4768 GI/2015

(4491)

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2205-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/kfu;e] 1981

¼1981 dk 28½ dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼M-½ ds

mi&[kaM ¼ii½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jherh Å"kk

vuarlqczef.k;u] izca/k funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh]

iatkc uS'kuy cSad dk rRdky izHkko ls vxys vkns'k gksus rd Jh

ch- ds- c=k ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad ¼,fDte cSad½

ds funs'kd e.My esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A

[Qk- la- 9@16@2012&vkbZ,Q&I]

,- ds- Mksxjk] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2015

S.O. 2205.—In pursuance of Sub-clause (ii) of Clause

(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import

Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government

hereby nominates Smt. Usha Ananthasubramanian, MD

and CEO, Punjab National Bank as a Director on the Board

of Export Import Bank of India (EXIM Bank) vice Shri B.K.

Batra with immediate effect and until further orders.

[F. No. 9/16/2012-IF-I]

A. K. DOGRA, Dy. Secy.

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- 48]

ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 22—uoEcj 28] 2015] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 1—vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

No. 48] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 22—NOVEMBER 28, 2015, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 1—AGRAHAYANA 7, 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)

4492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fons'k ea=ky;

¼lh-ih-oh- izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2206-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM

¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsaæ ljdkj Jh psru vkuan] ,- ih- MCY;w- vkSj

Jh jkts'k jkS'ku] fuEu Js.kh fyfid dks 16 uoEcj] 2015 ls Hkkjr ds

nwrkokl] ekLdks esa lgk;d dksalqyj vf/kdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu

djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gS A

[lañ Vh&4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi&lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2015

S.O. 2206.—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 Chetan Anand, APWO and (2)

Shri Rajesh Roushan, LDC in Embassy of India, Moscow

to perform the Consular services as Assistant Consular

Officer with effect from 16 November, 2015.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2207-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj

Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM ¼d½

ds vuqlj.k esa dsaæ ljdkj Jh fodkl dqekj] lgk;d dks 19 uoEcj]

2015 ls Hkkjr ds dksalqykokl] esfDldks flVh esa lgk;d dksalqyj vfèdkjh

ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS A

[lañ Vh&4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi&lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2015

S.O. 2207.—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 Vikas Kumar, Assistant in Embassy of India,

Mexico City to perform the Consular services as Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 13 November, 2015.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ukxj foekuu ea=kky;

(,,vkbZ vuqHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2208.—Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkfèdj.k vf/kfu;e]

1994 ¼1994 dk 55½ dh /kkjk 3 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, dsUæ ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh ,- ds- nÙkk] dk;Zikyd funs'kd]

,,vkbZ dks 75000&10000 #- ds osrueku dh vuqlwph ^d* esa 1

vDrwcj] 2015 ls ikap o"kks± dh vofè] vFkok mudh vf/ko£"krk dh

rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] ds fy, lnL;

¼foeku fnDpkyu lsok,a½ ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

[la- ,oh- 24011@240@2015&,,vkbZ &ukxj foekuu ea=kky;]

ds- oh- mUuhd`".ku] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

(AAI SECTION)

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2015

S.O. 2208.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994

(No. 55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby

appoint Shri A. K. Dutta, Executive Director, AAI as

Member (Air Navigation Services), Airports Authority

of India in Schedule ‘A’ scale of pay of Rs. 75000—

10000 with effect from forenoon of 1st October, 2015

for a period of five years or till the date of his

superannuation or until further orders, whichever is the

earliest.

[No. AV. 24011/240/2015-AAI-MOCA]

K.V. UNNIKRISHNAN, Under Secy.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 23 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2209-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vfèlwfpr djrk gS%

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4493

vuqlwph

Hkkjrh; Hkkx

vuq& o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ

U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd ¼#-½ bdkbZ nj

LySc esa

'ks"k izpkyu frfFk

ekud

Hkkx

o`gn Lrj

,e-,l-

LySc 1

bdkbZ;ka

la[;k

,e-bZ-

¼#-½

711

1970 Qsfjd DyksjkbZM

57600*

46100*

lHkh

20-11-2015

rduhdh

*lHkh Hkqxrku ij l£ol VSDl ns; gSa A

[lanHkZ % lh,eMh&2¼,QlhVh½@16 % 711]

lh- ds- egs'ojh] oS- th- ,oa miegkfuns'kd ¼izek.ku½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMERS AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 23rd November, 2015

S.O. 2009.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulation 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

IS No. Part

Sec. Year

Product

Units

Minimum Marking

Unit

Units

Remain- Effective

Fee (Rs.)

Rate

ing

Date

Large

MSME

Slab-1

Scale

Units

(Rs.)

711

1970

Ferric Chloride,

Ton

57600*

46100*

All

20.11.2015

Technical (First

Revision)

*All payment shall be taken in advance along with applicable Service Tax as per Annex-18 of OMPC 2004.

[Ref: CMD-II (FCT)/16 : 711]

C.K. MAHESHWARI, Sc. G & DDG (Cerification)

ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx

vkns'k

eaqcbZ] 26 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2210-—dsUæh; flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k vkSj vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 1965 ds fu;e 9 ds mifu;e ¼2½] fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼2½

ds [kaM ¼[k½ rFkk fu;e 24 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa jk"Vªifr ,rn~}kjk fnukad 22 ebZ] 2013 ds dk-vk- la- 1317¼v½ ds vuqlkj Hkkjr ds jkti= %

vlk/kkj.k] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi&[k.M ¼ii½ esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx ds fnukad 16 ebZ] 2013 ds vkns'k esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku dk

funs'k nsrs gSa] uker% %—

mDr vkns'k ds vuqlwph esa]—

¼d½

Hkkx II] Ø-la- 11 vkSj 15 vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V;ksa gsrq “lkekU; dsaæh; lsok] lewg ^x* ” ls lacaf/kr fuEufyf[kr Øe la[;k vkSj izfof"V;ka

Øe'k% izfrLFkkfir gksaxh] uker% %—

4494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“11

bafnjk xka/kh ijek.kq

funs'kd ¼ih ,aM ,½ vFkok

lHkh

funs'kd] bafnjk xka/kh ijek.kq

vuqla/kku dsaæ esa in

eq[; iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh]

vuqla/kku dsaæ” ;

bafnjk xka/kh ijek.kq

vuqla/kku dsaæ

“15

lkekU; lsok laxBu]

funs'kd ¼ih ,aM ,½ vFkok

lHkh

funs'kd] lkekU; lsok laxBu]

dYikDde esa in

eq[; iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh]

dYikDde” ;

lkekU; lsok laxBu]

dYikDde

¼[k½

Hkkx III] Ø-la- 7 vkSj 9 vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V;ksa gsrq “lkekU; dsaæh; lsok] lewg ^?k* ” ls lacaf/kr fuEufyf[kr Øe la[;k vkSj izfof"V;ka

Øe'k% izfrLFkkfir gksaxh] uker% %—

“7

bafnjk xka/kh ijek.kq

iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh&III,

lHkh

funs'kd ¼ih ,aM ,½ vFkok

vuqla/kku dsaæ esa in

bafnjk xka/kh ijek.kq

eq[; iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh]

vuqla/kku dsaæ

bafnjk xka/kh ijek.kq

vuqla/kku dsaæ” ;

“9

lkekU; lsok laxBu]

iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh&III,

lHkh

funs'kd ¼ih ,aM ,½ vFkok

dYikDde esa in

lkekU; lsok laxBu]

lkekU; lsok laxBu]q

eq[; iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh]

dYikDde

lkekU; lsok laxBu]

dYikDde” ;

[la- 6¼1½@2015&lrdZrk@16116]

vks-Vh-th- uk;j] mi lfpo

fVIi.kh %

fVIi.kh % ewy vkns'k] fnukad 16 ebZ] 2013 ds dk-vk- 1317¼v½ }kjk Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi&[k.M ¼ii½ esa izdkf'kr fd;k Fkk A

