17 GI/2016
(157)
foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 81-—o"kZ 2000 esa ;Fkk la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx
fodkl cSad vf/kfu;e] 1989 dh /kkjk 6 (1) (x) n~okjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~nokjk] Jh iadt
tSu] vkbZ,,l (,,e%1990)] la;qDr lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx]
foÙk ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh dks rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'kksa
rd] Jh vkyksd V.Mu ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx fodkl caSd
(flMch) ds funs'kd e.My esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
[Qk- la- 3@2@2011&vkbZ ,Q&I]
lkSE;thr ?kks"k] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Service)
New Delhi, the 1st January, 2016
S.O. 81.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section (6) (1) (c) of the Small Industries Development Bank
of India Act, 1989 as amended in the year 2000, the Central
Government hereby nominates Shri Pankaj Jain, IAS (AM:
1990) Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services,
Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as a Director on the Board
of Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI)
with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Alok
Tandon.
[F. No. 3/2/2011-IF-I]
SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under 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- 3]
ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 10—tuojh 16] 2016] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 20—ikS"k 26] 1937
No. 3]
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 10—JANUARY 16, 2016, SATURDAY/PAUSA 20—PAUSA 26, 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)
158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 82-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/fu;e] 1981
(1981 dk 28) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (Ä)ds
mi&[kaM (i) ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~nokjk] Jh iadt
TkSu] vkbZ,,l(,,e%1990)] l;qDr lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx]
foÙk ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh dks rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k
gksus rd] Jh vkyksd V.Mu ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr
cSad (,fDte cSad) ds funs'kd e.My esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
[iQk- la- 3@2@2011&vkbZ ,iQ&I]
lkSE;thr ?kks"k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st January, 2016
S.O. 82.—In pursuance of Sub- Clause (i) of Clause
(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import
Bank of India Act, 1981(No. 28 of 1981), the Central
Government hereby nominates Shri Pankaj Jain,IAS (AM:
1990) Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services,
Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as a Director on the Board
of Export Import Bank of India (Exim Bank) with immediate
effect and until further orders vice Shri Alok Tandon.
[F. No. 3/2/2011-IF-I]
SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.
fons'k ea=ky;
¼lh-ih-oh- izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 83-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa
iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds vuqlj.k
esa oS/kfud vkns'kA
,rn~nokjk] dsUnz ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] vfcntku esa
Jh nhid oqQekj] futh lgk;d dks fnukad 7 tuojh 2016 ls
lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu
ds fy, izkf/Ñr djrh gSA
¹la- Vh- 4330@01@2015º
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 7th January, 2016
S. O. 83.—Statutory Order 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 appoints Shri Deepak Kumar, PA in
Assistant as Assistant Consular in Embassy of India,
Abidjan to perform the Consular services with effect from
7 January, 2016.
[No. T. 4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
jsy ea=kky;
(jsyos cksMZ)
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 84-—jsy ea=kky; (jsyos cksMZ)] jktHkk"kk fu;e
1976 (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) ds fu;e 10 ds
mifu;e(2) vkSj (4) ds vuqlj.k esa jsyVsy dkiksjs'ku vkWiQ
bafM;k fyfeVsM] xqMxkao] tgka 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d
vf/dkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k
gS] dks ,rnokjk vf/klwfpr djrk gSA
¹la- fganh 2015@jk-Hkk-1@12@2º
ds - ih- lR;kuanu] funs'kd] (jktHkk"kk)
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2015
S.O. 84.—Minstry of Railways (Railway of Board)
in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the
Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes
of the Union) hereby, notify the Railtel Corporation of
India Limited, Gurgaon, where 80% or more Officers/
Employees have acquired the working knowledge of
Hinidi.
[No. Hindi 2015/O. L-1/12/2]
K. P. SATHYANANDAN, Director (OL)
ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 85.—jsy ea=kky; (jsyos cksMZ)] jktHkk"kk fu;e
1976 (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) ds fu;e 10 ds
mifu;e(2) vkSj (4) ds vuqlj.k esa nf{k.k eè; jsyos ds
xqardy eaMy ds varxZr fr:ifr LVs'ku] tgka 80 izfr'kr ls
vfèkd vfèkdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr
dj fy;k gS] dks ,rnokjk vf/lwfpr djrk gSA
¹la- fganh 2015@jk-Hkk-1@12@2º
ds- ih- lR;kuanu] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2015
S.O. 85.—Minstry of Railways (Railway Board) in
pursurance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the
Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes
of the Union) hereby, notify Tirupatti Station under
Guntkal Division of South Central Railway, where 80% or
more Officers/Employees have acquired the working
knowledge of Hinidi.
[No. Hindi 2015/O. L.-1/12/2]
K. P. SATHYANANDAN, Director(OL)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
159
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;
(LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 9 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 86-—dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) n~okjk iznRr
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh igyh vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr
vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] uker% %&
mDr izFke vuqlwph esa
¶Jhear 'kadjnsok LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] xqokgkVh] vle¸ ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds vkxs dkWye (2)
ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* (blds vkxs dkWye(3) ds :i esa lan£Hkr) ds vUrxZr vafre izfof"V
vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr 'kkfey fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
(2)
(3)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu
,eMh(,ukVkseh)
(,ukVkseh)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks flypj esfMdy dkWyst] flypj vle esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa Jhear 'kadjnsok LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
xqokgkVh] vle }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu
,eMh(iQksjsafld esfMlu)
(iQksjsafld esfMlu)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks flypj esfMdy dkWyst] flypj vle esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa Jhear 'kadjnsok LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
xqokgkVh] vle }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks A)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu
,eMh(ck;ksdsfeLVªh)
(ck;ksdsfeLVªh)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks flypj esfMdy dkWyst] flypj vle esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa Jhear 'kadjnsok LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
xqokgkVh] vle }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks A)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu
,eMh(iQkekZdksykWth)
(iQkekZdksykWth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks flypj esfMdy dkWyst] flypj vle esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa Jhear 'kadjnsok LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
xqokgkVh] vle }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks A)
([k) izFke vuqlwph esa ¶MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k¸ ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk* ¹blds vkxs dkWye (2) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¹blds vkxs dkWye (3) ds :i esa
lan£Hkrº ds vUrxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr 'kkfey fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
(2)
(3)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu
,eMh(iQkekZdksykWth)
(iQkekZdksykWth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks 'knu fpfdRlk vk;q£oKku laLFkku
vuqla/ku dsUnz ,oa f'k{k.k vLirky] gSnjkckn esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa
MkW ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu
,eMh(tujy esfMlu)
(tujy esfMlu)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks 'knu fpfdRlk vk;q£oKku laLFkku
vuqla/ku dsUnz ,oa f'k{k.k vLirky] gSnjkckn esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa
MkW ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks A)
160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu
,eMh(,ukVkseh)
(,ukVkseh)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks MkW- fiUukEeusuh fl¼kFkZ vk;q£oKku laLFkku
vuqla/ku iQkÅaMs'ku] fpUukvkSRiYyh] vka/z izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/
esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks A)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu
,eMh(fiQft;ksyksth)
(fiQft;ksyksth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks MkW- fiUukEeusuh fl¼kFkZ vk;q£oKku laLFkku
vuqla/ku iQkÅaMs'ku] fpUukvkSRiYyh] vka/z izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/
MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks A)
¶ykb¯jxksyksth ,oa vksVksyksth esa
Mh,yvks
fMIyksek¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks ukjk;.k esfMdy dkyst] usYyksj] vka/z izns'k
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;
fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(iQekZdksykWth)
(iQekZdksykWth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks esfMflVh vk;q£oKku laLFkku
?kkuiqj] rsyaxkuk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku
dh xbZ gks A)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu (M£eVksykWth]
,eMh(Mhoh,y)
osusjksykWth vkSj ysizkslh)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks egkjktk vk;q£oKku laLFkku
usYYkhejsYyk] fot;kuxje] vka/z izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW-
,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds
i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu (lks'ky ,oa
,eMh(,lih,e@dE;wfuVh esfMflu)
fizosafVo] esfMflu@dE;qfuVh esfMflu)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks lkaFkhje esfMdy dkyst uan;ky] vka/z izns'k
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k]
vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(jsfM;ks Mk;xzksfll)
(jsfM;ks Mk;xzksfll)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks lkaFkhje esfMdy uan;ky] esa vka/z izns'k
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds
laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(euksjksx foKku)
(euksjksx foKku)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks lkaFkhje esfMdy dkyst uan;ky] esa
vka/z izns'k izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'o&
fo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(Mhoh,y)
(M£eVksykWth] osusjksykWth vkSj ysizkslh)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks HkkLdj esfMdy dkyst] ;sadkiYYkh esa izf'k&
f{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k]
vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
161
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(dE;wfuVh esfMflu)
(dE;wfuVh esfMlu)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks pyesM+k vkuUnjko vk;q£oKku laLFkku
djheuxj esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ
gksA)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(ihfM;kfVªDl)
(ihfM;kfVªDl)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks th,l,y esfMdy dkyst ,oa vLirky]
jktkeqUnzh] vka/zizns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku
dh xbZ gksA)
¶fMIyksek bu pkbYM gsYFk¸
Mhlh,p
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks th,l,y esfMdy dkyst ,oa vLirky]
jktkeqUnzh] vka/zizns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku
dh xbZ gksA)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(Mhoh,y)
(M£eVksykWth] osusjksykWth vkSj ysizlh)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks th,l,y esfMdy dkyst ,oa vLirky]
jktkeqUnzh] vka/zizns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku
dh xbZ gksA)
¶ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh
,eMh(bZ,uVh)
(vksVks jkbZuks ys¯jxksykWth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks th,l,y esfMdy dkyst ,oa vLirky]
jktkeqUnzh] vka/zizns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku
dh xbZ gks A)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu
,eMh(iQkekZdksykWth)
(iQkekZdksykWth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks vYYkwjh lhrkjkek jktq vk;q£oKku vkdneh]
bZyq#] vka/z izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ
gksA)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(,lih,e@dE;wfuVh esfMflu)
(lks'ky ,oa fizosafVo esfMflu@dE;wfuVh
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks vYYkwjh lhrkjkek jktq vk;q£oKku vkdneh]
esfMflu)¸
bZyq#] vka/z izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ
gksA)
(x) izFke vuqlwph esa ¶fu”kke vk;q£oKku laLFkku (ekfur fo'ofo|ky;)] gSnjkckn] vka/z izns'k¸ ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk* ¹blds vksxs dkWye (2) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¹blds vkxs dkWye (3) ds :i esa
lan£Hkrº ds vUrxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr 'kkfey fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
(2)
(3)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(ck;ksdsfeLVªh)
(ck;ksdsfeLVªh)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks fu”kke vk;q£oKku laLFkku
gSnjkckn esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa fu”kke fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku(ekfur
fo'ofo|ky;) gSnjkckn }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(?k) izFke vuqlwph esa ¶ch- ,u- fo'ofo|ky;] fd'kuxat] fcgkj¸ ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds vksxs dkWye
(2) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* (blds vkxs dkWye(3) ds :i esa lan£Hkr)ds vUrxZr vafre izfof"V
vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr 'kkfey fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
(2)
(3)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(fiQft;ksyksth)
(fiQft;ksyksth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks ekrk xqtjh eseksfj;y esfMdy dkyst]
fd'kuxat] fcgkj] esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa ch-,u-eaMy fo'ofo|ky;]
fd'kuxat] fcgkj] }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks A)
(Ä) izFke vuqlwph esa ¶bafnjk xka/h vk;q£otku laLFkku (ekfur fo'ofo|ky;)] iVuk] fcgkj¸ ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk* ¹blds vkxs dkWye (2) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¹blds vkxs dkWye(3) ds :i esa
lan£Hkrº ds vUrxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr 'kkfey fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
(2)
(3)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(,fulfFk;ksyksth)
(,fulfFk;ksyksth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks bafnjk xka/h vk;q£oKku laLFkku
iVuk] fcgkj esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa ¶bafnjk xka/h fpfdRlk foKku eku
fo'ofo|ky;] iVuk fcgkj¸ }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh
xbZ gksA)
(p) izFke vuqlwph esa ¶vk;Z HkV` ukyst fo'ofo|ky;] iVuk] fcgkj¸ ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds vksxs dkWye
(2) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¹blds vkxs dkWye(3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds vUrxZr vafre
izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr 'kkfey fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
(2)
(3)
¶ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh
,e,l(vkFkksZiSfMDl)
(vkFkksZiSfMDl)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks ukyank esfMdy dkyst]
iVuk] fcgkj esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa vk;Z HkV` ukyst fo'ofo|ky;]
iVuk] fcgkj }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
(N) izFke vuqlwph esa ¶xq# xksfcUn ¯lg banzizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds vksxs
