out that it is settled law of the Land as held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of West Bokaro Colliery, TISCO

Ltd. Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh, 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 890, that it

is improper for the Tribunal to interfere with the findings of

domestic enquiry on the ground of an independent witness

apart from the Management witness. According to Mr.

Verma, in the instant case, the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry

Report submitted that no charges were proved beyond

doubt.

14. Further argued by Mr. Verma is that the Enquiry

Report of the Enquiry Officer is not decisive final. Mr. Verma

having relied upon the case of State of NCT of Delhi Vs.

Ajay Kumar Tyagi reported in 2011 (II) SCC 811 where in as

held, submits, that the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to

take his decision independent of that of the Enquiry Officer.

In the instant case, the petitioner workman is alleged to

have fraudulently got his employment as son-in-law of

workman employee Madina Khatoon, as he was married to

her only daughter Rokina Khatoon. But the Enquiry

Officerin his Enquiry report at page 4 reported his finding

that the workman had mentioned the date of his wife's

death whereas the date of her death was endorsed by the

Management of M/s CCL on his application, and that the

workman stated his aforesaid wife to have expired in

delivery in the year 1982 as contrasted with her death

certificate which denotes his expiry on 03.09.1982, and in

the last line, the Enquiry Officer reports the death

Certificates of his wife Rokina Khatoon and of his mother

in law on 03.09.1982 and Dec., 1979 respectively; both their

Certificates were issued in Sept., 1999 following the issuance

of the charge sheet dt. 10.12.1998. By challenging the

validity of the issuance of the aforesaid Death Certificatges,

Mr. Verma Ld. Counsel for the O.P./Management has

pointed out that only the Register is the Competent

Authority under Sec.13 (3) of the Registration of Birth and

Death Act 1969. The Sub-Sec 3 of Sec. 13 with the heading

"Delayed Registration of births and deaths" reads as such:

"Any birth or death which as not been registered within

one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an

order made by a magistrate of the first class or a Presiding

Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth and

death and on payment of the prescribed fee."

The plea of Mr. D.K. Verma at the point of the Registrar

as the Competent Authority to issue the Death Certificate

under the said provision of the aforesaid Act appears to be

not only impressive as well as unpleaded; hence it is

acceptable.

15. Further contention of Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

for the O.P./Management is that the alleged 'Nikhanama' of

the workman Md. Jabbar with Rokina Khatoon in Urdu

(D.E.-3) which has translated into Hindi, mentioned the

name of Baddruddin which was replaced with Safruddin,

the husband of Madina Khatoon by striking it. It is also

emphatically contended by Mr. Verma that as per the

statement of the workman was DWI about his marriage in

the year 1975 his wife Rokina Khatoon was 13 years old; as

such the marriage of the workman with Rokina Khatoon

was improbable; under such circumstances, the dismissal

of the workman by the disciplinary Authority was not only

quite correct but also justified in proportionate to the

misconduct of grave nature in fraudulently getting his

employment under the...........

16. On persual of the materials available on the case

reocrd, I find the following facts as revealed from the strict

circle of the facts between both the parties:—

(a) It appears indisputable that Smt. Madina (Khatoon),

the female Earth Curter was one of the Female workers of

Sirka Colliery who had sought for her voluntary Retirement

under the VRS of Female Workers vide Ref. No. 56/Fem. V.

Vol/Ret./Sirka/78/3086 dt. 3978 in lieu of her dependent. It

is also oevident that Md Safruddin was her husband who

was also an employee in the same colliery both under the

CCL. The O.P./Management has not challenged the validity

of the aforesaid VRS Scheme.