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

ORDER

Mumbai, the 26th November, 2015

S.O. 2210.—In pursuance of sub-rule (2) of rule 9, clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 12 and sub-rule (1) of rule 24

of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President hereby directs to make the

following order to amend the Order of the Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy, dated the 16^th May, 2013

published in the Gazette of India: Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide number S.O. 1317 (E), dated the 22^nd

May, 2013, namely :—

In the schedule to the said Order,—

(a)

Part-II, relating to “ GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICE, GROUP ‘C’ ’’, for serial No. 11 and 15 and the entries relating

thereto, the following serial numbers and entries shall respectively be substituted, namely:—

“11

Posts in the Indira

Director (P and A) or

All

Director, Indira Gandhi

Gandhi Centre for

Chief Administrative

Centre for Atomic

Atomic Research

Officer, Indira Gandhi

Research”;

Centre for Atomic

Research

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4495

“15

Posts in the General

Director (P and A) or

All

Director, General

Services Organisation,

Chief Administrative

Services Organisation,

Kalpakkam

Officer, General

Kalpakkam”;

Services Organisation,

Kalpakkam

(b)

Part – III, relating to “ GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICE, GROUP ‘D’ “, for serial No.7 and 9 and the entries

relating thereto, the following serial numbers and entries shall respectively be substituted, namely:—

“7

Posts in the Indira

Administrative Officer-III,

Administrative Officer-III, All

Director (P and A) or

Gandhi Centre for

Indira Gandhi Centre

Chief Administrative

Atomic Research

for Atomic Research

Officer, Indira Gandhi

Centre for Atomic

Research”;

“9

Posts in the General

Administrative Officer-III,

Administrative Officer-III, All

Director (P and A) or

Services Organisation, General Services

General Services

Chief Administrative

Kalpakkam

Organisation, Kalpakkam

Officer, General

Services Organisation,

Kalpakkam”.

[No. 6(1)/2015/Vig. /16116]

O. T. G. NAIR, Dy. Secy.

Note :

The Principal Order was published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide number

S.O. 1317 (E), dated the 16th May, 2013.

lw{e] y?kq vkSj e/;e mn~;e ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 24 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2211-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

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

¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa lw{e] y?kq vkSj e/;e mn~;e ea=ky; ds

fu;a=.kkèhu jk"Vªh; y?kq mn~;ksx fuxe fyfeVsM ds fuEufyf[kr

dk;kZy; ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk

dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrh gS %

'kk[kk dk;kZy;] oh-ds-vkbZ-,-] t;iqj] jk"Vªh; y?kq mn~;ksx

fuxe fyfeVsM] 513] vyadkj Iyktk] lsUVªy fLiu fon~;kèj

uxj] t;iqj&302023 ¼jktLFkku½ A

[lañ bZ &12016@01@2005&fgUnh]

eukst tks'kh] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM

ENTERPRISES

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2015

S.O. 2211.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

the following Office of National Small Industries

Corporation Limited under the control of the Ministry of

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, whose more than

80% staff have acquired working knowledge in Hindi :

Branch Office, V.K.I.A. Jaipur, National Small

Industries Corporation Limited, 513, Alankar Plaza,

Central Spin Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302023

(Rajasthan).

[No. E-12016/01/2005-Hindi]

MANOJ JOSHI, Jt. Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 24 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2212-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj j{kk ea=kky; ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2015)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@3@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2015

S.O. 2212.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 13/2015)

4496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No.-1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Ministry of Defence and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 23/11/2015.

[No. L-42025/3/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 13/2015

Ms. Uma Devi,

W/o late Shri Mahabir Singh

R/o 924/24,Geeta Colony,

Near Double Fatak,

Rohtak, Haryana

...Workman

Versus

1. Union of India

Through Defence Secretary,

South Block,

New Delhi – 110 001

2. Director General,

D.G.N.C.C.,

Ministry of Defence,

West Block-IV, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi – 110 066

3. Deputy Director General/MS

HQ D.G..N.C.C.,

CSD Canteen, Ministry of Defence,

West Block-IV, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi – 110 066

...Managements

AWARD

This petition has been filed by Ms. Uma Devi,

workman herein, under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) with the averment

that she was appointed to the post of Sales Assistant/Girl

by Directorate General NCC in CSD canteen on 30.05.1986.

In her letter of appointment, her age of superannuation is

mentioned as 55 years. Initially, she was employed on a

salary of Rs. 644.00 per month. However, the same was

revised from time to time. The workman herein has been

performing her duties diligently and honestly and during

her tenure that has been no incident of misconduct

committed by her. It is also not disputed that the workman

herein served the Unit Run Canteen of the Government is

a Government servant, as this controversy has been settled

in a catena of cases.

There also averments that an agreement was

executed between the workman and HQ DG NCC

(Management No.3) on 01.01.1992. Thereafter, on

28.04.2003, rules regulating terms and conditions of civilian

employees of Unit Run Canteen were reframed by Director

General, DGNCC (Management No.2) in view of the

judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the month

of March 2011, Respondent No.1 communicated to the

workman herein that she has attained age of 55 years,

therefore, the department is contemplating her retirement.

Thereafter, she made a representation stating therein that

as per latest rules regulating terms and conditions of

service, civilian employees of Unit Run Canteen, the age

of superannuation has been raised to 60 years and said

period for 60 years is to be counted on the basis of her

date of birth mentioned in her High School or Higher

Secondary certificates. Thus, it is clear that as-per Rule

27, the age of superannuation is now 60 years and the

services of the workman herein could not have been

terminated in contravention of the above rules.

The workman herein had impugned the oral decision

of the respondent by filing of writ petition civil No. 2908/

2011 and CM 6341/11 before the Hon’ble High Court

of Delhi. However, the same was dismissed as not

maintainable in view of the judgement passed by the

Division Bench, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case

of Shashikant v. Union of India decided on 23.07.2012.

Thus, the workman herein was left with no remedy except

to approach the Conciliation Officer before raising an

industrial dispute. Since the Conciliation Officer did not

decide the proceedings within the mandatory period of 45

days as stipulated under the Industrial Disputes Act, as

such after the expiry of 45 days, the workman herein has

no remedy but to seek relief from this Tribunal.

Notices were sent to Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3,

and perusal of the record shows that despite service of

the notice, the respondents did not bother to attend the

proceedings before this Tribunal. Resultantly, the

respondents were proceeded ex-parte by this Tribunal vide

order dated 08.05.2015.

Workman, in support of her claim, examined herself

as WW1 and tendered her affidavit in evidence Ex.WW1/

A, alongwith documents as well as copies of judgement

passed by Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No. 7359/99.

Since nobody was representing the management, as such,

workman herein was not cross-examined.

Shri Sanjay Sharma, appearing on behalf of the

workman herein strongly urged that termination of

services of the workman herein is totally in violation of

principles of natural justice and fair play and latest rules

governing appointment of such employees is as per date

of birth in matriculation certificate, and as such she has

not attained the age of 60 years when she was orally

sacked by the management. It is clear from letter of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4497

appointment letter dated 30.05.1986 Ex. WW1/1 that the

workman herein was appointed as Sales Assistant/Girl with

effect from 02.06.1986. Para 2 of the said letter shows that

her consolidated pay was Rs. 646.00 per month and in

para 5, her age of retirement is 55 years. This letter is

issued from the office of Director General NCC, i.e.

Management No. 2. There is also an agreement signed by

the workman herein with Management, Ex. WW1/2 dated

01.01.1992 and clause 10 of the said agreement reads as

under:

“Retirement age

10.

55 years extendable upto 58 years under

exceptional circumstances at the discretion of

the Employer. Any extension beyond 58 years

upto 60 years may be revised on yearly basis.

Workman herein has also produced rules regulating

terms and conditions of civilian employees of the Unit

Run Canteen paid out of non public funds dated 28.04.2003

Ex. WW1/3. It is necessary to mention here that these

rules/regulations were framed by the management in view

of Contempt Petition No. 243-247 of 2001 filed by All India

Defence Civilian Employees and Other vs. Mr. Yogendra

Narain, IAS, Defence Secretary and Others for non-

compliance of the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

04.01.2001 passed in Civil Appeal No.1039-1043 of 1999

entitled Union of India and Others vs. M. Aslam and others.