dkWye (2) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¹blds vkxs dkWye(3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds vUrxZr
vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr 'kkfey fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
(2)
(3)
¶ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh
,e,l(,ukVkWeh)
(,ukVkWeh)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks o/Zeku egkohj esfMdy dkyst ,oa Lukr&
dksÙkj laLFkku] liQnjtax vLirky] ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa
xq# xksfcUn ¯lg banzizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku
dh xbZ gksA)
¶ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh
,e,l(vkFkksZiSfMDl)
(vkFkksZiSfMDl)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks bZ,lvkbZ&ihthvkbZ,e,lvkj] bZ,lvkbZ&
vLirky] clbZnkjkiqj] ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa xq# xksfcUn
¯lg banzizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
163
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
Mh,e (usiz+Qksyksth)
(usiz+Qksyksth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks LukrdksÙkj fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa vuqla/ku
laLFkku] MkW- vkj,e,y vLirky] ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa
xq# xksfcUn ¯lg banzizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk o"kZ 2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku
dh xbZ gksA)
¶eftLVªkj fp:jth (U;wjks ltZjh)¸
fp-,e- (U;wjks ltZjh)
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks LukrdksÙkj fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa vuqla/ku
laLFkku] MkW- vkj,e,y vLirky] ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa
xq# xksfcUn ¯lg banzizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk o"kZ 2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku
dh xbZ gksA)
(t) izFke vuqlwph esa ¶xksok fo'ofo|ky; xksok]¸ ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds vkxs dkWye (2) ds :i esa
lan£Hkrº ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¹blds vkxs dkWye(3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds vUrxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls
lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr 'kfey fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
(2)
(3)
¶fMIyksek bu osusjksykWth ,aM
Mh oh Mh
M£eVksykWth¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks xksok esfMdy dkyst] xksok esa izf'kf{kr fd,
tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa xksok fo'ofo|ky;] xksok ubZ fnYyh }kjk o"kZ 1982 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
(×k) izFke vuqlwph esa ¶ohj ukeZn nf{k.k xqtjkr fo'ofo|ky;] lwjr] xqtjkr¸ ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds
vkxs dkWye (2) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* ¹blds vkxs dkWye(3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds vUrxZr
vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr 'kkfey fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
(2)
(3)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(fiQft;ksyksth)
(fiQft;ksyksth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks lwjr fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa vuqla/ku E;qfufliy
laLFkku] lwjr xqtjkr esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa ohj ukeZn nf{k.k xqtjkr
fo'ofo|ky;] lwjr] xqtjkr }kjk o"kZ 2015 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
¶ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh
,e,l(bZ,uVh)
(vksVks jkbZuks ys¯jxksykWth)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks lwjr fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa vuqla/ku E;qfufliy
laLFkku] lwjr] xqtjkr esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa ohj ukeZn nf{k.k xqtjkr
fo'ofo|ky;] lwjr] xqtjkr] }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
(r) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶ljnkj iVsy fo'ofo|ky;] xqtjkr¸ ds ckn vkSj 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds vkxs dkWye
(2) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº ds varxZr vafre izfof"V ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr* :i ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) esa lan£Hkrº
ds vUrxZr mlls lacaf/r izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] uker% %&
(2)
(3)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu ,eMh@,e,l(,ukVkWeh)
ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh(,ukVkseh)¸ (;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks izeq[k Lokeh esfMdy dkyst djelkn xqtjkr esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa ljnkj iVsy fo'ofo|ky;] xqtjkr }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa
vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
(Fk) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶lkSjk"Vª fo'ofo|ky;] jktdksV xqtjkr¸ ds ckn vkSj 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds ckn dkWye
(2) esa ;Fkk lan£Hkrº ds varxZr vafre izfof"V ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) esa ;Fkk lan£Hkrº
ds vUrxZr mlls lacaf/r izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] uker% %&
164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2)
(3)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(vkbZ,p ,oa chVh)
(bE;wuks&gsekVksyksth ,oa CyM
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks ,e- ih-'kkg esfMdy dkyst] tkeuxj]
VªkUlÝ;wtu)¸
xqtjkt esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa lkSjk"Vª fo'ofo|ky;] jktdksV]
xqtjkr }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
(n) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k¸ ds ckn vkSj 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk*
¹blds ckn dkWye (2) esa ;Fkk lan£Hkrº ds varxZr vafre izfof"V ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn dkWye
(3) esa ;Fkk lan£Hkrº ds vUrxZr mlls lacaf/r izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] uker% %&
(2)
(3)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(ck;ksdsfeLVªh)
(ck;ksdsfeLVªh)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks MkW-jktsUnz izlkn jktdh; esfMdy dkyst]VkaMk
fgekpy izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;]
f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
(/) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶lacyiqj fo'ofo|ky;] lacyiqj vksfM'kk¸ ds ckn vkSj 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds ckn
dkWye (2) ds ;Fkk lan£Hkrº ds varxZr vafre izfof"V ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* ¹blds dkWye (3) esa ;Fkk
lan£Hkrº ds vUrxZr mlls lacaf/r izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] uker% %&
(2)
(3)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,eMh(Mhoh,y)
(M£eVksykWth] osusjsykWth vkSj ysizkslh)¸
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks oh,l,l esfMdy dkyst] cqjyk vksM+h'kk esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa lacyiqj fo'ofo|ky;] lacyiqj] vksfM'kk }kjk o"kZ
2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA)
lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh% 1- LukrdksÙkj ikBÔØe ds fy, LohÑr ekU;rk 5 o"kZ dh vf/dre vof/ ds fy, gksxh ftlds ckn bldk
uohdj.k fd;k tk,xk A
2- visf{kr vuqlkj ekU;rk dks le; ij uohdj.k ugha djkus ds iQyLo:i lacaf/r LukrdksÙkj ikBÔØe esa
fujiokn :i ls nkf[kyk cUn gks tk,xk A
¹la- ;w- 12012@674@2015&,ebZ (ih- II)º
Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 9th December, 2015
S.O. 86.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following
further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
In the said Schedule -
(a) against "Srimanta Shankardeva University of Health Sciences, Guwahati, Assam" under the heading 'Recognised
Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the
heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
"Doctor of Medicine (Anatomy)"
MD (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Srimanta Shankardeva University of Health Sciences, Guwahati, Assam
in respect of students being trained at Silchar Medical College, Silchar,
Assam on or after 2015).
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
165
"Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)"
MD (Forensic Medicine)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Srimanta Shankardeva University of Health Sciences, Guwahati, Assam
in respect of students being trained at Silchar Medical College, Silchar,
Assam on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”
MD (Biochemistry)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Srimanta Shankardeva University of Health Science Guwahati, Assam in
respect of students being trained at Silchar Medical College, Silchar,
Assam on or after 2015).
Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”
MD (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Srimanta Shankardeva University of Health ScienceGuwahati, Assam in
respect of students being trained at Silchar Medical College, Silchar,
Assam on or after 2015).
(b) against "Dr. NTR, University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh" under the heading 'Recognised Medical
Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
·'Abbreviation for Registratioja' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”
MD (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being/trained at Shadan Institute of Medical
Sciences, Research Centre & Teaching Hospital, Hyderabad on or after
2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Shadan Institute of Medical Sciences,
Research Centre & Teaching Hospital, Hyderabad on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Anatomy)”
MD (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Dr. Pinnammaneni Siddhartha
Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Foundation, Chinnaoutpalli,
Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)”
MD (Physiology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Dr. Pinnammaneni Siddhartha Institue
of Medical Sciences & Research Fuondation Chinnaoutpalli Andhra
Pradesh on or after 2015).
“Diploma in Laryngology & Otology”
DLO
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Narayana Medical College, Nellore,
Andhra Pradesh on or after 2011).
166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”
MD (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Medicity Institute of Medical
Sciences, Ghanpur, Telangana on after 2015.
“Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology,
MD (DVL)
Venereology & Leprosy)”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Maharajah Institue of Medical
Sciences, Nellimarella, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Social & Preventive,
MD (SPM/Community Medicine)
Medicine/Community Medicine)”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Santhiram Medical College, Nandyal
Andhra Pradesh on or after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)”
MD (Radio Diagnosis)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Santhiram Medical College, Nandyal,
Andhra Pradesh on after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)”
MD (Psychiatry)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Santhiram Medical College, Nandyal,
Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology,
MD (DVL)
Venereology & Leprosy)”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Bhaskar Medical College, Yenkapally
on or fater 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Community
MD (Community Medicine)
Medicine)”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Institute of
Medical Sciences, Karimnagar on or after 2012).
“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”
MD (Paediatrics)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at GSL Medical College & Hospital,
Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh on of after 2014).
“Diploma in Child Health”
D C H
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at GSL Medical College, and Hospital,
Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh on or fater 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology,
MD (DVL)
Venereology & Leprosy)”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at GSL Medical College & Hospital,
Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh on of after 2015).
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
167
“Master of Surgery (Oto-Rhino-,
MD (ENT)
Laryngology)”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at GSL Medical College & Hospital,
Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh on of after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”
MD (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Alluri Sitarama Raju Academy of
Medical Sciences, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Social & Preventive
MD(SPM/Community Medicine)
Medicine/Community Medicine)”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students being trained at Alluri Sitarama Raju Academy of
Medical Sciences, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).
(c) against “Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh” under the heading
‘Recognised Medical Qualfication ’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto
under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted
namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”
MD(Biochemistry)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Nizams
Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Hyderabad in respect
of the students being trained at Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences,
Hyderabad on or after 2015).
(d) against “B.N. Mandal University, Kishanganj, Bihar under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualfication ’ [hereinafter
referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’
[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)”
MD(Physiology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by B.N. Mandal
University, Kishanganj, Bihar in respect of the students being trained at Mata
Gujri Memorial Medical College, Kishanganj, Bihar on or after 2015).
(e) against “Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Patna Bihar under the heading ‘Recognised
Medical Qualfication ’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)”
MD(Anaesthesiology))
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Indira
Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Patna Bihar in
respect of the students being trained at Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical
Sciences, Patna Bihar on or after 2014).
(f) against “Arya Bhatta Knowledge University, Patna, Bihar” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualfication ’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under heading ‘Abbreviation for
Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted namely:—
168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”
MS (Orthopaedics)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Arya Bhatta
Knowledge University, Patna, Patna Bihar in respect of the students being
trained at Nalanda Medical Cellege Patna, Bihar on or after 2014).
(g) against “Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualfication
’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for
Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (Anatomy)”
MS (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of the students being
trained at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Postgraduate Institute,
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on or after 2015).
“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”
MS (Orthopaedics)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of the students being
trained at ESI-PGIMSR, ESI- Hospital,Basaidarapur, New Delhi on or after
2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Nephrology)”
DM (Nephrology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of the students being
trained at Postgraduat Institute, of Medical Education & Research, Dr. RML
Hospital, New Delhi on or after 2013).
“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Neuro Surgery)”
M.Ch (Neuro Surgery)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of the students being
trained at Postgraduat Institute, of Medical Education & Research, Dr. RML
Hospital, New Delhi on or after 2013).
(h) against “Goa University, Goa” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualfication ’ [hereinafter referred to as column
(2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to
as column (3)], the following shall be inserted namely:—
“Diploma in Venereology & Dermatology”
DVD
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Goa
University, Goa in respect of the students being trained at Goa Medical, Goa
on or after 1982).