(b) The workman Jabbar was, after due process,

appointed at Sirka Group (Collieries) as the Piece Rate

Worker as the son-in-law of Smt. Madina with four others

under the aforesaid VRS of the 1978 as per the Office Order

dt.19./21.8.1978 (DE 2) following the decision of the O.P./

Management as per the letter dt.11th Aug.1978(DE-I). The

workman has served the Company for 20 (twenty) years

since 21.08.1978.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4289

workman was not their son-in-law of Female worker Madina

Khatoon on the ground that the service Link document of

her husband Safruddin does not mention the name of Rokina

Khatoon as per daughter . The plea of the management

appears more presumptive oral fact. Whereas the

Nikhanama of the workman Jabber (DE 3= Ext. W.1) proves

his marriage with Rokina Khatoon, daughter of Safruddin

to have been solemnized by Malvi Mushak Ali on 11th

April,1975 as per the record. It was duly verified as just by

the Enquiry Officer in Course of the enquiry. The enquiry

also reveals the name of Rokina Khatoon recorded in the

service Excerpt of the workman Jabber prepared by the

Management even in the year 1987 (DE. 6 = Ext.W.4). Non

entry of Rakina Khatoon's name into the Service Link

Documents of her father Safruddin for the reasons best

known to him would not disqualify her from being his

daughter. After her death on 03.09.1982 the workman held

2nd marriage with Sabra Khatoon D/o Md. Amant on

6th May, 1983 (DE-5)., though the name of his 1st wife

Rokina remained intact in his Service Excerpt up to 1987

while it was being made by the Management, the workman

appears to have reported about the death of his 1st wife

Rokina Khatoon without mentioning the date of her death

but with prayer for recording the names of his sons Ali

Hasan, Mehandi Hasan and daughter Gulshan Arra so as

to be recorded in his nominees in the C.M.P.F.

17. In the instant, the non- proof of the alleged charges

under clause 17(i) (a) and (o) of the Certified Standing

Orders respectively stands evident from the materials as

made available on behalf of the OP/Management. The

Materials of the O.P./Management do not prima facie

preponderate over those substantial and natural ones of

the petitioner workman. Hence the argument of Mr. D.K.

Verma, Ld. Counsel for the management seems

unpersuasive. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of

the workman is liable to be set aside; hence the workman

deserves a relief under Sec.11 A of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 (Amendment Act, 2010).

In result it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby

responded and accordingly awarded that the action of the

Management of Sirka Group of Collieries of M/s CCL in

dismissing the Md. Jabbar, the Dumper Operator, from the

service of the Company from 11.02.2009, the date of his

dismissal, is unjustified. The workman is entitled to his

reinstatement with full back wages and the consequential

benefits. The O.P./Management is directed to implement

the Award within a month from the date of its receipt,

following its publication by the Government of India, in

the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2083-—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 84@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y720012@33@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 84 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. CCL and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 26/10/2015.

[No. L-20012/33/2012-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO. 84 OF 2012

PARTIES

Smt. Aghni Kamin,

Ex-Binder

Vill: Akamba, PO: Hoshir, P.S. Kanke, Ranchi,

Jharkhand-834006

Vs.

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

M/s Central Coalfields Ltd.,

Darbhanga House, Ranchi

Order No. L-20012/33/2012-IR (CM-I)

dt. 22.10.2012

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman/Union :

Mr. U.N. Lal,

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th Sept., 2015

4290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

of the powers conferred on them under Sec., 10(1)(d) of the

I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/33/

2012-IR (CM-I). dt. 22.10.2012.

SCHEDULE

(i)

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi

assessing the age of Smt. Aghni Kamin, Ex-Binder

by a Committee without Medical Officer is valid

and in accordance with the Implementation

Instruction No. 76?"

(ii)

Wether the action of the Management of M/s

Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi

in terminating the services of Smt. Aghni Kamin,

Ex-Binder w.e.f. 30.06.2011 is legal and justified?

To what reliefs are the workwoman concerned

entitled?

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/33/2012-IR (CM-I)

dt. 22.10.2012 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 84 of 2012 was registered on 12.11.2012 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their

pleadings and photocopies for their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Counsels

appeared respectively and contested the case.

2. The case of the workwoman Smt. Aghni Kamin, the

Ex-Binder as represented in her claim statement is that her

date of her birth (herein after referred to as DOB) is

06.10.1952 and the same was recorded in her Service

Record/Register under the signature of the Authority

concerned on 17.07.1986, after her appointment as Piece

Rated worker on 18.05.1973. From PS3 (particulars of family)

issued on 27.051998 also bears her same aforesaid DOB

just the Declaration submitted in respect as the CMPF carries

her Date of birth as 6.10.1952. In view of her aforesaid Date

of birth, she was scheduled to retire on 31.10.2012. She was

issued neither any notice nor any intimation of any change

challenging her Date of birth, but the Manager P(NEE),

M/s. Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi,

as per the retirement notice dt. 29.12.2010/04.01.2012

intimated the workwoman of her retirement as on 30.06.2011

considering her DOB as 04.06.1951.