As per directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, revised

copy of the rules regulating the terms and conditions of

service of such employees paid out of non public funds

was ordered to be circulated to all the Commands of the

Army, Navy and Air Force. Thus, it is clear from perusal of

Clause 3 of the rules that this rule shall apply to all civilian

employees of Unit-Run canteen out of non public funds

but shall not apply to any person engaged on daily wages

or on casual employment or to those hired on contractual

basis whose conditions of service will be regulated by

their appointment letters. These rules shall also not apply

to serving defence personnel who may for the time being

be detailed to work therein in any capacity whatsoever in

addition to their own duties.

Sub-section (b) of Clause 3, of the above rules reads

as under:

‘These rules will govern the terms and conditions of

the Unit Run Canteen employees serving in various

Unit Run Canteens as on 04.01.2001 and on

subsequent days and will bring forth uniformity on

matters governing the terms and conditions of such

employees.’

It is clear from perusal of the above clause the

employees who were serving in the Unit Run Canteenas

on 04.01.2001 shall be duly governed by the above rules.

Clause 27 of the above rules is as under:

‘Superannuation

(a)

An employee shall be superannuated on

attaining age of 60 years.

(b)

The age as mentioned in the High School or

Higher Secondary Certificate shall be

considered as age for the purpose of Sub-

Rule (a) above. In case any employee who

has not passed the High School/Higher

Secondary or equivalent examination, the

certificate of age provided either by District

Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Block Development Officer shall be treated

as proof of age.’

10.

It is pertinent to note here that other employees

serving in such canteens have superannuated at the age

of 60 years, which is clear from perusal of Annexure P-6,

which shows that Sub.Surat Singh, whose date of birth is

01.04.1951 retired from the job on 31.03.2011, after attaining

the age of 60 years. Same is the case with other employees

of the canteen, i.e. Sub. Chattar Pal Singh, Sub. Maj. R.D.

Koslia, Hav. Ved Prakash etc.

11.

I have also gone through the proceedings before

the Conciliation Officer, though the same has not been

proved nor the same is required to be proved in order to

buttress the case of the workman. However, stand of the

management appears to be that the workman in question,

Ms. Uma Devi was a contractual employee of the Unit

Run Canteen and’she was paid wages out of a Regimental

Fund which cannot be construed as non-public fund. Hence

Rule 27 would not apply to her, To my mind, there is no

force in the stand taken by the management before the

Conciliation Officer, inasmuch as even in the first letter of

appointment, Ex. WW1/1, workman herein was appointed

as Sales Assistant/Girl on TY basis and here retirement

age is mentioned as 55 years. Thus, she was not a daily

wager or a casual employee nor her services should have

been terminated in the manner done by the management.

It is also crystal clear that agreement Ex. WW1/2 entered

into between the workman and the management nowhere

provides that the same would not apply to the workman

herein, If it was so, there was no need to enter into such

agreement between the workman herein and the

management. The agreement clearly details rules regarding

resignation/termination, working hours, pay scales,

increments etc. and Clause 10 provides that retirement

age is extendable upto 58 years in exceptional

circumstances at the discretion of the employer, Signature

of Ms. Uma Devi, workman herein, as employee, appears

on this document. Subsequent rules regulating terms and

conditions of service of other employees of the Unit Run

Canteen Ex. WW1/3 clearly provides that age of retirement

of employees of Unit Run Canteens as per Rule 27 would

be 60 years. There is nothing in the above rules to show

that the case of the workman herein could not be governed

by such rules. Rather, definition of Unit Run Canteen

employees in clause (h) reads as under:

‘Unit Run Canteen Employees’ means a person who

is appointed as employee of such canteens under

these Rules.

4498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

There is nothing on record to show that the workman

herein is not covered under the definition of ‘Unit Run

Canteen’ employee as defined in the above Section. These

rules also details that acts of commission/omission

constituting misconduct etc.

13.

It is clear from the evidence as well as documents

on record that no written order of termination against

the workman herein was passed by the management.

Probably, this was not done as she attained the age of

only 55 years. However, it is apparent from the discussion

made herein above as per latest rules, filed as Ex. WW1/

3, which are applicable so far as terms and conditions of

the workman herein is concerned, and the age of

retirement is 60 years. The said rule clearly provides that

same would apply with immediate effect and would come

into force on 04.02.2001. Admittedly, on, that day,

workman herein was in service and she was entitled to

the benefit of the above rule. Since the workman appears

to have been allowed to superannuate at the age of 55

years, whereas she as to continue upto the age of 60 years,

unless her services have been terminated or she was

dismissed from service in accordance with law. There is

nothing on record to suggest that what action was taken

by the management on the representation made by the

workman herein. Management was required to atleast

apprise the workman as to why she was not being allowed

to serve the Canteen after attaining the age of 55 years.

The very fact that the management has not taken care to

contest the present case also shows the casual and

lackadaisical attitude of the management. Net result of

the above djscussion is that the workman herein should

have legally continued in service upto the age of 60 years

as per the latest-rules and here termination or

superannuation at the age of 55 years is patently wrong

and illegal. It is further clear from letter dated

08.02.2003 relied upon by the workman herein and

issued by the Ministry of Defence to the Chief of Army

staff, Chief of Naval Staff and Chief of the Air Staff that

non-compliance of the judgment dated 04.01.2001 of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rules regulating terms and

conditions regarding services of Unit Run Canteen

employees were framed with approval of the Ministry of

Finance. However, the above terms and conditions are

not being followed strictly by the various units/Unit Run

Canteen managements. Some examples of non

compliance have come to the notice of the Ministry

relating to termination/dismissal of the employees

without assigning any reson in Station HQ Canteen,

Sangroor, Punjab, Avadi Base Hospital, Lucknow and

Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir Canteen, Pathankot.

Some employees are working even beyond the age of

superannuation, i.e. beyond the age of 60 years. This also

clearly shows that the management, at some places, is

acting in an arbitrary manner and not following rules and

reg.ulations discussed above.

14.

In the case in hand, it is clear that the workman

herein, Ms.Uma Devi’s date of birth is 01.01.1956.

During the course of arguments, original of her

Matriculation Certificate was shown and photocopy of

the same has been retained on record. It is clear that Ms.

Uma Devi has not attained the age of superannuation as

per the latest regulations applicable in this regard.

15.

As a corollary to the above, it is held that the

workman herein is entitled for reinstatement with immediate

effect and payment of salary as well as all consequential

benefits to which she is/was otherwise entitled had she

been in service. An award is accordingly passed. Let this

award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required

under Section 17 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated: November 2, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2213-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj j{kk ea=kky; ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2015)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@32@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2015

S.O. 2213.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 24/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Ministry of Defence and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 23/11/2015.

[No. L-14012/32/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 24/2015

Shri Rajesh Tiwari,

S/o late Shri J.P. Tiwari,

R/o 2297, Lodhi Complex,

Pocket 3,

New Delhi-110 003

...Workman

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4499

Versus

Union of India

Through Defence Secretary,

South Block,

New Delhi – 110 001

2. Director General,

D.G. N.C.C.,

Ministry of Defence,

West Block-IV, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi – 110 066

Deputy Director General/MS

HQ D.G..N.C.C.,

CSD Canteen, Ministry of Defence,

West Block-IV, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi – 110 066

...Managements

AWARD

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, the workman herein initially filed

a petition under sub section 2 of section 2A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) on 15.01.2015. Later

on, reference was received by this Tribunal under section

10(2)(a) read with clause 1(d) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-

14012/32/2014-IR(DU) dated 29.01.2015 with following

terms of reference:

‘Whether the dismissal of service of the workman,

Shri Rajesh Tiwari is just and legal? If not, is the

workman entitled to reinstatement with back wages

and its cascading effect? If the dismissal is not

illegal, should the workman be not given his PG

Gratuity and other dues to which the workman is

entitled to?

Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present case

are that Shri Rajesh Tiwari, the workman herein, as

appointed as a store keeper on 16.09.1985 in the CSD

Canteen run by Ministry of Defence, the management. He

continued to serve till 10.03.2000. There are averments

that on 10.03.2000, Station House Officer, Police Station

Delhi Cantt visited the Headquarter DG, NCC and informed

that a truck containing 400 crates containing 24 canes

each of Cocoa Cola and Fanta has been intercepted by the

police when the said items were being sold in the market.

Police found that the items were meant for CSD of Head

Quarters, DG NCC,. Delhi. Thereafter, management ordered

an enquiry to check and verify the stock and Col. Man

Singh, Director in Headquarter DG, NCC carried out physical

checking and submitted its findings on 11.03.2003 where

he found that 200 crates containing 24 cans of Cocoa

Cola was found short and 200 crates containing 24 cans

each of Fanta were found short. Statement of the

workman herein was also recorded during the course of

enquiry. It was alleged against the workman that he joined

hands with Shri Devki Nandan who bought the stock on

09.03.2000 from representative of the supplier

M/s. Cocoa Cola Beverages Ltd. On the basis of the above

allegations, workman herein was charge sheeted and

departmental enquiry was ordered to be conducted against

him vide order dated 04.07.2001.

It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of

the above allegations, a criminal case bearing FIR No.106

of 2000 was also registered at PS Delhi Cantt under Section

420/406/34 IPC against the workman herein as well as Shri

Devki Nandan and Mohd. Tavrej Anwar. The workman

herein was placed under Column No.4 and vide a order

dated 01.07.2008, learned Metropolitan Magistrate

discharged the workman holding that there was not even

an iota of evidence even prima facie against the workman

herein in the crime. The workman herein remained in

judicial custody and the departmental enquiry was

conducted when he remained in jail. He was made to sign

certain blank papers which were later on used against him

in the enquiry. Even on 24.03.2000, the workman was

unwell and had visited the OPD of the Hospital.

Thereafter, order of dismissal from service was

passed vide order dated 28.01.2011 Ex.WW1/4 under rule

42(D)/Section 4 of the Terms and Conditions of Service of

HQ DG NCC of Unit Run Canteen. Workman thereafter

filed OA No.1796 of 2001 before the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and the Hon’ble

Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal on the grounds

that entire enquiry has been vitiated having been

conducted inside the jail at the time when the workman

was in judicial custody. Hon’ble CAT also ordered

reinstatement of the workman herein and ordered to hold

fresh enquiry. Management could not complete the

enquiry within the stipulated time and management filed

CWP bearing No.7605 of 2003 before the Hon’ble High

Court, Delhi wherein extension of time to complete the

enquiry was granted, subject to payment of cost of

Rs.15000.00 vide order dated 16.01.2004. Later on, vide

order dated 31.03.2004 management without providing

copy of Enquiry Report and recording submissions of

witness/es, dismissed the workman from service on

31.03.2004.

Again, the workman herein filed an OA No.2620 of

2004 before the Hon’ble CAT and the said OA was

disposed off on 29.10.2004 with direction to the workman

to file an appeal against the order dismissal and the same

was rejected by the Appellate Authority without assigning

any reason. On 21.03.2007, workman again received a letter

from the Canteen Officer wherein it was stated the Appellate

Authority has directed the DG, NCC to complete the

enquiry against the workman herein, setting aside the

dismissal order dated 31.03.2004 against the workman. Vide

this letter workman was reinstated in service. Thereafter,

fresh enquiry alongwith memorandum of charges was

initiated against the workman. The workman also made a

representation to the canteen officer alleging that fresh

enquiry was against the order of Hon’ble CAT passed in

4500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MA No.1088 of 2006 in OA No.781 of 2005. Even during

the course of enquiry, findings so given by the Enquiry

Officer that charges could not be proved against the

workman but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with

the findings of the Enquiry Officer on 03.01.2011 and

issued disagreement note calling upon the workman to

file his reply thereto. Even at that time, no enquiry report

was given to the workman despite the fact that the

workman had filed his reply on 24.01.2011 before the

Disciplinary Authority. Ultimately, vide order dated

28.01.2011, major penalty of dismissal from service was

imposed on the workman herein ignoring the judgement

of the Hon’ble High Court as well as CAT.

Management was put to notice to file their reply the

statement of claim filed by the workman herein. But nobody

appeared on behalf of the management and as such,

management was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated

10.06.2015.

Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself

as WW1 and proved in evidence various documents, i.e.

opinion of departmental enquiry committee Ex.WW1/1,

order on charge Ex.WW1/2, order of CAT Ex.WW1/3, Order

of dismissal by the DA Ex.WW1/4, Order dated 10.09.2013

of the Hon’ble High Court Ex.WW1/5 and order on SLP

WW1/6.

It is clear from perusal of the various documents

filed that at the relevant time, claimant herein was working

as a store keeper in CSD canteen run by HQ DG, NCC

under the overall supervision of the canteen manager in

the rank of Naik Subdar and canteen Official, Shri Dalip

Kumar. This fact is duly established from the opinion of

the Departmental Enquiry Committee Ex.WW1/1. Record

also shows that in the instant case, CSD Depot prepared a

consolidated demand for soft drinks Cocoa Cola/Fanta

on Hindustan Cocoa Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vide demand

No.LS 110006715 dated 24.02.2000 against which

Hindustan Cocoa Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. prepared

commercial invoice No.Cl-2388 dated 09.03.2000 raised on

CSE Depot, Delhi Cantt. for supply of 625 cases of Cocoa

Cola/Fanta. Case of the management is apparent in the

charge sheet as is evidence in Ex.WW1/1 and other

documents that when consignment of 625 cans of Cocoa

Cola /Fanta arrived directly at HQ DG, NCC only 225 cans

were off loaded. The canteen manager also signed for the

full consignment of the cans under commercial invoice

dated 09.03.2000 and balance of 400 cans of Cocoa Coal

and Fanta were taken by Shri Devki Nandan Sharma to

Tigris Road where he was apprehended by Delhi Police.

In fact he was attempting to dispose off the stock to

unauthorized persons, when he was nabbed by the police.

Now the vital question arises as to what was the role of

the workman herein in the unauthorized pilferage of the

above items which were said to be sold to unauthorized

persons. Admittedly, workman herein was not nabbed by

the police on the spot and Ex.WW1/1 clearly shows that it

was Shri Devki Nandan who was apprehended by the

police on the spot when tried to dispose off the stock to

unauthorized persons. It is also clear that the canteen

manager has signed for the full consignment of the cans

in the commercial invoice CI 2388 dated 09.03.2000.

Record of the case shows that regarding the above

illegal act, FIR No.106/2000 was fled against the workman

herein alongwith two other accused Devki Nandan and

Mohd. Tavrej Anwar. It is not out of place to mention here

that the workman herein was shown as accused in column

No.4 of the charge sheet, which itself shows that he was

not the principal accused. After filing of the challan, the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated

01.07.2008 discharged the accused in the offence under

section 420/406/34 IPC and relevant portion of the order

dated 01.07.2008 of the learned Magistrate reads as under:

‘Both the accused Devki Nandan and Md. Tavrej

were apprehended while off loading surplus cold

drinks cases alongwith one Md. Abdul Ansari

however said Md. Ansari was not charge sheeted in

view of his statement dated 10.03.2000 recorded

during investigation. There is also no other material

available showing involvement of Md. Ansari in the

present case. From the entire material available on

record, prima facie a case u/s 420/406/34 IPC is clearly

made out qua accused Devki Nandan and Md. Tavrej

only.

In view of the above discussed facts and

circumstances, accused Rajesh Tiwari is hereby

discharged. Let a charge be framed against accused

Devki Nandan and Md. Tavrej for the commission

of offence u/s 420/406/34 IPC. List the matter on

13.08.2008 for framing of charge.’

10.

It is crystal clear from perusal of the above order

that the workman herein was discharged of the offence

u/s 420/406/34 IPC by the learned Magistrate vide order

dated 01.07.2008 and there is nothing to show that no

appeal or revision against the said order was prayed by

any aggrieved party, i.e., the management herein. Perusal

of the above order also indicates that the learned

Magistrate has passed a reasoned and speaking order

taking in to account all the relevant facts and circumstances

under consideration and then concluded that no case is

made out against the workman herein.