(i) against “Veer Narmad South Gujarat University Surat, Gujarat” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualfication ’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under heading ‘Abbreviation for
Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)”
MD(Physiology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Veer Narmad
South Gujarat University Surat, Gujarat in respect of the students being trained
at Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education & Research, Surat, Gujarat
on or after 2015).
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
169
“Master of Surgery (Oto-Rhino-
MD (ENT)
Laryngology)”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Veer Narmad
South Gujarat University Surat, Gujarat in respect of the students being trained
at Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education & Research, Surat, Gujarat
on or after 2014).
(j) against “Sardar Patel University Gujarat” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualfication ’ [hereinafter referred to
as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter
referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Sugery”
MD/MS(Anatomy)
(Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sardar
Patel Univesity, Gujarat in respect of the students being trained at
Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Gujarat on or after 2014).
(k) against “Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualfication ’ [hereinafter
referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’
[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Immuno-Haematology
MD(IH&BT)
&Blood Transfusion”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Saurashtra
University, Rajkot, Gujarat in respect of the students being trained at M.P.
Shah Medical College, Jamnagar, Gujarat on or after 2014).
l) against “Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla Himachal Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualfication ’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under heading ‘Abbreviation for
Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”
MD (Biochemistry)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Himachal
Pradesh University, Shimla Himachal Pradesh in respect of the students being
trained at Dr. Rajndar Prasad Govt. Medical College, Tanda Himachal Pradesh
on or after 2014).
(m) against “Sambalpur University Sambalpur Odisha” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualfication ’ [hereinafter
referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’
[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology
MD (DVL)
Venereology & Leprosy)”
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sambalpur
University Sambalpur Odisha in respect of the students being trained at VSS
Medical College, Burla, Odisha on or after 2014).
Note to all:
1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Cuorse shall be for a maximum Period of 5 years, upon
which it shall have to be renewed.
2. Failure to Seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of
admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. U. 12012/674/2015-ME (P. II)]
D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.
170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 87-—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 17@2014) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@91@2013&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 87.—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. 17/2014) 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
08/01/2016.
[No. L-20012/91/2013-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD.
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.
1947
Ref. No. 17 of 2014
Employer in relation to the management of W.J.Area, M/
S. B.CCL
AND
Their workmen
Present: -Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: Shri S.C. Gour, Rep.
State: Jharkhand.
Industry :-Coal
Dated 13-10-2015
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/91/2013-IR (CM-I), dated. 17/
02/2014, 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 Bhatdih
Colliery under W.J.Area of M/S BCCL in
dismissing Sri Kharu Gope from the service w.e.f.
19.10.2004 is fair and justified? To what relief the
concerned workmen is entitled to?”
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 03.03.2014. After receipt of reference, both Parties
are noticed, the Sponsoring Union/Workman files their
written statement on 24.03.2014. The management also
files written statement-cum-rejoinder on 10.10.2014. No
evidence adduced by Both side.
3. The short point to be decided in this case is,
whether the dismissal of the workman, who was found
guilty by a session Court is proper or not.
4. The case of the workman is that, the workman
was a permanent employee of M/S BCCL at Bhatdih
Colliery designated as Trammer. One Criminal case was
initiated against 5 villagers, including the concerned
workman and due to rivalry and enmity. The concerned
workman’s name was falsely implicated in the police
report and he was placed behind the bar. The sessions
Court Bokaro found all the five persons including the
concerned workman guilty and convicted them.
5. The management of Bhatdih Colliery, on the basis
of judgment of Bokaro Sessions Court, issued a charge
sheet in 2004 and after domestic enquiry and 2nd show
cause notice dismissed the concerned workman in oct.
2004. One criminal appeal filed by the workman in
Hon’ble High Court, Ranchi which was pronounced vide
order dated 25.12.2009, acquitting the concerned
workman from all charges. Thereafter the workman
request from project officer/management to reinstate
him with full back wages but the management did not take
any action. Hence the present dispute arose.
6. The case of the management is that the police
recorded FIR against the aforesaid accused persons
including workman concerned and submitted charge
sheet, and evidence of Anil Goswami was recorded by
the police of ch as (Bokaro) in which he stated that when
he came back to his house at 5.30 P.M on 13.10.2000,
the accused persons including concerned workman
suddenly entered into his house caught hold of him and
forcibly dragged with an intention to kill assaulted him
by Katara.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
171
7. The management issued a charge sheet,
conducted domestic enquiry in presence of concerned
workman.The enquiry Officer found him guilty, thereafter
issued 2nd show cause notice, after reply dismissed him.
8. The workman in this case submitted that against
the order of conviction he carried an appeal to Hon’ble
High Court vide Criminal Appeal No. 624/2004 and the
said appeal was allowed and the concerned workman has
been honorably acquitted.
9. Since the workman is acquitted, there was no
reason to allow his order of dismissal to stand. It is also
noticed that the workman has already been attained his
date of superannuation on 30.06.2012.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I hold that the action of the management of Bhatdih
Colliery under W.J.Area of M/S BCCL in dismissing Sri
Kharu form the service w.e.f. 19.10.2002 is not fiar and
justified. Hence his service continuitly by maintiained
and he be given all his retirement benefits but witout any
back wages.
This is may award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 88-—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 67@2009) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@82@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 88.—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. 67/2009) 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 08/01/2016.
[No. L-20012/82/2009-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D.Act, 1947
Ref. No. 67 of 2009
Parties : Employer in relation to the management of
Kustore, Area, 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 S.C. Gour, Rep.
State: Jharkhand.
Industry :-Coal
Dated 22-12-2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/82/2009/ IR (CM-1), dated 30/
11/2009, 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 Burragarh
Colliery of M/S BCCL in not providing dependant
employment to Sri Mahabir Manjhi S/O Late Mangal
Manjhi, S.F Mazdoor , under the provision of NCWA
is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the son of
late Mangal Manjhi is entitled?”
2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 16/12/2009, After receipt of the reference, both parties
are noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written
statement on 03/05/2010, After long delay, the
management files their written statement on 20/06/2012.
One witnesses adduced from each side, And document
of workman is marked as W-1 to W-7.
3. The case of the workman is That the concerned
workman was a permanent employee of Burragarh
Colliery of M/S BCCL under Kustore Area and during
service period he passed away on 14/12/2001. and that
time the son of late Mangal Manjhi was minor . He applied
for keeping his name in the live roster as per provision
of NCWA under which dependant’s employemt is to be
provided but the employer did not keep his name of
Mahabir Manjhi in live roster.
4. After attaining 18 years age, he filed all relevant
paper for self employment, then he was referred to the
Apex Medical Board of M/S BCCL and found him
medically fit for employment. Thereafter the
management made certain clarification to the points
raised by the management . After satisfactorily replied,
the management neither gave any other letter nor offered
employment. Hence disputes arose.
5. On the other hand the case of the management,
that the concerned workmen died at Central Hospital
Dhanbad while in service in BCCL on 14.12.2001. After the
172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
death of the deceased workman Second wife namely
Vaijanti Mabjhiyan had applied for employment in place
of her husband and the same is rejected by the management
vide letter No. 13543 dated 22.9.2003.
6. On 2004 the under aged son of Late Mangal
Manjhi applied for putting his name on the live roster of
the company without required documents as per provision
of NCWA. Therefore his name was not recorded in the
live roster for future employment. After laps of several
years the Sponsoring Union raised Present Industrial
Dispute for Dependant employment which is not
maintainable .
7. Short point to be decided in this reference is as
to whether the Dependant is to get job in place of his
deceased father as per NCWA or not.
8. The case of the workman is as the son of the
deceased, he is to get job But on counter of the
management submitted that after the death of the workman
his wife applied for job but that was not accepted by the
authority and thereafter his son applied for the job
delayedly for which his claim was regretted.
9. In cross examination of Sri Sanjay Kumar (MW-
1) he accept that the son of the deceased workman was
applied for job. We sent him to medical test . He also says
“It is a fact that before sending him to medical he was
asked for query. But I can not say whether I receipt medical
report, but he complied the query”.
10. As per the admission of the MW-1, the Dependant
son was sent him medical test but medical report is not
filed by the management. Moreover Filing application with
all connected document and getting all the document from
various machinery, some times take time, The management
should not reject the claim on that ground.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I hold that the management to do well to give the
employment to Mahabir Manjhi S/O Late Mangal Manjhi
under NCWA soon after publication of the award.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 89-—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 37@1995) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@222@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 89.—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. 37/1995) 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 08-01-2016.
[No. L-20012/222/1993-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.
1947
Ref. No. 37 of 1995
Parties : Employer in relation to the management of
Damoda Colliery, M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present: -Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri Ganesh Prasad, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State: Jharkhand.
Industry :-Coal
Dated : 14-12-2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /222/93-IR(CM-1) dated 20/
04/1995, 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 made in
December 91 for reinstatement w.e.f 1976 of Sh.
Gando Chand Nonia by the management of Damoda
Colliery of M/S B.C.C.L is justified? If so, what,
benefit the workman is entitled to and from which
date?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But none appears on behalf of the workman.
Case remains 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
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
173
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 90-—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 34@1997) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-01-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@474@1995&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 90.—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. 34/1997) 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 8-01-
2016.
[No. L-20012/474/1995-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I. D. Act, 1947
Ref. No. 34 of 1997
Employer in relation to the management of Koyla
Bhawan, M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present: -Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State: Jharkhand.
Industry :-Coal
Dated : 19-10-2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /474/1995-IR(C-1) /IR (C-1) dated
14/01/1997, 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
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the claim of the union that S/Sh Jitendra
Kumar Sinha, Parmanand Rajak, Ghanshyam
Srivastava and Md. Afjal were denied promotion
and placement in Technical & Supervisory Grade”C”
is legal and justified? If so, to what relief are these
workmen entitled? ’’
2. After receipt of the reference , both 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] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 91-—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 106@1997)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-01-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@327@1996&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 91.—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. 106/1997) 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 8-01-2016.
[No. L-20012/327/1996-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I. D. Act. 1947
Ref. No. 106 of 1997
Employer in relation to the management of Bera Colliery,
M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri S. K. Behra, Asstt. Manager
For the Workman
: None
State: Jharkhand.
Industry :-Coal
Dated : 3-11-2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /327/1996-IR(C-1) dated 04/
05/1997, 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 dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager,
Bastacolla Area No.IX of M/S BCCL, P.O-Jharia,
Distt-Dhanbad in superannuating Sh. Chhotu Gorai
M/Loader Prematuredly with effect from
12.07.1995 is justified ? If not, to what relief is
the concerned workman entitled.
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. Though they took steps fort certain dated,
Subsequently did not take any interest in the case by the
workman. It is resumed that the disputes between the
parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 92-—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 20@2014) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-01-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@95@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 92.—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. 20/2014) 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 8-01-2016.
[No. L-20012/95/2013-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I. D. Act, 1947
Ref. No. 20 of 2014
Employer in relation to the management of North Tisra
Colliery, M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri Ganesh Prasad, Advocate
For the Workman
: None
State: Jharkhand.
Industry :-Coal
Dated : 4-12-2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /95/2013-IR(CM-1) dated 17/
02/2014, 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 North
Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing
S/Sri Alijan Mia, Juman Mia and Ram Chandra
Bhuia on the post of Piece Rate Surface Trammer
is fair and justified ? To what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But none appears on behalf of the workman.
Case remains 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] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 93-—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 83@2014) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8-01-2016 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@67@2014&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
175
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 93.—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. 83/2014) 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 8-01-2016.
[No. L-20012/67/2013-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of
I. D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 83 of 2014
Employer in relation to the management of East Katras
Colliery, M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present :- Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri Dilip Kr. Rajak
For the Workman :- Sri Sachidanand Singh, Rep.
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated: 23-11-2015
AWARD
By order No.-L-20012/67/2014 IR-(CM-I), dated. 5/
09/2014 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 East
Katras Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri
Baldeo Rai from the service of the company vide
order letter dated 03/06.08.2001 is fair and justified?
To what relief is the concerned workman is entitled
to?”
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 16.09.2014 After receipt of reference , both parties are
noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written
statement on 16.01.2015. The management files their written
statement -cum-rejoinder on 19.06.2015. Document of
management is marked as M-1 to M-8.