In result, the industrial dispute raised by the lady

petitioner in the conciliation proceeding before the

Conciliation Officer about determinatation of her date of

birth based on wrong presumption, but on its failure,

resulted in the reference for an adjudication. In the face of

her Date of birth as 06.10.1945 all along record in each and

every document of her service records, the management

had arbitrarily and illegally fixed the date of her reitement

as 30.11.2001 which amounted to her premature retirement,

so the workwoman is entitled to all the consequential

benefits with her continuance in service till 31.10.2012, thus

the petitioner urged for an adjudication in her favour.

3. The workwoman in her rejoinder has specificaly

denied all the allegations of the O.P./Management as

imaginary, entirely misconceived misleading, and incorrect

further stating that the story of her alleged age assessment

is unreliable even as ex-parte and manufactured.

4. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the instant

reference in law or facts, the Contra pleaded case of the

OP./Management is that workwoman Smt. Aghni Kamin

D/o Shri Chamaro Oraon, and W/o Shri Satish Toppa,

bearing her CMPF A/c No. R/53-3604, was an employee of

the Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi,

designated as Binder, She was working in the CCL Press at

its H. Qr. till her date of retirement on 30.06.2011. She was

initially appointed as a Piece Rated worker in Sarubera

Colliery on 18.05.1973. Her date of birth was not recorded

in the Service Sheet; therefore she was referred to the Age

Assessment Committee or determination fo her age

according to the Implementation Instruction No. 76. She

appeared before the aforesaid committee, and her date of

birth was determined as 4.6.1951 in the year 1986 as per the

provisions of the I.I. No. 76. She had also put her thumb

impression on the Age Assessment Committee Report duly

witnessed by two employees of the CCL as a token of

acceptance of her date of birth as determined by the said

committee. Accordingly her same date of birth was recorded

in her service sheet under her thumb impression duly

witnessed by two employees. As the date of her retirement

was due on 30.06.2011, the Management issued her the

notice dt.4.1.2011 bearing her retirement date as

30.06.2011.The workwoman had not raised any objection

after the receipt of the aforesaid notice. But at the fag end

of her services, she submitted a representation on 18,

.05.2011, representing that her date of birth ought to be

corrected as 6.10.1952.She has not submitted any

documentary evidence in support of her claim. Further

alleged by the O.P./Management is that after her retirement,

she filed an application for payment of her gratuity, and

accordingly gratuity was paid to her, She never challenged

the Age Assessment committee Report in any form till her

retirement.

5. The O.P./Management in its simultaneous rejoinder

has specifically denies the allegations of the workwoman

as incorrect, further alleging that as the workwoman being

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4291

illiterate had not any documentary proof in support of her

claimed age, on her reference to the Area Age Assessment

Committee, her age was determined as 35 years as on

04.06.1986, and accordingly her date of birth fell as on

04.06.1951.She had never raised any dispute about her date

of birth at the time of filing the Service Excerpt. Hence, the

action of the Management in superannuating the

workwoman w.e.f. 30.06.2011 is alleged to be justified, as

she may be held not entitled to any relief.

FINDINGS WITH REASONS

6. In the instant case, WWI Aghni Kamin, the

workwoman and WW2 Ukan Prasad, LDC and

Representative of the Mazdoor Union on behalf of the

workwoman, and MW1 Avinash Srivastava, the Sr. Manager

(Pers). CCI., II.Qr, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, for the O.P./

Management have been examined respectively.

The argument of the workwoman as per her written

argument is that her entire service Register under the

signature of the Authority concerned (Ext.W.1).KUJ-13

under signature of the Sr. Manager (Per NEE),CCL, Ranchi

dt.28.7.2011 (Ext.W.2), her Nomination form PS.5 duly

authenticated by the Regional Commissioner, CMPF,

Ranchi (Extt.W.4=4/1- (all the documents proved on formal

proof waive) all along display her Date of birth as 06.10.1952

and her retirement date at 60 years was due on 06.10.1912

since the date of her appointment on 18.05.1973 initially a

Binder and, thereafter working in Cat.1 as Piece Rated, as

she had got appointment in the year 1976. Accordingly the

workwoman, her date of birth was recorded as 06.10.1952

in her all aforesaid documents, but the Management wrongly

issued the Retirement Notice dt.29.12.2010/4.1.11 (Ext.W.5)

and accordingly retired her prematurely from 30th June,

2011 as contrasted with the due retirement on 31.10.2012.