11.

It is necessary to mention herein that initially

enquiry was conducted against the workman herein when

he was in judicial custody and later on said order was

challenged before CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi, who

vide order dated 21.01.2002 set aside the order of dismissal

passed against the workman herein on the grounds that

the entire enquiry was vitiated having been conducted

inside the jail when the workman was in judicial custody

and perusal of the order Ex.WW1/3 also shows that the

Hon’ble CAT directed reinstatement of the workman and

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4501

ordered conducting of fresh enquiry to be completed within

four months. Since the enquiry could not be completed

within the stipulated period for four months, as such, the

management sought extension of time, which was not

allowed by the CAT. Thereafter matter was taken up by

way of WP No.7605 of 2003 before the Hon’ble High Court

of Delhi, who allowed petition of the management, granting

extension of time to complete the enquiry within one

month, subject to cost of Rs.15,000.00 vide order dated

16.01.2004. It was thereafter that management in a slip

shod manner, rather in a perfunctory manner, completed

the enquiry without affording opportunity to the workman

to produce evidence , as a result of which workman was

dismissed from service order dated 31.03.2004. This order

passed by the management was also impugned by way of

OA No.2620 of 2004 before the Hon’ble CAT and in the

said OA, direction was given to the workman herein to file

an appeal. However, appeal filed by the claimant was also

rejected without assigning any reason by the Appellate

Authority vide order dated 28.01.2011. Thereafter, claimant

herein filed OA No.781 of 2006 before CAT and direction

was given to the management to place the appeal of the

workman before the appropriate Appellate Authority. Again

on 21.03.2007, claimant herein received letter from the

canteen officer which was accompanied by letter dated

26.02.2002 wherein it was stated that the Appellate

Authority has directed the DG, NCC to complete the enquiry

against the workman and order of dismissal passed gains

the workman on 31.03.2004 was set aside and workman

was reinstated in service. On 11.04.2007, again a letter was

received by the workman herein from DDG, MS that fresh

enquiry is being initiated against the workman herein.

Upon this, the claimant herein made a representation that

this was completely contrary to the directions given by

the Hon’ble CAT in MA No.1088 of 2006 in OA No.781 of

2005. Despite the fact that the Enquiry Officer gave his

mind that no case is established against the workman

herein, Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings

of the Enquiry Officer on 03.01.2011 and issued

disagreement notice calling upon the workman to file reply.

Copy of the enquiry report was not given to the workman

despite the fact that the workman had filed reply on

24.01.2011 before the Disciplinary Authority without giving

any reason on 28.01.2011 against major penalty of dismissal

from service vide Ex.WW1/4.

12.

Learned A/R for the claimant, during the course of

arguments, argued that the claimant herein has been

discharged by the learned Magistrate vide order dated

01.07.2008 and in that eventuality management should not

have initiated further enquiry against the workman herein,

who was liable to be exonerated of the charges leveled

against him. In this regard, learned A/R for the claimant

placed reliance in the case of Capt. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat

Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 wherein legal question

was whether on the same set of facts, departmental enquiry

can be initiated against an employee alongwith criminal

case simultaneously. After discussing facts and case law

on the subject, it was concluded in para 22 and and 34 of

the judgement by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under:

22. The conclusions which are deducible from

various decisions of the Court referred to above

are:

(i)

Departmental

proceedings

and

proceedings in a criminal case can proceed

simultaneously as there is no bar in their

being conducted simultaneously, though

separately.

(ii)

If the departmental proceedings and the

criminal case are based on identical and

similar set of facts and the charge in the

criminal case against the delinquent

employee is of a grave nature which

involves complicated questions of law and

fact, it would be desirable to stay the

departmental proceedings till the

conclusion of the criminal case.

(iii)

Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal

case is grave and whether complicated

questions of fact and law are involved in

that case, will depend upon the nature of

offence, the nature of the case launched

against the employee on the basis of

evidence and material collected against him

during investigation or as reflected in the

charge sheet.

(iv)

The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above

cannot be considered in isolation to stay

the Departmental proceedings but due

regard has to be given to the fact that the

departmental proceedings cannot be

unduly delayed.

(v)

If the criminal case does not proceed or its

disposal is being unduly delayed, the

departmental proceedings, even if they

were stayed on account of the pendency

of the criminal case, can be resumed and

proceeded with so as to conclude them at

an early date, so that if the employee is

found not guilty his honour may be

vindicated and in case he is found guilty,

administration may get rid of him at the

earliest.

There is yet another reason for discarding the whole

of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier,

the criminal case as also the departmental

proceedings were based on identical set of facts,

namely, ‘the raid conducted at the appellant’s

residence and recovery of incriminating articles

4502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

therefrom.’ The findings recorded by the Inquiry

Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us,

indicate that the charges framed against the appellant

were sought to be proved by Police Officers and

Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the

appellant and had effected recovery. They were the

only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and

the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements,

came to the conclusion that the charges were

established against the appellant. The same

witnesses were examined in the criminal case but

the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence,

came to the conclusion that no search was conducted

nor was any recovery made from the residence of

the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution

was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In

this situation, therefore, where the appellant is

acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the

finding that the “raid and recovery” at the residence

of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust,

unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings

recorded at the ex- parte departmental proceedings,

to stand.

Since the facts and the evidence in both the

proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings

and the criminal case were the same without there

being any iota of difference, the distinction, which

is usually drawn as between the departmental

proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of

approach and burden of proof, would not be

applicable to the instant case.’

13.

Further, in the case of Union of India vs. Naman

Singh Shekhawat (2008) 4 SCC1 wherein it has been held

that after acquittal, initiation of departmental enquiry is

permissible but exercise should be bona fide. In the case

of Divisional Controller Karnataka Sate Road Transport

Corporation vs. MG Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442, it has

been held as under:

21.

There are evidently two lines of decisions of

this Court operating in the field. One being

the cases which would come within the

purview of Capt. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold

Mines Ltd. and Another [(1999) 3 SCC 679]

and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and

Others [(2006) 5 SCC 446]. However, the

second line of decisions show that an

honourable acquittal in the criminal case itself

may not be held to be determinative in respect

of order of punishment meted out to the

delinquent officer, inter alia, when :

(i)

the order of acquittal has not been passed

on the same set of fact or same set of

evidence; (ii) the effect of difference in the

standard of proof in a criminal trial and

disciplinary proceeding has not been

considered. [See Commissioner of Police,

New Delhi v. Narender Singh (2006) 4 SCC

265], or; where the delinquent officer was

charged with something more than the

subject-matter of the criminal case and/or

covered by a decision of the Civil Court.

22.

We may not be understood to have laid down

a law that in all such circumstances the

decision of the civil court or the criminal court

would be binding on the disciplinary

authorities as this Court in a large number of

decisions points point that the same would

depend upon other factors as well. See

e.g. Krishnakali Tea Estate V. Akhil Bharatiya

Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. [ 2004 (8) SCC

200] and Manager, Reserve Bank of India

Bangalore V. S. Mani & Ors. [ 2005 (5) SCC

100]. Each case is, therefore, required to be

considered on its own facts.

14.

There is hardly any dispute with the proposition of

law enunciated in the above rulings. Yet Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Union of India vs. Bhagat Singh whle dealing

with the question of simultaneous holding of departmental

enquiry as well as initiation of criminal case against the

delinquent employee, it was held as under:

‘It is well settled that where misconduct alleged

against a government employee leads to a criminal

case as well as departmental enquiry, the outcome

of criminal case is not necessarily to clinch the

departmental enquiry. To illustrate, if an allegation

of embezzlement of government money results in an

FIR registered against delinquent official and the

competent authority is prompted to direct a

departmental enquiry, acquittal of delinquent official,

of the charges is not to automatically exonerate the

delinquent official of charges in departmental enquiry

and his reinstatement. The reason being that

standard of proof in a criminal trial is different from

one required in departmental enquiry. While in a

criminal trial the prosecution has to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt and even the lapse on the

part of the investigating officer or the prosecution

may earn the accused acquittal, same is not true

about departmental enquiry wherein even an

admission by the delinquent official may be

considered by the enquiry officer to return findings

of guilt against the employee.’