3. The short point involved in the reference is that
the workman has been dismissed from his services on
absenteeism.
4. During Preliminary hearing. it is revealed that
the case is dismissal of workman for long absence on
duty. But he has already out of service for 14 years. It is
felt to give another chance to the workman to serve.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee
as cat-I scale. But the workman be kept under probation
for a period two year . Therefore the question of back
wages does not arise at all.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 94-—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 10@2012) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8-01-2016 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@31@2011&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 94.—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. 10/2012) 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 8-01-2016.
[No. L-20012/31/2011-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of
I. D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 10 of 2014
Employers in relation to the Management of Kathara
Washery of M/s. CCL
AND
Their workmen
Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances :
For the Employers : - Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the Workman : - Shri B.B.Pandey, Advocate
State : Jharkhand Industry :- Coal
Dated : 16-12-2015
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/31/2011-IR (CM-I), dated. 02/
02/2011,the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Period from July 1996 to December
1997 be treated as continuous medical treatment
and the workman Sh. Sitaram Mahto, Ex- Electrician
of Kathara Washer of CCL is eligible for JOD
allowance for the period? To what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?”
2. This Case is received from the Ministry of Labour
& Employment on 06.01.2012. After receipt of reference ,
both parties are noticed. The Workman files their written
statement on 01.11.2013. But the management after long
delay files their written statement on 12.03.2015. No any
witness examined from both side. But document of both
side is marked. Workers document is marked as W-1 to-
W-8 and management’s document marked as M-1 to M-7.
3. The case of the workman is that the workman is
employed under CCL is working as Electric fitter Grade -I
(SLU) at Kathara Washery. On 03.08.1995 the workman
met an accident while on duty and received injuries in left
hand for which he remained under medical treatment at
various places including Bokaro General Hospital as well
as C.M.C Vallore. But during the course of treatment his
left fore arm below elbow was amputated. And he was on
treatment from Aug. 95 to November 98.
4. It is also submitted by the workman that as per
recommendation of medical Board I.O.D wages for the
period from Aug. 95 to June 1996 were paid but from July
1996 to Nov. 1998 the I.O.D wages is not paid to the
workman concerned. Hence dispute arose.
5. On the other hand the case of the management is
that Sri Sitaram Mahato was working as Electrical Fitter at
Kathara Washery and retired from the service of the
company on 31.07.2003. After lapse of 19 years and after
retirement of concerned workman the sponsoring Union
raised the dispute.
6. Sri Sitaram Mahto Electrical Fitter Fr.-I (SLU) met
with an accident on 03.08.95 while on duty. And the
management provided medical treatment and paid I.O.D
wages from 04.08.95 to June 1996 . He was declared
medically fit by the medical Board but he did not join his
duty in compliance of fitness certificate dated ¾ -6.96.
The management sent several letter to the workman for
joining the duty. But he did not join.
7. The management also submitted that one order
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
in WP(S) No. 5035 of 2001 where it was clearly mentioned
that after repeated advise to Sri Mahto , he could not
joined his duty, which was in fact his misconduct for which
the disciplinary action could have been taking against
him. But taking lenient view again letter issued him to
report for duty, and he joined duty on 8/12/98. The period
from July 96 to Dec. 98 was not accepted because Sri mahto
did not report duty though he was declared medically fit
for
doing
job.
Hence
Sri Mahto is not entitled for I.O.D wages for the period
from July to Dec. 1997.
8. The short point to be decided in this reference as
to whether the workman who was said to be in continuous
medical treatment from july 1996 till Dec. 1997 is eligible
for I.O.D allowance for the said period or not.
9. It is not disputed that the workman while doing
electrical Fitter work suffered burnt injury & under went
treatment getting I.O.D allowance but during treatment
there was laceration and his hand was amputated and he
was given I.O.D allowance.
10. But on the other hand the management counsel
submitted that he was found fit during the period July
1996 to December 1997 & was asked to perform other
work in the company but he did not performed & remained
absent, for which management did not give I.O.D .
11. But on scrutiny of the documents filed by the
workman & the medical report, it is seen that during the
period mentioned above doctor advised to continue
exercise for strengthening his upper limbs . Moreover the
medical of CMC Vellore has opined that the workman has
70% disability as per Ext. W-6 Series. i.e he is disabled to
the extent of 70% by the accident.
12. This being the situation of the workman, he be
allowed I.O.D allowance from the period July 1996 to
December 1997. The workman demanded I.O.D allowance
from July 96 to Nov. 98 as per written statement of the
workman but the Tribunal could not go beyond the
Schedule of Reference.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I hold that the Period from July 1996 to December
1997 be treated as continuous medical treatment and the
workman Sh. Sitaram Mahto, Ex- Electrician of Kathara
Washer of CCL is eligible for IOD allowance from July
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
177
1996 to December 1997. The management is directed l
make payment soon after the publication of the award.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 95-—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- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 75@2003) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8-01-2016 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@42@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 95.—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. 75/2003) 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 8-01-2016.
[No. L-20012/42/2003-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act.,1947
REFERENCE NO 75 OF 2003
PARTIES : The General Secretary,
Rastriya Mazdoor union,
Hirapur, Telipara, Dhanbad.
Vs.
The Project Officer,
Bararee Colliery of M/s BCCL,
PO; Bhulan Bararee, Dhanbad.
Order
No.L-20012/42/2003-IR(C-I)
dt.18.08.2003.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union: None
On behalf of the Management: Mr. D.K.Verma,
Ld. Advocate
State
: Jharkhand Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th Oct., 2015.
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the
following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide
their Order No. L-20012/42/2003-IR(C-I) dt.
18 .08 . 2003 .
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Project Officer of Bararee Colliery,
BCCL is justified in dismissing Sri Jiten Roy w.e.f.
17.08.2001 from service? If not, to what relief is
the workman entitled?
2. The workman is not turning up since
11.05.2006.Finally a notice by Regd. Post sent to the
workman on 30.12.2014. Therefore it appears that the
workman is not interested to contest his case. Hence a
‘No Dispute Award’ is passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 96-—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 250@1994)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8-01-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@302@1993&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 96.—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. 250/1994) 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 8-01-2016.
[No. L-20012/302/1993-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), AT DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.
1947.
Reference: No. 250/1994
Employer in relation to the management of Block II 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: 11-12-2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /302/1993-IR(C-1) dated
25/10/1994, 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 Chief General manager, Block
II Area of M/s BCCL, P.O. Nawagarh, Distt. Dhanbad
in denying regularization alongwith payment of
wages as per NCWA to Shri kamta Singh and 24
others as listed in Annexure is justified? If not, to
what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?
Sl.No.
NAME
DESIGNATION
WAGES PER DAY. PERIOD OF WORKS
1
Sri kamta Singh
Fitter
25/-
01/01/1997 to till date
2
Sri Upendra Rawani
Fitter / Helper
19/-
07/11/1989 to till date
3
Sri Mathur Gope
Fitter
25/-
11/01/1987 to till date
4
Sri Abul Ansari
Fitter / Helper
20/-
13/10/89 to till date
5
Sri Chandan Chakraborty Fitter
25/-
07/12/88 to till date
6
Sri Ashok singh
Fitter / Helper
21/-
06/1088 to till date
7
Pitambar Sowai
Welder
25/-
09/07/88 to till date
8
Sri Subhash Singh Yadav
Welder/Helper
19/-
24/11/88 to till date
9
Bishu Singh
Fitter
25/-
02/02/87 to till date
10
Goddu B.P.
Fitter / Helper
20/-
11/10/88 to till date
11
Kripal Singh
Fitter / Helper
19/-
24/11/87 to till date
12
Bashishtha Narain Singh
Tyndel
19/-
07/12/88 to till date
13
Siyaran Singh yadav
Tyndel
21/-
06/11/88 to till date
14
Romkoyar Singh Yadav
Tyndel
25/-
06/01/88 to till date
15
Tejlal Mahato
Tyndel
20/-
07/10/88 to till date
16
Punit Mahato
Tyndel
20/-
24/11/88 to till date
17
Jagbandhu Sowal
Tyndel
20/-
24/11/87 to till date
18
Kuldeep Karaakar
Tyndel
22/-
07/09/88 to till date
19
Ramesh Pd. Chorasia
Munshi
25/-
06/08/88 to till date
20
Umesh singh
Tyndel
20/-
24/11/88 to till date
21
Sri Nagendra Sah
Fittter Helper
20/-
24/11/88 to till date
22
Sri Anirudh Kr. Sharma
Fitter
25/-
08/08/88 to till date
23
Sri Diplal Saw
Tyndel
21/-
06/11/88 to till date
24
Madhusudan Rawani
Tyndel
21/-
07/11/88 to till date
25
Baldeo Prasad
Tyndel
21/-
09/10/88 to till date
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
179
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently
on behalf of the workman. Case remains 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] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 97-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks- ,u- th-
lh- 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;] la[;k 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 220@1998) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
8-01-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@95@1997&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 97.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2,
New Delhi (Ref. No. 220/1998) as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of M/s. ONGC and their
workmen,which was received by the Central Government
on 8-01-2016.
[No. L-30012/95/1997-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT- II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
I D.No. 220/1998
Sh. Babu Singh ,
S/o. Sh. Teg Singh,
Vill.+ P.O. Karba,
Distt, Dehradun (Uttranchal).
…..Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
ONGC Tel Bhawan,
Dehradun(Uttranchal). PIN-248001. ….Management
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide letter No.L-30012/95/97 IR(C-I)dated 28.10.1998
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC
in removing the casual labour Sh. Babu Singh w.e.f
09.10.1996 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled”.
On 9.11.1998 reference was received in this
Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 220/1998 and
claimant union was called upon to file claim statement
with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which
was required to be accompanied with relevant documents
and list of witnesses.
The case of the workman is that the management
engaged the workman in the year 1986 and he has been
working regularly with the management. The workman
has been working continuously under the Field Party
Geological Party No. 82 as casual labour.
That the services of the workman were terminated
on 09.10.1996 without payment of any retrenchment
compensation.
That the workman worked 240 days every year and
the work is of regular nature as the Field Party worked
throughout the year independently in investigating Oil
all along the year. The work is of regular nature. It cannot
be said to be a casual work as it is carried all along the
year.
The cases of the management is that the claim
suffers from delay and latches and it has been filed with
ulterior motives to gain employment with the respondent
on false pretext.
That the workman has worked as a casual labour
with the Geological Party No. 82 which is a Field Party
of the respondent for limited number of days and at
different locations. The said work was carried on seasonal
basis by the Field party which carries out geological
surveys.
That the job of Field Party is purely of seasonal
nature. It is not a regular nature of work. The workman
has never been in regular employment of the respondent.
His service as casual labour were utilized by the
management for the limited period of days for seasonal
work and he was paid daily wages on muster roll basis.
The workman is employed by Geological Party No.
82 on casual basis for limited period of days only for the
field season as causal labour. There has been no violation
of any provision of the Id. Act, 1947.
The management has also denied most of the paras
of the claim statement.
180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The workman has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he
has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and
has denied most of the paras of the written statement. My
Ld. Predecessor has not framed any issues but adjudicated
the questions of determination mentioned in schedule of
reference.
Workman in support of his case filed affidavit of Sh.
Babu Singh on 2.2.2001. Workman tendered his affidavit
and was cross examined on 6.9.2002.
Management in support of its case filed affidavit of
Sh. H.M. Lal on 8.11.2002. Management tendered his
affidavit and was cross examined on 19.12.2002.
My Ld. Predecessor after hearing the arguments
of Ld. A/R’s for the parties and perusing the pleadings
and evidence of parties on record came to conclusion
that the workman has not filed any proof that he has
worked for 240 day in every year of his employment.
The documents MW2 and MW3 prove that he has worked
in 1989 , 1990 and bonus for the said has been paid to
him. He has not filed any document to show that the he
has worked for 240 days prior to termination of his
services. The workman has not filed any documentary
evidence to show that he has worked for 240 days in the
year 1991, 1992, 1993 ,1994 , 1995 and 1996. He is not
entitled to any relief.
The workman applicant is not entitled to get any
relief as prayed for.