She has further submitted that it is an admitted fact of the

O.P./Management that the Age Assessment Committee

Report clearly proves that out of three members only two

members put their signatures but it was not signed by Sr.

Medical Officer in the specific column ,so its authenticity

is doubtful; as such her real date of birth (as noted in the

Ext.W.2) stood confirmed. As such the action of the

Management in terminating her service w.e.f. 30.06.2011 is

illegal and unjustified; hence, she is entitled to her back

wages for her due period over service from 01.07.2011 to

31.10.2012.

7. Just contrary to it, Mr D.K.Verma, Ld. Counsel for the

O.P./Management has contended that the date of birth of

workwoman was not recorded in her Service Record, so

she was referred to the Age Assessment Committee for it

which had recorded her date of birth as 04.06.1951 (Ext.M.1)

which was accordingly recorded in her Service Record ,as

she had not produced any authentic document to prove

her date of birth as 06.10.1952; and after her retirement, she

raised this Industrial Dispute which is untenable. Mr. Verma

relying upon the authority: - 2006 SSC (L&S) 1445, State of

Gujrat Vs. Vali Mohd. Dosa Bhai Sindhi, in reference to

Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, R.171- Constitution of

India., Arts. 26 and 136, has submitted that in case of a

dispute over the age for retirement/superannuation, if there

is alternation or correction of date of birth entered in Service

Record, request made at the verge for retirement for

alternation/correction can not be entertained; rather request

must be made within the period if any, prescribed under the

rules and in absence thereof, within a reasonable period in

accordance with the procedure prescribed; onus lies upon

the employee concerned to make out clear case for

alternation on the basis of materials of conclusive nature;

Court/Tribunal must be satisfied as regards these as

aspects and also that there has been real justice to the

employee concerned ; Court/Tribunal should be slow in

granting interim relief or continuation in service unless

there is a prima facie evidence of impeachable nature; Court/

Tribunal should not issue any direction or make any

declaration in favour of the employee merely on the basis

of materials which make his case only plausible. Further it

has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid

cited case that the Court/Tribunal should keep in mind that

alternation of a date of birth of an employee at the late

stage may affect promotional prospect of those junior to

him; request for a change of date of birth made by

Respondent only after the order intimating the date of her

retirement was received by him a few months prior to that

date, held on facts, can not be accepted being in violation

of specific rule applicable to such employee. According to

Mr. Verma, Ld. Counsel of the OP/Management, the

Petitioner after her superannuation has got her payment of

Gratuity etc., so her claim is not sustainable.

8. On meticulous study of the materials available on the

case record as the nature of the case pertaining to alternation

of date of birth of the workwoman petitioner, it appears the

indisputable facts as under:

(i)

The workwoman who appears to he though

illiterate yet literate enough to sign her name only.

The workwoman was initially appointed as the Piece

Rated worker in Cat. 1 in Sarubera Colliery on 18th

May, 1973; but later on she joined at H.Or. at

Darbhanga House at Ranchi in 1995 since then

she had been working there. The acknowledged

facts also appear to be that her date of birth

06.10.1952 as recorded in his Service Record as

also in her Form B and Form -PE-3 (Particulars of

family) and the CMPF Record as well (Ext.W.1,2 &

4 respectively).

(ii)

According to the O.P./Management, her Service

Record had not any written date of birth. But no

documents produced on behalf of OP/

Management as a proof of her date of birth blank.

So as per the Implementation Instruction No.76 of

the NCWA concerned, the O.P./Management got

her age assessed as 35 years as on 04.06.1986 as

4292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 31, 2015/KARTIKA 9, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

per the report dt. Nil, of Members of the Age

Assessment Committee (Ext.M.1= Ext.W.3). The

fact is also beyond the dispute that the alleged

report of the Age Assessment Committee is duly

signed by two Members, namely, of Personnel

Officer and Project Officer, but the column of Sr.

Medical Officer, Sarubera Colliery, Kuju Area CCL

is blank as apparent from the attested copy of the

Age Assessment Report issued on 28.07.2011 by

Sr. Manager (Pers./MEE) CCL, Ranchi. It is

remarkable to note that the signature of the Member,

Personnel Officer appears to be dated 4th June,1986

just below his signature as apparent from the

aforesaid Extt.M.1 =Ext.W.3

(iii)

According to her date of birth as 06.10.1952 as

recorded in her Service Register as also in her

CMPF, she appears to have joined the Service

on18.05,1973 at her age of 20 years 7 months 12

days, and accordingly her superannuation comes

factually on 30.05.2012 at her 60 (sixty) years of

age. But the Retirement Notice dt.29.12.2010/4.1.11

(Ext.W.5) to the under literate lady workwoman

petitioner for her alleged superannuation 30.06.2011

appears to be baseless.