15.

While making the aforesaid observations, strong

reliance was placed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (P) Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd. (AIR 2005 SC 4217), wherein it was held

that law is fairly well settled that acquittal by a criminal

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4503

court would not debar an employer from exercising power

in accordance with rules and regulations in force. The

two proceedings, criminal and department, are entirely

different. They operate in different fields and have different

objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict

appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of

enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent

departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with

service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement

made by the accused in certain circumstances or before

certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such

strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to

departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is

necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree

of proof necessary to record the commission of

delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence

in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law,

burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the

prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused

‘beyond reasonable doubt’, he cannot be convicted by a

court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand,

penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a

finding recorded on the basis of ‘preponderance of

probability’. Thus, it is clear that both departmental

proceedings as well as criminal case can continue.

However, enquiry report is supposed to be kept in mind if

clear cut finding has been given by Criminal Court regarding

misconduct of the accused, if subject matter of the enquiry

before the employer and allegations contained in criminal

case are based upon the same set of circumstances. Even

otherwise, decision of the court is always relevant even

between the same parties qua the same subject matter. In

the case in hand, situation is even worse. Learned

Magistrate vide order dated 01.07.2008 did not even think

it proper to frame charges against the accused, i.e.

workman herein and discharged him of the offence under

Section 420/406/34, which clearly shows that discharge of

the claimant herein is like honorable acquittal.

16.

As a sequel to my detailed discussion hereinabove,

it is held that the management has failed to prove any

charge against the claimant herein and as such order of

dismissal, Ex.WW1/4 passed by the Disciplinary Authority

is held to be against the principles of natural justice as

well as null and void. Consequently, claimant herein is

liable to be reinstated in service and would be deemed to

be in service from the date of dismissal and shall be entitled

to all consequential benefits to which he is/was otherwise

entitled had he been in service. An award is accordingly

passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : November 4, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2214-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqfufliy

dksiksZjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh (uksFkZ) ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@47@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2015

S.O. 2214.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 70/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi

(North) and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/11/2015.

[No. L-42011/47/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No.70/2014

The President,

MCD General Mazdoor Union (Regd.),

Room No.95, Barack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

New Delhi

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (North)

Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi

...Management

AWARD

Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act (in short the Act) in the present case was

received from the appropriate Government, viz. Ministry

of Labour and Employment, vide order No.L-42011/47/

2014-IR(DU) dated 04.08.2014 for adjudication of the

industrial dispute and the same is as under:

“Whether Shri Shiv Kumar, S/o Late Nath Singh is

entitled to the status of Chaudhary in the pay scale

4504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of Rs.3050-4590 with effect from 01.01.2000 revised

from the time along with all consequential benefits?

If not, what directions are necessary in this respect?”

It is clear from perusal of the statement of claim that

the workman, Shri Shiv Kumar, was initially posted as mali

under Rohini Zone, Horticulture Division and thereafter

transferred to Civil Lines Zone of Horticulture.

It is specifically averred in para 3 of statement of

claim that the workman was employed on muster roll as

mali in 1983 and was regularized on 01.04.1989. He has

been performing the work of Garden Chaudhary with effect

from 01.01.2000 as per competent officer(s) of Horticulture

Department and with initially posted under Deputy

Director of Horticulture, Civil Lines Zone with effect from

01.01.2000. He has now been transferred back to Rohini

Zone and continuously working as acting Chaudhary.

However, he has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary as

revised from time to time. The workman has been

performing duty of Chaudhary till date even after transfer

from one Zone to the other. Name of the workman is also

appearing in list Ex.WW1/2 at Serial No.5 as per office

documents prepared by the management.

There are averments that MCD has fixed pay scales

of other employees, including malis, Chaudhary etc. and

non-grant of proper pay scale of Chaudhary to the

workman, Shri Shiv Kumar is ‘forced labour’ and thus

amounts to unfair labour practice. In fact, the workman

Shri Shiv Kumar has got payment in lower scale of Rs.2550-

3200 revised from time to time and has been denied time

scale of Garden Chaudhary Rs.3050-4590, which duty he

performed since 21.03.1996.

It is also averred that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

in the matter of Jai Chand Vs. MCD has directed payment

of wages of Garden Chaudhary to those malis who are

performing work of Garden Chaudhary vide its order dated

02.05.2003 and in compliance of the said order, management

has issued office order No.ADC(Hort)/AO(Hort)/DA-VII/

05/457 dated 04.03.2005, Annexure B. There is also

reference to the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

in the case of MCD versus Sultan Singh and others dated

27.07.2011, wherein Hon’ble High Court under similar

circumstances while considering question of payment of

wages of Garden Chaudhary to those malis who are

performing duties and functions of Garden Chaudhary,

held that such malis be paid the difference in pay of mali

and Garden Chaudhary. The said judgement was also

challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by

filing S.L.P., which was dismissed as withdrawn by the

management. Management is now duty bound to pay

wages to the workman in the scale of Chaudhary with

effect form 21.03.1996.

Management failed to put in its presence in spite of

issuing several notices, hence the Tribunal had no option

but to proceed ex-parte in the matter.

The workman, Shri Shiv Kumar, in support of his

case, filed his affidavit as evidence, which is Ex.WW1/A

and also tendered in evidence some document along with

judgements. I would be referring to the same while drawing

my conclusion.

I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant

while none appeared on behalf of the management.

10.

It is clear from Annexure A that the workman Shri

Shiv Kumar was initially working as mali and from time

to time he was transferred. This fact is also duly

established from the copy of office order Ex.WW1/2

wherein name of the workman Shri Shiv Kumar finds

mention at serial No.5.

11.

The only moot point which is required to be

considered in the case in hand is whether the workman

has been working on the post of Garden Chaudhary since

01.01.2000 and entitled to wages of Garden Chaudhary,

as alleged in the statement of claim. In this regard, it is

appropriate to refer the statement of claim wherein it is

specifically alleged that the workman herein was

employed on muster roll in the year 1983 and thereafter

was employed on regular basis with effect from

01.01.2000. Workman in order to prove the above

averments contained in the statement of claim examined

himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit,

which is Ex.WW1/A, along with documents. Sine none

has appeared on behalf of the management, as such

management was proceeded ex-parte by order of this

Tribunal on 21.01.2015. It is clear from the recital

contained in the affidavit that averments contained in the

affidavit are on the same lines as those contained in the

statement of claim.

12.

Main grievance of the workman herein is that he has

worked as Garden Chaudhary from 01.01.2000 as ordered

by the competent authority of Horticulture Department

and initially he was posted under the Deputy Director

(Horticulture), Civil Lines and later on he was transferred

to Rohini Zone. It was urged on behalf of the claimant

that since he was doing work of officiating Chaudhary, as

such he was entitled to salary of Garden Chaudhary instead

of mali. It is also clear from perusal of Ex.WW1/1 that the

name of the workman herein appears at serial No.19 and

overall examination of the document shows that it contains

list of Chaudharies deployed by the management. There

is also a document Ex.WW1/2, which contains names of

malis who are doing work of malis in Horticulture

Department and name of the workman is at serial No.5 and

in the column ‘working since’ shows that the workman is

doing work of Garden Chaudhary since May 2000. There

is no evidence led by the management to the contrary so

as to show that the workman herein is not entitled for the

salary of Garden Chaudhary. During the course of

arguments, learned A/R for the claimant placed reliance

upon the case of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh and others bearing

WP(C) 7947/2010 decided on 27.07.2011 wherein same

question was involved. It was a case where workman was

allotted duties of Garden Chaudhary though on

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4505

substantive rank of Mali. Workman in the present case

were claiming wages of Garden Chaudhary as he was

performing duties of Garden Chaudhary. Industrial

Adjudicator held that workman was entitled to salary of

Garden Chaudhary and when the matter was taken to the

Hon’ble High Court, it was held as under:

“28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances

it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have

always been that they should be paid the difference

in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary

as they were made to work on the post of Garden

Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied

that they worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took

the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture)

was not competent to ask the respondents to work

as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents

cannot be appointed to the post of Garden

Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment

rules. There is no doubt that respondents are not

claiming appointment to the post of Garden

Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-

hoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary

to rules or that some of them not having the requisite

qualifications are entitled for relaxation.