The award is given accordingly.
My Ld. Predecessor passed this award on 9.4.2008.
Against aforesaid Award workman preferred writ-
petition No. 1878 of 2008 in Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Which was decided on 3.4.2014 by his Lordship
of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Through his judgment his Lordship observed that
the following finding of my Ld. Predecessor are
incorrect.
“The Workman has not filed any proof that he has
worked for 240 day in every year of his employment .
The documents MW2 and MW3 prove that he has worked
in 1989, 1990 and bonus for the said has been paid to
him. He has not filed nay document to show that he has
worked for 240 days prior to termination of his services.
The workman has not filed any documentary evidence to
show that he has worked for 240 days in the year 1991,
1992, 1993 , 1994 , 1995 & 1996 . He is not entitled to
any relief.
His Lordship of Delhi High Court Consequently,
allowed writ–petition and quashed the Award dated
9.4.2008 and remanded matter to the Tribunal for decision
afresh in the light of the observations made in the
judgement and directed parties to appear on 26.5.2014.
His Lordship also directed to Tribunal to fix the date
for hearing and pass the Award afresh.
Ld. A/R’s for the parties orally argued.
They have also filed written arguments.
Accordingly contentions of Ld. A/R for the
workman. Workman Sh. Babu Singh has completed
continuous work for more than 240 days .Hence entitled
for reinstatement alongwith back wages.
He placed reliance on principles laid down in
following rulings:-
1.Gaurishankar Vs. State of Rajasthan 2015 (145)
FLR 671 S.C.
2.C.G. Khagram Vs. Manager 2014(140) FLR 772
, (Guj. H.C.)
3.Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. M/s Vijay Kumar Gauri
Shankar , Kanpur Nagar. 2015(146)FLR 158 S.C.
4.Sudarshan Rajpoot Vs. U.P State Road Transport
Corporation . 2015 (144) FLR 7 S.C.
5.Bhuvanesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. M/s HindalCo
Industries Ltd., 2014 (142) FLR 20 S.C.
6. State of U.P. V/s. Charan Singh 2015 (145) FLR
679 S.C.
7.BSNL Vs. Bhurumal 2014 (140) FLR 901 S.C.
8.BiraKishor Pradhan Vs. P.O. Labour Court,
Bhuwneshwar 2015(145) FLR 746 Orissa H/C
9.DCM Sri Ram Industries Vs. P.O. Labour Court,
Meerut. 2013 (138 ) FLR 2 Allahabad H.C.
10.State of U.P. V/s Km. Shashi Joshi 2015 LLR
158 S.C.
While Ld. A/R for the management counter
contended that workman Sh. Babu Singh has not
completed continuous work for 240 days in any of the
year. Hence not entitled to any relief.
He placed reliance on principles laid down in
following rulings:-
1. Assistant Executive Engineer , Karnataka Vs.
Shivalinga reported in 2003 SCC 87.
2. Kishare Chand Sermal Vs. Orissa State Cashew
Development Corporation Ltd. Dhenhamal 2006(1) SCC
253.
3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC1
4. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd., Vs. Mohd. Rafi,
(2009) 11 SCC 522.
5. Rajasthan State Ganganagar S, Mills Ltd. Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Anrs. [2004(8) SCC 161].
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
181
6. State of Rajasthan Vs. Deepa Ram 2008 (17) SCC
729.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions
I perused the pleadings and evidence of parties on record
including principles laid down by their Lordship of
Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in the cited
rulings as well as relevant provisions of law such as S.25
B (2) (ii) and S.25 F of I.D. Act, 1947 and S. 114 (g) of
Indian Evidence Act.
Perusal of evidence of workman shows that he
could examine himself only in his oral evidence. So far
documentary evidence of workman is concerned he could
file certain self prepared papers. Which were not proved
by him.
He also filed charts prepared on his behalf on plain
papers. That too were filed by workman on 24.08.06
although he has closed his evidence on 6.9.2002. So
charts to show 240 continuous working days of workman
are not proved through required reliable and credible
evidence.
Sh. A.K. Sharma of management brought attendance
register on 27.03.06 in compliance of order dated.
27.04.2005 passed by my Ld. Predecessor but on that
date neither workman nor his Ld. A/R was present hence
my Ld. Predecessor fixed 14.07.2006 as last opportunity
for appearance of workman and arguments with direction
to Sh. A.K. Sharma that he may take back the same and
produce it on next date.
Workman appeared on subsequent dates but not
demanded attendance register of workman. So there is
no failure on the part of Employer to produce the
attendance register. Hence no adverse inference against
employer/management shall be drawn as per provisions
of section 114 (g) Indian Evidence Act.
Hence in want of required evidence provisions of
S.25 B (2) (ii) I.D.Act cannot be applied in the instant
case.
But reference of workman has been sent to this
Tribunal by Labour Ministry for adjudication. Against
reference available remedy was writ-petition which was
not availed by management . So this fact become final
that workman was casual labour. Although management
alleged him as a seasonal worker. This fact is proved fact
that retrenchment compensation as required by section
25-F of ID.Act has not been provided to workman
Sh. Babu Singh. Hence removal of casual workman Sh.
Babu Singh is not legal and justified. Question of
determination No.1 mentioned in schedule of reference
is liable to be decided in favour of workman and against
management. But on this count workman is entitled to
only retrenchment compensation as per provisions of
25-F ID. Act.
As per settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court
retrenchment compensation of Rs. 50,000/-( Fifty
Thousand) is liable to be awarded to casual workman
Sh. Babu Singh. Question of determination No.2 relating
to relief is liable to be decided in favour of workman and
against management. Which is accordingly decided.
Reference is liable to be decided in favour of
workman and against management and management is
liable to be directed to pay aforesaid retrenchment
compensation Rs. 50000/-(Fifty Thousand) to workman
Sh. Babu Singh within two months after expiry of period
of limitation of available remedy against this Award.
Which is accordingly decided.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-09/12/2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 98-—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 04@2000) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8-01-2016 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@98@1999&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 98.—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. 04/2000) 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 8-01-2016.
[No. L-20012/98/1999-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. 04/2000
Employer in relation to the management of Gidi
Washery of M/s. CCL
182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
Their workmen
Present: Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.
Appearances :
For the Employers :- None
For the workman :- None
State : Jharkhand Industry- Coal
Dated- 23-11-2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012 /98/1999-IR(C-1) dated
18/08/1999, 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 dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union/workman
concerned for promotion of Sri Bhekh Lal, Operator
category VI of Gidi Washery of M/s. CCL to the
post of fitter –cum- Operator Grade C with effect
from 06/04/1998 is justified? If so, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Cases 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] 8 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 99-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;u
,vjykbUl 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;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 05@2011)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8-01-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@11@1991&vkbZ vkj (fofo/)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 99.—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,
Guwahati (Ref. No. 05 of 2011) as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Indian Airlines and their
workmen,which was received by the Central Government
on 8-01-2016.
[No. L-11012/11/1991-IR (Misc.)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI ASSAM
Present : Sri L.C.Dey, M.A.,LL.B., Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:
The Management of Indian Airlines, Calcutta
-Vrs-
Workman Sri Suresh Basfore.
Ref. Case No.05 of 2011
APPEARANCES :
For the Management: Mr. R.N. Mazumder, Ld. Advocate.
Mr. A.K.Sarkar, Ld. Advocate.
Mr. T.K.Borah, Ld. Advocate.
Mr. M. Mohanta, Ld. Advocate.
For the Workman:
Mr. J.K.Kar, Ld. Advocate.
Mr. H.K.Dey, Ld. Advocate.
Date of Award :30.10.2015
A W A R D
1. This Reference is initiated on an Industrial
Dispute existed between the employers in relation to the
Management of The Management of Indian Airlines,
Calcutta, and their workman Sri Suresh Basfore, which
was referred to by the Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Government of India, New Delhi vide their Order No.L-
11012/11/91-IR(Misc); Dated: 30-03-92. The Schedule of
the Reference is as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Indian
Airlines Corporation and in not re-employing
Shri S. Basfore after his acquittal from the Court
(not finding him guilty of the charge of theft) is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
183
2. On receipt of the order of Reference, this
Reference case has been registered and notices were
served upon both the parties who appeared and contested
the proceeding by filing their claim statement/written
statement and adducing evidence along with documents.
3. The case of the workman, in nutshell, as it
appears from their claim statement, is that the workman
had been working as Sweeper in Guwahati Air Port
( presently known as Lok Priya Gopinath Bordoloi
International Air Port) Office on daily wage basis since
1981 to 1989 as casual labourer, with sincerity and
honesty to the satisfaction of the Authority. On 8.5.89
an amount of Rs.46,405/- was reported missing from the
office of the Guwahati Air Port and an FIR was filed by
the Authority in the Ajara Police Station, which is the
nearest Police Station in connection with the occurrence
of theft of the said amount. The said F.I.R was registered
being Ajara Police Station Case No.50/89. The Airport
Authority suspected the workman to be involved in the
said case and on 9.5.89 when the workman was proceeding
for duty he came to know about this matter on being asked
by the Police and Air Port official, while the workman
pleaded not guilty and denied his involvement in the said
theft case. But at the instance of the Air Port official the
Police from Ajara Police Station arrested the workman
and beaten him mercilessly in spite of his denial of the
involvement in the said crime. Thereafter the workman
was kept in judicial custody for 15 days and the said Ajara
Police Station case No. 50/89 was registered as G.R.
Case No.2262/89 u/s 380 IPC. The workman was released
on bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati
on perusal of the C.D. Thereafter the workman moved
several petitions before the Air Port Manager of
Guwahati, Air Port with a prayer to allow him to join his
job but he did not allow the workman to join. Subsequently
Charge Sheet was submitted against the workman u/s 380
IPC in G.R.Case No.2262/89. After his release from the
jail custody, the workman came to know that the missing
amount of Rs.46,405/- was recovered intact from the
Godrej Almirah of the office which was at the disposal
of the Cashier of the Air Port office and the said amount
was seized by the police. Thereafter the G.R. case No.
2262/89 ( Ajara P.S. Case No.50/89) u/s 380 IPC came
for hearing before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Guwahati on 9.11.90, and the learned CJM, after hearing
the Public Prosecutor and the workman’s Advocate passed
an order discharging the workman from the case directing
the Investigating Officer to return the seized articles.
Then the workman after obtaining the certified copy of
the said order dated 9.11.90 passed by the learned C.J.M,
Guwahati applied to the APM with request to allow him
to join his job in view of the said order dated 9.11.90,
but the prayer of the workman was not considered by the
Airport and ultimately the workman moved the Labour
Commissioner for considering his case.
Further case of the workman is that he being a poor
Sweeper, belongs to Scheduled Caste community, has
been put to miseries and sufferings by the Airport
Authority officials for no fault of him although the
officers at whose disposal the huge amount was kept and
letter reported missing have gone unpunished. Hence, the
workman prayed for passing necessary order for
reinstating him in his job, for payment of due wages from
April,1989 till the date of reinstatement and
compensation due to him under the provision of law.
The workman submitted additional claim statement,
denying the contents of paragraphs 11,13 & 14 of the
W.S. filed by the Management, stated inter-alia that he
was appointed as casual employee as Sweeper and he
worked against the said post from January,1981 to 1989
without break on monthly wages of Rs.1200/-@ Rs.40/
- per day from 1981 to 1982 and @ Rs.1500/- per month
@ Rs.60/- per day from 1983 to 1989 and as such, the
workman completed 240 days continuous service in a
period of 12 months. The workman mentioned that the
statements made in para-13 and para-14 of the written
statements made by the management are not true but
imaginary, concocted, managed. It is again pointed out
by the workman that original record would be called for
by the workman in due course. Even the Assistant Labour
Commissioner who examined the original file had also
kept a copy of the original file which can be also called
for at the time of hearing as such, the workman prayed to
reject the W.S. as well as the additional W.S. submitted
by the Management.