(iv)

The petitioner has clearly made out her solid case

for her claim. Payment of her Gratuity etc. on the

ground of her alleged premature retirement can

not bar her due claim for due wages for the relevant

period of her due service. This will be real justice

to the Lady petitioner as also observed as by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid ruling,

otherwise it will amount to miscarriage of natural

justice to her.

In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby

responded and accordingly awarded as such"

(i)

The action of the Management of M/s Central

Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi in

assessing the age of Smt.Aghni Kamin, Ex-Binder,

by a Committee without Medical Officer is quite

invalid and contrary to the provisions of the

Implementation Instruction No.76, and

(ii)

The action of the Management of M/s Central

Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi in

terminating the service of Smt.Aghni Kamin w.e.f.

30.06.2011 in place of her due retirement on

30.06.2012 is quite illegal and unjustified.

Therefore the workwoman petitioner is entitled to her

full hack wages with statutory interest for the relevant

period, i.e, from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2012 The O.P./

Management is directed to implement it within one month

from the receipt of the Award following its publication by

the Government of India in the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2084-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fczfV'k ,vjost bf.M;k

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 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 141@2015½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11012@18@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2084.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi (Ref.

No. 141 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. British Airways India and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 16/10/2015.

[No. L-11012/18/2015-IR (C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No.141/2015

The President,

British Airways Plc Employees Union(EAUU),

Room No.25, IGI Airport, Terminal II,

New Delhi 110-037

...Workman

Versus

The Area Commercial Manager,

M/s British Airways India,

C/o HL-2, 5th Floor,

IGI Airport, Terminal III,

New Delhi - 110 037

...Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-11012/18/2015-

IR(CM-I) dated 01.06.2015, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of British

Airways in paying bonus (Employees Reward

Program) to the employees of the Company in India

at a rate less than that paid to the employees of the

Company in U.K. is legal and justified? To what relief

are the workmen of the Company in India entitled

to?"

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with elevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 31] 2015@dk£rd 9] 1937

4293

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to to the opposite parties involved in

the dispute. Despite directions so given, the claiment union

opted not to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to

the claiment union 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 claiment union. Despite service of

the notice, claiment union opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf.

Thus, it is clear that the claiment union is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

4. Since the claiment union have neither put in their

appearance nor have they led ant evidence so as to prove

their cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal

is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim'

award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

A.C. DOGRA , Presiding Officer

Dated : October 8, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2085-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj bf.M;k

pkVZjl fyfeVsM 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 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ

149@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@10@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11012@19@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015

S.O. 2085.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi (Ref.

No. 149 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Air India Charters Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 26/10/2015.

[No. L-11012/19/2015-IR (C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 149/2015

The General Secretary ,

All India Charters Cabin Crew Union,

House No. G1/23B, Street No.30,

Som Bazar Road.

Rajapuri (Uttam Nagar),

New Delhi-110059

...Workman

versus

The Chief Executive Officer ,

Air India Charters Ltd., Corported Headquarters,

Gandhi Square, D.H. Road,

Kochi, Kerala-682016

...Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-11010/19/2015-

IR(CM-I)dated 19.06.2015, referred the folowing industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

''Whether the action on the part of the Management

of Air India Charters Ltd. in contemplating to close

down its establishment at Delhi and transfer all the

cabin crew based in Delhi to other places without

following the conditions prescribed under Section

25-FFA and Section 25 FFFof the ID Act, 1947 is legal

and justified? To what relief the concerned workmen

are entitled to?’’

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the disput to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant document, list of reliance and

witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of recepit of

the referrnce order and to forward a copy of such statement

of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite direction so given, All India Charters Cabin Crew

Union opted not to file their claim statement with the

Tribunal .

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to

the claimant union as well as the management . Neither the

postal article, reerred 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 union.Despite service of the

notice, claimant union opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf.

Thus,it is clear that the claimant union is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

4. Since the claimant union has neither put in their

appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove

their cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal

is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim'

award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

A.C. DOGRA, 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.