29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances

therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

failed to make out any such grounds which will impel

this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution to set aside the orders of the

Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October,

2010 as no illegality or un-sustainability or perversity

in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.

30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties

are left to bear their own cost.”

13.

Learned A/R for the claimant also urged that this

judgement of the Hon’ble High was challenged before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP, which was

dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2012. Situation in the

case in hand is in no way different from the above cited

case. In above case, workmen were initially appointed as

Mali and later on they were performing duties of Garden

Chaudhary or Garden Supervisor. As such it was held

that they are entitled to salary of Garden Chaudhary. There

is another authority of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

titled ‘MCD Vs. Satender Singh, which was decided by

the Hon’ble High Court on 23.03.2012 wherein similar

question was involved and a careful appraisal of the above

judgement shows that direct reliance was placed upon

judgement in. Sultan Singh and others (supra) and

workman was held entitled to the salary of Garden

Chaudhary.

14.

Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a

higher post, on ad-hoc or temporary post, then such an

employee is entitled to the salary/wages of such higher

post unless rules or regulations provide otherwise. I find

support to this view of mine from the case of Secretary

Vs. Lieutenant Governor Port Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598).

15.

As a sequel to my discussion made hereinabove, it

is held that the workman Shri Shiv Kumar was doing the

work of Garden Supervisor since 01.01.2000 and from

that date he is entitled to the wages of Garden Chaudhary

and as a corollary, management is liable pay the

difference of wages of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary

from the date when the workman herein was performing

duties and functions of Garden Chaudhary. An award is

accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : November 16, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2215-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqfufliy

dksiksZjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh (uksFkZ) ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@48@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2015

S.O. 2215.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 71/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi

(North) and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/11/2015.

[No. L-42011/48/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 71/2014

4506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri B.K. Prasad,

MCD General Mazdoor Union (Regd.),

Room No.95, Barack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

New Delhi

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (North)

Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi

...Management

AWARD

A reference was received by this Tribunal under

Section 10(2)(a) read with clause 1(d) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 from the appropriate Government vide

letter No.L-42011/48/2014-IR(DU) dated 04.08.2014 to

answer the following:

“Whether non-payment of hospital patient care

allowance to S/Shri Vishnu Dutt, Suresh Kumar and

Sheesh Pal by the management of MCD is just, fair

and legal? If not, what relief the workmen concerned

are entitled to?

Statement of claim was filed by the claimants

pleading that they were performing their duties in cremation

grounds at Nigambodh Ghat under Health Department of

Civil Lines Zone of MCD and are entitled to Patient Care

Allowance from the date of their regularization , i.e.

01.04.1994, since they come in contact with patient and

their dead bodies. Non-ministerial staff performing their

duties under the Health Department of the management

are being paid patient care allowance with effect from

01.12.1987 onwards when their services were taken on

regular establishment.

Claimants, Shri Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Shri Suresh

Kumar and Shri Sheesh Pal, all of them beldars, and

designated as Group D non-ministerial employees, whose

job is connected with the work of dead bodies, i.e. to bring

unclaimed bodies from mortuary of hospitals, bringing

dead bodies from beggar home, leprosy homes and other

places, providing assistance in cremating the bodies etc.

The claimants are entitled to patient care allowance with

effect from the date of regularization, i.e. 01.04.1994.

Despite granting of opportunities, management did

not file its written statement. On 21.01.2015 case was called

several times at different intervals, but neither the

authorized representative nor any officer of the

management appeared. At about 3 p.m., the matter was

proceeded under Rule 22 of Industrial Disputes (Central)

Rules, 1957. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence,

besides documents and closed his evidence. Evidence

of the management was also closed.

Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri B.K. Prasad,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. None was present to advance arguments

on behalf of the management.

On perusal of the records and arguments advanced

at the bar, it is clear that the claimants are directly connected

with the work of dead bodies. The claimants have relied

on award dated 24.02.2005 of Shri P.S. Teji, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID

No.105 of 2003 relating to payment of hospital care

allowance to workmen working in electric crematoriums.

This award was challenged by the management before the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 3977/2006 in interim

application for stay, i.e. CM Appl. No.2315/2006, which

appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court, holding

as under:

“This application is pending for last seven years.

No interim stay has been granted till date. Even

otherwise, I do not find any, prima facie, case in

favour of the petitioner to stay the operation of the

impugned award. As per the petitioner, patient care

allowance was being given only to the persons who

were working in the hospital. Industrial Adjudicator

has taken instances where the payments have been

made even to the ambulance drivers, who were

engaged for bringing dead bodies to the cremation

ground. Industrial Adjudicator has further observed

that MW1 had admitted in his cross-examination

that one Shri Ram Nath, Safai karamchari, was paid

the salary from Bela Road Crematorium and was

diverted to Sadar Bazar main dispensary and was

given patient care allowance. Application is

dismissed.”

Thus, it is clear from observations made by the

Hon’ble High Court hereinabove, that award dated

24.02.2005 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator was upheld.

It is further clear that management was directed in the said

case to pay hospital care allowance to the workmen. In

the case in hand, workman has examined himself as WW1

and tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.WW1/A, which

is on similar lines as his statement of claim. There is no

cross examination of the workman herein as none had

appeared on behalf of the management at the time of

evidence. Therefore, un-rebutted statement contained

in Ex.WW1/A is liable to be accepted. Moreover, as

discussed above, on the basis of the award passed by the

Industrial Tribunal II, Karkardooma Courts, in ID No.105/

2003 titled ‘MCD Vs. Its workman Shri Madan Pal and

others’, clearly shows that workmen were held entitled

to hospital care allowance and Civil Writ Petition filed

against the said judgement was dismissed vide Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi order dated 23.08.2013 Ex.WW1/2.

Law is very clear that under similar circumstances, when

the workman are performing same kind of duties, there

cannot be two set of principles in relation to award of

their salary and other allowance. Since workmen in the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4507

instant case is performing similar duties directly connected

with the work of dead bodies, as such are also entitled to

hospital care allowance.

As a sequel to my discussion made hereinabove, it

is held that the workmen S/Shri Vishnu Dutt, Suresh

Kumar and Sheesh Pal are entitled to Hospital Care

allowance with effect from 01.01.1994, i.e. the date when

they were regularized. An award is accordingly passed.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : November 16, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2216-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 19@2007) 'kqf¼i=k izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 24@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A 19oha iafDr ds ykbu 3 ,oa 9

esa mYysf[kr deZdkj dk uke v'kksd dqekj ds txg 'kSysUæ ¯lg

ds :i esa i<+k tk ldrk gS A

¹la- ,y&40012@106@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2015

S.O. 2216.—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. 19/2007) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/11/2015, the

name of the workman mentioned as Ashok Kumar, in 3rd

and 9th line of para 19 be read as “Shailendra Singh”.

[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

ID No. 19/2007

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

dated 14.5.2007

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

CORRIGENDUM

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

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

industrial dispute between the 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 for adjudication; and this Tribunal adjudicated

the said reference vide its award dated 13.10.2015; wherein

some typographical error has been committed in 3rd and

9th line of para 19 of the said award.

Therefore, following correction is being incorporated

in the award dated 13.10.2015 of this Tribunal :

“The name of the workman, mentioned as “Ashok

Kumar”, in 3rd and 9th line of para 19 be read as

“Shailendra Singh”.