4. The Management of the then Indian Airlines
Corporations contested the proceeding filing the written
statement, stating inter-alia, that the reference have not
been made u/s 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in
respect of an individual workman, which is not
maintainable in law, since the dispute has not been
espoused and/or sponsored by a Union or by appreciable
number of workmen and as such, the workman has not
come within the purview of Section 2(k) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947. It is pleaded by the Management that
the casual labourers get work only in absence of
temporary or otherwise of regular employees, and do
not have any guaranteed right of employment and hence,
the reference for re-employing a casual on the face of it
is bad in law. The Indian Airlines is a Corporation
established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act,
1953. Under Section 45(1) of the said Act, it is provided
amongst others that subject to the provision of sub-
Section 3 of the said Section the Corporation may by
Notification in the Official Gazette make Regulations
not inconsistent with the Act or Rules made therein for
administration of the affairs of the Corporation and
carrying out its function’ ; and Clause (b) of Sub-Section
2 of the said Section provides that the Corporation may
make Regulations relating to the terms and conditions
184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the services of the Officers and other employees of the
Corporation other than the Managing Director and the
officers. The Management in exercise of power conferred
by Clause (b) of Sub Section 2 of Section 45 of the aforesaid
Act, with the approval of the Central Government made
three services Regulations namely, (i) Indian Airlines
(Flying Crew) Service Regulation, (ii) Indian Airlines
(Aircraft Engineering Department) Service Regulation and
(iii) Indian Airlines (Employees other than Flying Crew
and those in the Aircraft Engineering Department) Service
Regulation. Rule 9 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules
about the mode of direct recruitment in the Corporation
runs as under :-
“9. All posts available for direct recruitment shall be
given the widest possible publicity and, in particular, the
following steps shall be taken:
a). An advertisement incorporating the minimum
qualifications and experience necessary for all posts,
except those in Grade-I and II, shall be inserted in such
of the leading newspapers as may appear necessary.
b).All application received at Headquarters and
Regions shall be registered in the Administrative &
Personnel Branch and record of the same maintained by
a classification into occupational groups.
c).Local Employment Exchange may be
approached in case of recruitment to Grades I & II and
may be approached in other cases also with a view to
suggesting suitable candidate.
d).A public notice indicating the existence of
vacancies shall be put up on the Notice Board at Local
Office of the I. A. and the workshops.
e).Those already in the employment of the
Corporation shall be entitled to apply for any of the posts
subjects to eligibility.
Provided that in emergent cases, the procedure
outlines in (a) above may be dispenses with in respect of
Regions with the permission or the Regional Director
and in other cases with that of the Chairman/General
Manager.
Provided that in selecting the candidates, all things
being equal, existing employees of the Corporation from
the grades or inter linked grades immediately below shall
be given the first preference and “Retrenched” or ex-
employees of the former constituent Airlines shall be
given second preference provided they are suitable in all
respects.”
The Management submitted that as per the Standing
Orders for the factory workers of the Corporation
defined the “Badali and “Casual workman”, (i) Badali or
substitute means a workman who is appointed to the post
of permanent workmen or a probationer who is
temporarily absent.
(ii) Casual workman means a workman who is
employed for any work of an occasional or casual nature.
The Corporation sometime due to emergency has to
resort to engagement of casual laboure for the category
of Loader or Sweeper etc. at Guwahati Airport and since
the Airport is a protected area, the Corporation has to
recommend for Security Entry Pass in respect of those
Casuals for the entry into the National Airport Authority.
If at all, the workman was engaged, such engagement was
purely casual and intermittent in nature, in any event the
alleged workman has not completed 240 days of
continuous service in a period of 12 months, preceding
to any given date, so as to reap benefit of the Provisions
of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The
Management further mentioned that there was
conciliation by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),
Guwahati and during the discussion held on 13th January,
1986, the Assistant Labour Commissioner requested the
Corporation to adjudge the suitability of the 15 casuals
along with the candidates forwarded through the
Employment Exchange, and the name of the workman
was also figured amongst the 15 persons who were agreed
to be considered by the representative of the Management
subject to their fulfilling the requirement of suitability
for interview/selection etc. However, the employers crave
leave to refer the said minutes of the meeting held on
13th January,1986. Accordingly interview was held on 20th
February,1986 for filling up of the vacancy for the post
of Loader from the candidates sponsored by the local
Employment Exchange and also recommended by the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (central), Guwahati by
a duly constituted Board, but the workman could not come
out successfully in the interview. Thereafter fresh names
were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Guwahati
on the request of the employees and those who were
found eligible were interviewed by the duly constituted
Board and a fresh panel was drawn on the basis thereof
for the post of Loader at Guwahati and appointments were
made therefrom but the name of the workman was not
sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
The management denied the contention of the
workman that the workman was working as a Sweeper in
the Gauhati Airport Office on daily wage basis since
1981-89 as casual labourer. The Management reiterated
that if at all the alleged workman was engaged, such
engagement was purely casual and intermittent in nature
and the alleged workman did not have guaranteed right of
employment by reason of such casual engagement. The
management also denied the allegations raised in the
claim statement, more particularly that the workman is
entitled to bereinstated or that he is entitled to any wages
from April,1989 or for any period or to any compensation
under the provision of law. The Management further
pleaded, filing addl. W.S., denying the allegations raised
in the additional W.S. submitted by the workman that the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
185
workman was engaged as casual from January,1981 to 1989
without any break or that he was paid monthly salary at
the rate of Rs.1200/- or at the rate of Rs.40/- per day to or
Rs.1500/- per month or Rs.50 per day from 1983 to 1989;
and that the workman completed even 240 days of
continuous service in a period of 12 months. The
management also denied the statement of the workman
that Interview Board told him that since the workman
had already been working as Sweeper there was no
necessity of taking interview further. The management
also denied, in particular, the contention of the workman
made in the Addl. Claim statement that the statement of
the employers are not based on actual fact or that have
made in suppression of official records.
5. With a view to establish their respective cases
both the workman and the management examined 3 WWs
& 1 MW respectively.
After closing hearing of both the sides I have heard
arguments from both the parties, at length.
According to the workman Sri Suresh Basfore
(W.W.1) he was working as Sweeper in Gauhati Airport
Office of the Management on daily wage basis since 1981
with sincerity and honesty to the satisfaction of the
management and on 5.8.89 the management lodged an
FIR before the O/C, Ajara Police Station alleging missing
of Rs.46,405/- which was registered as Ajara P.S. Case
No. 50/89, and in this connection the workman was
arrested on 19.5.89 and was remanded to judicial custody.
The said Ajara Police Station case no. 50/89 was
registered as G.R.Case No.2262/89 by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati who, thereafter,
upon perusal of the case diary was released the workman
on bail in the aforesaid case. Subsequently the learned
CJM, Guwahati, upon perusal of the C.D, was released
the accused on bail. On being released on bail, the
workman made several petitions before the Assistant
Airport Manager, Guwahati praying for allowing him to
join his job as Sweeper, but it was not considered.
Thereafter the workman moved before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati for redressal of the
grievance, and ultimately the dispute was referred by
appropriate government for adjudication.
The workman further mentioned that he had worked
in the post of Sweeper under the management from
January,1981 to 9.5.89 without any break and without any
long leave and the monthly salary was paid to him at the
rate of Rs.1200 per month (@ Rs.40/- per day) from
1981 to 1982 and subsequently his monthly salary was
increased to 1500 ( @ Rs.60/- per day). He also
mentioned that throughout the aforesaid period from
1981 to 1989 he had continuously worked for 240 days
of every 12 months. He also stated that during the period
of his service he appeared in an interview before the
management for consideration of his appointment against
the available vacancies but his case was not considered
by the management.
At his instance, the workman (WW.1) was re-
examined, while he stated that the learned C.J.M, Kamrup
after scrutiny of the record along with the Final Report
submitted by the Investigating Officer discharged him
on 09.11.1990 as mentioned above, and in this connection
he had obtained the certified copy of the said order dated
9.11.90 passed by the learned C.J.M, Kamrup in G.R. Case
No.2262/89 ( Azara P.S. Case No. 50/89) u/s 380 IPC.
Accordingly he had handed over the said certified copy
to his the then counsel Mr. R.K.Das who has shifted from
Guwahati for which he is not in a position to produce the
certified copy of the said order. Thereafter he approached
the learned C.J.M, Kamrup for furnishing the certified
copy of the aforesaid order dated 9.11.90 passed in G.R.
Case No.2262/89 and inspite of his repeated persuasion
and attempt he could not obtain the certified copy of the
said order. Thereafter the record Keeper of the Office
of the learned C.J.M,Kamrup submitted a report stating
that the Case Record of G.R.Case No.2262/89 was duly
entered in their record and it has been mentioned as
discharged on 9.11.90, V-Class, A-file docketed under
SL. No. 107 and entry dated 27.12.1991 and the discharge
order passed by the learned C.J.M, on 9.11.1990. It is
also stated by the W.W.1 that in the report of the Record
Keeper of the Office of the learned C.J.M, Kamrup it is
mentioned that the case record of the above mentioned
case G.R.Case No.2262/89 has been destroyed as per
destruction list on 29.12.1993 and the said report of the
Record Keeper has been duly authenticated with
endorsement “place the report before the appropriate
Court” by the learned C.J.M, Kamrup on 9.4.2015. The
workman has proved the report of the Record Keeper of
the office of the C.J.M, Kamrup vide Exhibit-1 and the
photo copy of the certified copy of the order dated
9.11.90 passed by the learned C.J.M,Kamrup in G.R.Case
No.2262/89 ( Azara P.S.Case No.50/89) u/s 380 I.P.C.
During his cross-examination the workman
mentioned that on 1.1.1981 he joined as Sweeper under
Indian Airlines Corporation at Guwahati Airport as casual
employee, and that the wages were paid to him by the
management fortnightly by obtaining signatures on the
vouchers. He again mentioned that in the year 1985 the
management held an interview calling him including 4/5
other casual workers for regularisation of their service
but he was not selected for regularisation. However, he
was allowed to continue the work, and during his interview
all his documents were examined by the Board.
The W.W.2, Sri Lakshmi Basfore stated that he was
employed by the management of Indian Airlines, Lilabari
initially on casual basis and thereafter as permanent
worker as Engineering Helper with effect from 1985,
and he was posted at Borjhar Airport of the Indian Airlines
186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in December,1986, wherefrom he retired on 31.1.2011. The
W.W.2 also mentioned that the workman Suresh Basfore
is known to him since his joining time at Borjhar Airport of
Indian Airlines. He added that the workman was found to
be very sobar in his behaviour and was very sincere in his
work and his good personality brought the W.W.2 closure
to the workman Sri Basfore who was working as casual
worker under the management at daily wage rate. He again
stated that in the year 1989, he heard that the workman
was implicated in a theft case and was arrested by police,
but subsequently the workman was relieved of the charges
by the Court.
In course of his cross-examination the W.W.2
mentioned that the workman was working under the
Commercial Department as Safaiwala and in the year
1989 an occurrence of theft took place in Borjhar Airport
which he heard on the following day of occurrence. He
further mentioned that so far he knows that the workman
was discharged from the service in connection with the
aforesaid theft case.
The W.W.3, Sri Motilal Shah, stated that he was
employed at Borjhar Airport of the Indian Airlines as
Catering Helper on 16.6.80 as a regular employee of the
Indian Airlines and he was retired from the service on
31.12.05 on superannuation. He again stated that he
personally knew the workman Suresh Basfore since 1981
after his engagement at Borjhar Office; and that the
workman was employed as Sweeper working in the
Airlines Office at Borjhar. He also mentioned that the
workman was very sobar well behaved and nothing was
noticed or heard against the workman during his service
period in the Airlines Office; and in fact, his good
personality, sincerity and amiable behaviour brought him
closure to the workman. Thereafter in the year 1989 he
heard that the workman was implicated in a theft case of
Airlines money and was arrested by police. Subsequently,
the workman was released by the Court as charges were
not proved against him.
During his cross-examination the workman witness
No.3 stated that he had been working in the Catering
Section of Indian Airlines Corporation since 1980 while
the workman Suresh Basfore joined as Sweeper under
Indian Airlines in 1981 and since then he knew the
workman. He also added that the workman joined as
casual worker but how he was discharged he could not
know. However, after a few years of service of the
workman, heard that the workman was arrested by the
police and some occurrence of theft occurred in the cash
section of Indian Airlines at Borjhar Airport and the
stolen money was recovered and the workman was also
released by police finding no allegation against the
workman.
6. The Management, on the other hand, examined
their witness namely Nitish Chandra Barooah, the Station
Manager of Air India Ltd.,Guwahati as MW.1 & Sri Bhabesh
Chandara Das, the Dy. Manager ( Sales & Marketing ) Air
India (Ltd.) as MW.2.
According to M.W.1, the management sometime due
to emergency has to resort to engagement of casual
labourer of the category of Loader/Sweeper etc. at
Guwahati Airport and as the Airport is a protected area
the Corporation has to recommend for security Entry
Pass in respect of those casual or being issued by the
National Airport Authority; and such engagement was
purely casual and intermittent in nature, in any event, the
workman has not completed 240 days of continuous
service in a period of 12 months preceding to any given
date so as to reap the benefits of the provision of Section
25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The MW.1 further
stated that there was a conciliation held by the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati and during the
discussion held on 13.1.86 the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (c), requested the management to adjudge
the suitability of the 15 casuals along with the candidates
forwarded by the Employment Exchange, and the name
of the workman was also figured amongst the 15 persons,
who were agreed to be considered by the management
subject to the fulfilling of their requirement and/or
suitability for interview and/or selection etc. The
management hold an interview on 20.2.1986 for filling
up the vacancy for the post of Loader from the candidates
sponsored by the local Employment Exchange as well as
the candidates recommended by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner(C), Guwahati. But the workman could not
come out successfully in the interview. He also added
that after sometime fresh names were sponsored by the
Employment Exchange, Guwahati on the request of the
employers company and those who were eligible were
interviewed by the duly constituted interview Board and
a fresh panel was drawn on the basis thereof for the post
of Loader at Guwahati and appointments were also made
therefrom. At that time the name of the workman
concerned was not sponsored by the Employment
Exchange. The MW.1 pointed out that there is no record
to suggest as purportedly claimed by the workman
concerned in his evidence on Affidavit to the effect that,
he had worked from January, 1981 to 9th May, 1989 under
the management. He also added that if at all the workman
concerned was engaged, such engagement was purely
casual and intermittent in nature and the said workman
did not have guaranteed right of employment by reason
of such casual engagement.
The MW.2 Sri Bhabesh Chandra Das, Dy. Manager
(Sales and Marketing), Air India, Guwahati stated that he
has been working in Air India, Guwahati since 18.7.2015
and he is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of
the case. He was working at Guwahati Air Port and City
Office of Air India since 1990 to 2010. He mentioned
that the casual labourers are engaged by their Organisation
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
187
in the event of vacant post of permanent labourers and
the labourers who are on leave or sick, through the
Workers’ Union. Minimum qualification for appointment
to the post of casual labourer was Class-VIII at the
relevant time and after appointment of the casual workers
the Air Port Authority issued Airport Entry Pass to them
after security clearance and other formalities. The wages
of the casual workers was paid day to day. He again stated
that he knows the workman Suresh Basfore who had been
working in Guwahati Airport under Air India as casual
worker since 1986 but he could not say up to what date
he continued. He again mentioned that the Casual workers
were engaged casually not continuously. In 1986 the
workman was called for appearing before the Selection
Board duly constituted by the Manager for selection of
the casual workers including others, and in the selection
test the workman could not come out successfully for
which he was not engaged. The MW.2 added that in the
year 1989 an incident of theft of around 46,000/- took
place in the cash room while the management lodged FIR
before Azara Police Station. Accordingly Police
investigated into the matter and suspected the workman
who was arrested by the Police. After investigation Azara
Police submitted charge sheet against the workman
Suresh Basfore u/s 380 IPC and the same was submitted
before the Court of C.J.M, Kamrup, Guwahati. The
Hon’ble C.J.M on perusal of the charge sheet discharged
the workman Suresh Basfore and the stolen amount was
also subsequently recovered from the locker of the cash
room of the Airport. He added that the amount was
subsequently seized by Police and the learned C.J.M,
released the said amount in their favour. He also
mentioned that after his discharge the workman Suresh
Basfore approached the Management for his
reengagement but the management did not agree to it.
Workman was refused reengagement since he could not
qualify the selection and not due to the case lodged
against the workman.
In course of his cross-examination the MW.2 stated
that in the year 1990 after his joining the Guwahati
Airport he found the workman Suresh Basfore working
as Casual worker. As per the Standing Order of the
Management the casual employees are included as
employees of Air India and Clause-14 of the Standing
Order regarding payment of wages the mode of payment
of wages i.e. the wages of casual employees for the
previous week would be paid on the following Tuesday.
He also added that the attendance record as well as the
wage payment register in respect of the casual workers
was maintained but they have not produced any document
regarding attendance and payment of wages in respect
of the workman, for which he could not say exact number
of days of work done by the workman in a particular year.
The management witness No.2 again said that the
workman being a casual labourer there is no job relation
between the Sweeper & Cashier who is the In-Charge of
cash room and the occurrence of theft took place in the
cash room. He further stated that the interview was held
in 1986 for the post of Loader. The witness concerned
has also admitted that the workman belong to SC category
and the Loader is non-technical post and as per Rule-13
of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the
Management there is instruction that the Board shall pay
due attention to the Circular issued by the Home Ministry
from time to time in the matter of safeguard of adequate
representation of members of SC, ST non-technical post.
He added that the aforesaid Rule 13 was followed at the
time of selection procedure of the workman including
others but no waiting list of the candidates was prepared
for the year 1986 by the Selection Board. He also stated
that he was not aware if any other interview was held after
1986 for the same post. The MW.2 denied the suggestion
tendered by the workman that the workman was not
reengaged with intent to deprive him from getting the
job; and that with a view to implicate the workman falsely
the criminal case was lodged. He also denied the
suggestion put forward by the management that the
workman is entitled to be reengaged.
7. During argument Mr. R.N.Mazumder, learned
Advocate for the Management submitted that the present
reference made u/s 10 of the I.D.Act, 1947 is not
maintainable , in as much as the claim for reinstatement
by workman without being espoused or sponsored by a
Union or by a appreciable Body of workman can not come
within the purview of Section 2(k) of I.D.Act ; and that
the workman could not complete 240 days of continuous
service in any given year so as to come within the purview
of Section 25 (f) of the I.D.Act with a view to derive the
benefit thereof in the event of termination. Mr. Mazumder
also pointed out that the workman along with other casual
labourers were allowed to appear before the interview
for filling up the vacancy for the post of Loader held in
February,1986 for which candidates sponsored by the
Employment Exchange as well as the candidates
recommended by the Assistant Labour Commissioner ©,
Guwahati were considered by the duly constituted Board,
but the workman did not come out successfully in the
said interview as such, the workman has no legal right to
claim regularization and/or reinstatement in the service
of the Management Company. In support of his
contention Mr. Mazumder relied upon the case of Secy…
State of Karnataka & Ors —vrs— Umadevi & Ors
published in (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein it was held ——”
though regular appointment as per the constitutional
scheme for public employment must be the rule, there is
nothing in the constitutional scheme which prohibits the
Union or State Governments or their instrumentalities
from engaging persons temporarily or on daily wages in
spite of the constitutional scheme governing public
employment, without following the required procedure,
188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to meet the needs of the situation—However, consistent
with the scheme for public employment, unless the
appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a
proper competition amongst qualified persons, the same
would not confer any right on the appointee—Therefore,
a contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of
the contract, an appointment on daily wages or casual
basis comes to an end when it is discontinued, and a
temporary appointment comes to an end on the expiry of
its term.”
After enactment of Amendment Act 24 of 2010
incorporating the Section 2A of I.D.Act it has been
provided that the dismissal etc. of an individual workman
to be deemed to be an industrial dispute, and the individual
workman may raise the dispute notwithstanding that no
other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to
the dispute , notwithstanding anything contained in Section
10 of I.D. Act, Section 2A of the aforesaid Act runs:-
“ 2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to
be deemed to be an industrial dispute.—Where any
employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise
terminates the services of an individual workman, any
dispute or difference between that workman and his
employer connected with, or arising out of, such
discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall
be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding
that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a
party to the dispute.
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10,
any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may,
make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal
for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after
the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made
the application to the Conciliation Officer of the
appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute,
and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or
Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by
the appropriate Government in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act
shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply
in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the
appropriate Government.”
The workman espoused his causes before the
Labour Commissioner (C) Guwahati who on failure of
conciliation referred the F.O.C. to the Ministry.
Accordingly, the dispute was referred by the Ministry
u/s 10 (1)(d) (2A) of I.D.Act, in view of the provision of
Section. 2A of I.D.Act as mentioned above there is no
illegality in espousing the dispute by the workman himself
alone as well as referring the dispute by the Ministry &
hence the dispute is maintainable. Therefore I find no
force in this argument put forward by the learned
Advocate for the Management.
8. Mr. J.K.KAR, Learned Advocate for the workman
submitted that the workman was engaged as Casual worker
against the Post of Loader/Sweeper who discharged his
duties since 1.1.81 to 9.5.1989 till the date of his arrest by
the Azara Police Station in connection with Azara P.S.Case
No.50/89 (G.R.Case No.2262/89) without any break or any
long leave and that after his discharge at the stage of
framing the charge against him by the learned C.J.M,
Kamrup the workman approached the management on
repeated occasions to join his service but the management
without issuing any notice of termination nor any show
cause, with intent to victimize the workman following the
tactics of unfair labour practice, refused the workman to
join his work and the said fact has been categorically
established by the workman as well as admitted in the
evidence of the management witness No.2. Mr. Kar, learned
Advocate for the workman added that the workman has
been able to prove on oath standing on the dock of this
Court that he worked continuously for 240 days in each
preceding 12 months till his arrest by Police and this
testimony has been supported by the W.W.2 & 3. He also
mentioned that the management confirmed that they
maintained the Attendance Record as well as the payment
of wage record in respect of the workmen but they did not
produce the same; and the workman has no access to the
said record regarding his Attendance and payment of
wages & as such he is not in a position to produce the
same. Thus, the onus is on the part of the management to
disprove the contention of the workman adducing
evidence along with the record which they did not. In this
connection Mr. Kar relied upon the Civil Appeal No.
229 of 2010 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14078 of 2009)
2010 (1) SCT 675, wherein it was held
“(13) We are conscious of the fact that an
appointment on public post cannot be made in
contravention of recruitment rules and constitutional
scheme of employment. However, in view of the materials
placed before the Labour Court and in this Court, we are
satisfied that the said principle would not apply in the
case on hand. As rightly pointed out, the appellant has
not prayed for regularization but only for reinstatement
with continuity of service for which he is legally entitled
to. It is to be noted in the case of termination of casual
employee what is required to be seen is whether a workman
has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months or
not. If sufficient materials are shown that workman has
completed 240 days then his service cannot be terminated
without giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms
of Section 25 F. The High Court failed to appreciate that
that in the present case appellant has completed 240 days
in the preceding 12 months and no notice or compensation
in lieu of it was given to him, in such circumstances his
termination was illegal.”
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
189
Mr. Kar again referred the case of Sachiv, Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti –vs—Aditya S/o Baijnath Shukla
reported in (2003) IIILLJ 555 MP wherein it was observed
that if the termination of an employee is based on no
enquiry, no charge and not by way of punishment, then it
becomes a case of illegal retrenchment; if an employee
has worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year
then he is entitled to have the protection of Labour Laws
provided the employer is an Industry subjected to Labour
Laws.
Learned Advocate for the workman further cited the
case of R.M. Yellatty –vs—Assistant Executive Engineer
published in {(2006)1 SCC 106} wherein it was decided as
“However, applying general principles and on reading the
aforesaid judgments, we find that this Court, has
repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on
the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a
given year. This burden is discharged only upon the
workman stepping up in the witness box. This burden is
discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence,
both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of
services of daily-waged earners, there will be no letter of
appointment of termination. There will also be no receipt
of proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman
(the claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce
before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given
period, the letter of appointment of termination, if any, the
wage register, the attendance register, etc. Drawing of
adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on
the facts of each case.”