Lucknow

10.11.2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2217-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49@2006) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@145@2005&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2217.—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-1,

4508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 49 of 2006) as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/145/2005-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 49/2006

Employer in relation to the management of Barora

Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 23/09/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /145/2005-IR(CM-1) dated 01/

06/2006, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of BCCL,

Brora Area-I in dismissing Sh. Raju Bhuia, Miner/

Loder from service w.e.f. 22/11/2003 is just, fair

and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2218-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 229@2001) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@371@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2218.—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,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 229/2001) as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/371/2001-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. 229/2001

Employer in relation to the management of Damoda

Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 23/09/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /371/2001-IR(C-1) dated

23/10/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the failure to provide employment to Sri

Durga. Turi dependent Son- in- law of late Sanichar

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4509

Turi under 9.5/2 of NCWA-V by the management of

Damoda Colliery of M/s BCCL is justified, If not to

what relief is the said dependent entitled ?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2219-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2012) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@107@2011&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2219.—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,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 25 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/107/2011-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. 25 of 2012

Employer in relation to the management of Godhar

Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Shri Pintu Mondal, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 17/09/2015

AWARD

By order No.-L-20012/107/2011 IR-(CM-I), dated. 23/

02/2012 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 Godhur

Colliery of M/S BCCL in not Providing employment

to Chinta Kumari, daughter of Late Baiju Bhuia under

the provision of NCWA is fair and justified? To

what relief Chinta Kumari, daughter of Late Baiju

Bhuia is entitled to ?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

28.03.2012 After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement

on 30.04.2012. The management files their written

statement -cum-rejoinder on 21.11.2012. No witness

examined from both side.

The applicant is the daughter of the workman who

claimed for compassionate appointment in place of her

father who died while in service.

The management though admitted regarding the

death submits that since the workman was a casual

employee, and he died out side the work place, she will

not been entitled to any job.

The workman admittedly died. He was a wagon

loader of coal, the work is hazardous, It cannot be rulled

out that due to coal dust etc, the workman, becoming ill

and succumbed subsequently.

The workman might have suffered and ultimately

died . Though there is no provision to give job to the LRs

of the deceased employee when he was a casual

employee, the present case is different.

The management to do well to give the applicant , a

consolidated sum of Rs. 30,000/- through A/C payee

cheque soon after the publication of the award.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2220-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

4510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@2001) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@484@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2220.—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,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 57 of 2001) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/484/2000-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. 57 of 2001

Employer in relation to the management of Bastacolla

Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri R. R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 28/09/2015

AWARD

By order No.-L-20012/484/2000 IR-(C-I), dated.

19/02/2001 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

the Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S

BCCL in removing the workman Sri Gobardhan

Dusadh, Miner Loader, personnel No. 02528669 from

service of Chandmari section of Bastacolla Colliery

under Bastacolla Area in justified legal and proper,

If not to what relief is the workman entitled?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

08.03.2001 After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 28.08.2001. And the management files their

written statement -cum-rejoinder on 18.10.2001. One

witnesses examined from both side. Document of the

workman is marked as W-1 to W-8 and management’s

document marked as M-1.

The workman was dismissed i.e removed from

service for improper behavior. The workman took part in

enquiry and the allegation were proved.

But before this Tribunal the workman admitted that

he was indiscipline. Now he says that he is on the street

and virtually marrowed and sough the indulgence of this

Tribunal.

During preliminary hearing this Tribunal

considering all aspects of the matter and reveals that he

has already out of service for 16 years. It is felt to give

another chance to the workman to serve and orders that

the workman be taken as a fresh employee in category I

on initial basic and he be kept in two years probation.

Management is also asked to take an undertaking of good

behavior from him.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2221-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@1997) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@443@1995&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2221.—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,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 31 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/443/1995-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4511

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. 31 of 1997

Employer in relation to the management of Phularitand

Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Rajan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

None

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 9/10/2015

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/443/1995-IR (C-I), dated

9/10-01-1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for the placement

of/Shri J.N.Rai and 11 others Dumper operators

(Given below) in Excavation Grade-A w.e.f. 5/2/1990

with all fringe benefits are justified? If so, to what

relief are these workmen entitled?”

Annexure

Name of workmen

1. S/Sh Kapoor Singh

2. B.M. Singh

3. H.N. Pandey

4. R. A. Prasad

5. Janardan Singh

6. Jagdish Singh

7. Ganesh Ram

8. Idrish Khan

9. R.D. Ojha

10. U.P. Singh

11. Devendra Singh

After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed.

Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently

did not take any interest in the case. It is presumed that

the disputes between parties have been resolved in the

meantime, Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2222-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 268@1994) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@353@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2222.—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,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 268 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/353/1994-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. 268 of 1994

Employer in relation to the management of Gondudih

Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Rajan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

None

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 12/10/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/353/1993-IR (C-I), dated

21/11/1994, 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

4512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the

following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Gondudih

Colliery under Kusunda Area No.6 of M/s. BCCL in

denying employment to Smt. Jaswa Kamin W/O Late

Tetar Bhuiya, Ex- Miner/Loader of Gondudih Colliery

is justified? If not, to what relief Smt. Jaswa Kamin is

entitled?”

After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed.

Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently

did not take any interest in the case. It is presumed that

the disputes between parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2223-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87@1999) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@570@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2223.—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,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 87 of 1999) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/570/1998-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. 87 of 1999

Employer in relation to the management of

Barora Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Rajan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 9/10/2015

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/570/1998-IR (C-I), dated

17/05/1999, 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 BCCL in

dismissing Sri Bhdhu Bihari Prasad on the allegation

that he was an impersonator after 13 years of service

is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled?”

After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed.

Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently

did not take any interest in the case by the workman. 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] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2224-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 109@1994) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@105@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2224.—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,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 109 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/105/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4513

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. 109/1994

Employer in relation to the management of

Block-II Area (O.C.P.), M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 4/9/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/105/ 1993 /IR (C-1), dated

28/04/1994, 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

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for regularization

of the services of Sh. Kesho Bhuiya, Trammer as

Tyre Fitter by the management of Block II OCP of

M/S BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled and from what date?”

After receipt of the reference , both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2225-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2004) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@299@2002&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2225.—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,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 13 of 2004) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/299/2002-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 13/2004

Employer in relation to the management of

Fularitand Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 12/10/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /299/2002-IR(C-1) dated 23/

12/2003, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“D;k fcgkj dksfy;jh etnwj la?k dh Hkkjr dks¯dx dksy

fyfeVsM] cjkjh {ks=k&1 ds izca/ra=k ls ekax dh deZdkj

Jh paænso nkl] iqQykjh MkaM dksfy;jh dks] muds lsok

fjdkMks± esa ntZ tUe rkjh[k 31-05-1943 dks lgh u ekurs

gq,] vk;q fu/kZj.k ds fy, loksZPp fpfdRlk cksMZ@vk;q fu/kZj.k

lfefr ds le{k izLrqr fd;k tk, mfpr ,oaU;k;laxr gS ?

;fn gk¡ rks deZdkj fdl jkgr ds ik=k gSa ?”

4514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 28, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2226-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 99@1994) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@456@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2226.—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,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 99 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/456/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT (NO. 1), DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 99/1994

Employer in relation to the management of

Moonidih Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 28/8/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/456/ 1993 /IR (C-1) dated

8/04/1994, 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

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

Moonidih Colliery of M/s BCCL, P.O. Moonidih,

Distt. Dhanbad in dismissing/terminating the

services of Shri Binod Bouri, PRM w.e.f. 6/9.10.91

from the company is justified ? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled ?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2227-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 223@1994) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@11@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@230@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 2227.—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,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 223 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/11/2015.

[No. L-20012/230/1994-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 28] 2015@vxzgk;.k 7] 1937

4515

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. 223/1994

Employer in relation to the management of

Churi Colliery of M/s. CCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 25/8/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/230/ 1994 /IR (C-1) dated

31/08/94, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether action of management of Churi Colliery

of N.K. Area of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. P.O.Churi,

Distt. Ranchi is justified in dismissing from the

services w.e.f. 14/08/91 the workman Shri Jharia

Pahan, Ex-loader of Churi Colliery If not to what

relief the workman is entitled ?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

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.