9. On scrutiny of the evidence adduced by both
the sides as discussed above it is found admitted that the
workman Suresh Basfore was engaged by the management
of Air India as casual labourer in the category of Loader/
Sweeper etc at Guwahati Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi
Airport (the then Gauhati Airport); and as per the Standing
Order of the management the casual employees are
included as employee of the Air India. The management
witness No.2 categorically admitted that as per Clause-14
of the Standing Order regarding payment of wages –mode
of payment of wages i.e. the wages of casual employees
for the previous week would be paid on the following
Tuesday and that the attendance record as well as the
wage payment register in respect of the casual workers
was maintained but the management did not produce any
document regarding attendance and payment of wages in
respect of the workman for which the M.W.2 could not
say exact number of days work done by the workman for a
particular year. The workman in his evidence categorically
mentioned that he had been working as Sweeper in the
then Gauhati Airport Office of the management since 1981
and on 8.5.1989 the management lodged an FIR before the
O/C, Azara Police Station regarding missing of Rs.46,405/-
and which was registered as Azara Police Case No. 50/89.
In connection with the said Azara P.S. Case No. 50/89 it
was registered as G.R.Case No.2262/89 by the learned C.J.M.
Kamrup, Guwhati, the workman was arrested on 9.5.1989.
The workman also categorically mentioned that he had
worked against the post of Sweeper under the management
from January, 1981 to 9.5.89 i.e. till the date of his arrest
by Azara Police Station without any break or without any
leave; and the monthly wage was paid to him @ Rs.1200/-
per month i.e. at the rate of Rs.40/- per day from 1981 to
1982; subsequently his monthly wage was increased to
Rs.1500/- i.e. @ Rs.60/- per day. He further mentioned that
in the aforesaid period of his duty from 1981 to 1989 he
had continuously worked for 240 days in every 12 months.
The said testimony of the workman has neither been
rebutted by the management side nor the management
could produce any document regarding the attendance
and payment of wages in respect of the workman although
the said documents were called for. The management in
their evidence as well as in course of argument categorically
mentioned that the workman never worked for 240 days
continuously in 12 months. Thus the management has
failed to discharge their burden of proving the fact that
the workman has not completed 240 days in a year
adducing evidence both orally and documentary. In this
connection I am inclined to rely upon the case of Ramesh
Kumar –vrs— State of Haryana published in (2010) 2 SCC
543 wherein it was held that in case of termination of
casual employee what is required to be seen is whether he
has completed 240days of service in preceding 12 months
or not; if he has, then his service cannot be terminated
without giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms
of Section 25-F. In Director, Fisheries Terminal Division –
vs— Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda,( AIR 2010 SC1236).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed—
“So it is obvious, as this court pointed out in the above
case that he would have difficulty in having access to all
the official documents, muster rolls etc. In connection with
his service. He has come forward and deposed, so in our
opinion the burden of proof shifts to the employer/
appellants to prove that he did not complete 240 days of
service in the requisite period to constitute continuous
service. It is the contention of the appellant that the
services of the respondent were terminated in 1988. The
witness produced by the appellant stated that the
respondent stopped coming to work from February, 1988.
The documentary evidence produced by the appellant is
contradictory to this fact as it shows that the respondent
was working during February, 1989 also. It has also been
observed by the High Court that the muster roll for 1986-
87 was not completely produced. The appellants have
inexplicably failed to produce the complete records and
muster rolls from 1985 to 1991, in spite of the direction
issued by the Labour Court to produce the same. In fact
190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
there has been practically no challenge to the deposition
of the respondent during cross-examination)”.
Further the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation,
Faridabad—vs—Siri Niwas reported in (2004) 8 SCC
195, observed that “ A Court of law even in a case where
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act apply, may presume
or may not presume that if a party despite possession of
the best evidence had not produced the same, it would
have gone against this contentions. The matter, however,
would be different where despite direction by a court
the evidence is withheld.”
10. The evidence on record shows that the workman
had been working till the date of his arrest by police on
9.5.89 with effect from 1.1.1981 on the date on suspicion in
connection with the theft of an amount of Rs.46,405/- from
the cash counter, and subsequently the said amount was
recovered from the locker of the cash counter of the
management and the same was seized by police and
subsequently the said amount was placed at the zimma of
the management. Thereafter concerning Police Station
submitted charge sheet against the workman which was
registered in connection with G.R.,Case No. 2262/89
arising out of Azara P.S. Case No.50/89 u/s 380 IPC and
the learned C.J.M., Kamrup upon hearing both the sides
vide his order dated 9.11.90 discharged the workman
finding no materials to frame any charge u/s 380 IPC
against the accused i.e. the present workman. After his
discharge from the judicial custody the workman
approached the management on several occasions for his
reengagement but no action taken by the Management
who did neither issue any letter of termination nor pay
the notice pay with retrenchment compensation u/s 25-
F of I.D.Act. It is also revealed in the evidence on record
that in the year 1986 the management recruited the
Grade-IV staff including the post of Loader/Sweeper etc.
calling for an interview of the candidates recommended
by the Local Employment Exchange as well as the
candidates whose names have been sponsored by the ALC
(C), Guwahati wherein the workman was one of the
candidates, but he could not come out successfully. Yet
the workman was allowed to continue to perform his duty
as casual worker till the date of his arrest i.e. on 9.5.89.
11. From the above discussion it is clear that the
present dispute raised by the workman is maintainable &
as such, the arguments put forward by Mr. Mazumder,
learned Advocate for the Management is found not
maintainable. In this connection I am inclined to rely upon
the Case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
& Another –vrs— Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari
Sanghatana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 556, wherein it
was decided “Industrial and Labour Courts enjoy wide
powers under S.30(1)(b). This includes power to accord
permanency to employees affected by unfair labour
practice. This Power is not affected by Umadevi(3) case
for two reasons, first this Act was not at all considered by
Constitution Bench, and second Umadevi(3) case limits
scope of powers of Supreme Court under Art. 32 and High
Courts under Art. 226 to issue directions for regularization
in matters of public employment, but power to take
affirmative action under S.30(1) (b) remains intact.”
12. It is also found well established that the workman
has rendered continuous service to the management as
casual labourer for 240 days in the preceding 12 months
w.e.f. 1.1.1981 to 9.5.1989, the workman was refused to join
his duties/retrenched by the Management arbitrarily.
As such the workman is entitled to protection under
I.D. Act, 1947.
Mr. Mazumder, learned Advocate for the
management raised another argument that in pursuance
to the direction given by the Prime Minister of India in
1992 to effect 10% cut in the staff strength across the
board, the Ministry of Civil Aviation has been consistently
reviewing the status, and the 5th Pay Commission had also
stated that 30% posts have to be abolished in the next 10
years or 3% annually. Mr. Mazumder also added that since
erstwhile Indian Airlines Ltd. was suffering loss from 1989-
90, the Government of India constituted a Committee of
Experts in February, 1995 to make a comprehensive
examination of the reasons for losses and to develop
strategies for turning around the management in the context
of competitive market environment, and the Committee
headed by Mr. Kelkar, amongst others suggested a policy
that employee to aircraft ratio has to be reduced
progressively by 5 % in the next 5 years. As such, due to
poor financial condition of the company it should not be
saddled with additional burden by directing regularization
and/or reinstatement of the concerned workman which
may render futile the whole process of revival of the
Company. In this regard Mr. Mazumder relied upon the
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors –vs—Umadevi
& Ors reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Mr.Mazumder, again,
relied upon the case of Post Master General, Kolkata &
Ors. –vrs— Tutu Das (Dutta) reported in (2007) 5 SCC 317
wherein it was held:-
“16. The short order which was the subject-matter
of decision of this Court in Debika Guha also stood
overruled in Umadevi. We may at this stage also notice
that the concept of 240 days to be the cut-off mark for the
purpose of regularization of services came up for
consideration of this Court in Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad—v—Anil Kumar Mishra wherein it was clearly
laid down that the completion of 240 days of continuous
service in a year would be attracted only in a case where
retrenchment has been effected without complying with
the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, but would not be relevant for regularization
of service.”
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
191
13. The workman in his evidence prayed for directing
the management to reinstate him in his job of Sweeper and
to pay the back-wage with effect from April,1989 till the
date of his re-instatement. Since it is not a case of
regularization but reinstatement only, I find no reason to
entertain the arguments raised by the learned Advocate
for the management. Also the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases appears to be
not relevant.
14. From the above it is revealed that the workman
had been working as casual labourer in the category of
Loader/Sweeper since 1981 to 9.5.89 i.e. till the date of
his arrest and the learned C.J.M., Kamrup, rightly
discharged the workman finding no materials against him.
Further the workman being a Sweeper/Loader has no
access to the cash. Presumably the Cashier/In-charge of
cash is the custodian of the cash as well as the locker of
the cash and as the alleged stolen amount was recovered
from the locker of the cash after the arrest of the accused.
So there was no enquiry held against the workman in
connection with any charge by the management nor the
procedure for dis-engagement/retrenchment of the
workman was followed by the management. It is also
found in the evidence of the management witness No.2
that the workman was refused reengagement since he
could not qualify in the selection test held in 1986 and
not due to the case lodged against the workman, while it
is found established that the workman was allowed to
work since 1986 till the date of his arrest and after his
release he was not allowed to join. Thus it is crystal clear
that the workman was disengaged by the Management
without complying the provision of law and procedure
and such, an action of the management in not
reemploying/reinstating the workman is arbitrary, against
the principle of law and unjustified as well as in violation
of the Rules & procedure established by the Management
which is a clear unfair labour practice.
15. Mr. Mazumder, learned Advocate for the
Management pointed out that this Court in Ref. Case No.3
of 2011 passed an Award rejecting the claim of the
workman namely, Jibeswar Mondal, Jagannath Mahato,
Sunil Singh & Bashistha Sahani who espoused their causes
which are same as these in the present reference. On
scrutiny of the copy of the award produced by the
Management it appears that the facts & circumstances
of the present reference & those revealed in the Ref.
Case No.3 of 2011 are not the same. More particularly
the workmen in that Ref. Case No.3 of 2011 had failed
to prove that they worked 240 days in a year. Therefore,
it is clear that this plea taken by the learned Advocate for
the Management cannot be accepted.
Another argument raised by Mr. Mazumder, learned
Advocate for the management that in view of the report
of the Kalkar Committee constituted in pursuance of the
Ministry of Civil Aviation on the basis of the direction
given by the Prime Minister in 1992 to effect 10% cut
in the staff strength across the board, and the
recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission that 30% of
posts have to be abolished in the next 10 years or 3%
annually, as well as the loss suffering by the then Indian
Airlines from 1989 to 1990, if the concern workman is
regularized and/or reinstated it will render futile the
whole process of the revival of the Company, is also found
not relevant in this reference since the workman being a
casual labour was dis-engaged/retrenched by refusing him
to join after he was discharged by the learned C.J.M.,
Kamrup, Guwahati as the workman had been working
since long with effect from 1.1.81 without any break.
16. In view of the discussion and the findings arrived
at as above, it can safely be held that the action of the
management of Indian Airlines Corporation in not
reemploying the workman Sri Suresh Basfore after his
discharge from the Court (not finding him guilty of the
charge of theft) is illegal and not justified.
The workman in his evidence prayed for directing
the management to pay his back-wages with effect from
April, 1989 till the date of his re-engagement and such
compensation found due according to law. But there is
no iota of evidence on record to show that after his
disengagement the workman had not been working in any
occupation for gain nor there was no alternative source
of his livelihood. However, the workman has been fighting
for his cause since 1992 and due to long pendency of
this proceeding he had to face much difficulties and to
suffer a lot which affect his financial condition also. As
such, I am inclined to award a lump sum compensation
to the workman amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees two
lakhs), which I hope, would meet the ends of justice.
17. Accordingly this reference is disposed of on
contest directing the management to re-engage/reinstate
the workman as casual labourer/Loader and to pay the
compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees two
lakhs). However I award no cost.
Send the Award to the Ministry immediately as per
procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
30th day of October, 2015.
L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 100-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
+=kko.kdksj 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
192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vfèkdj.k pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2015) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@85@2014&vkbZ vkj (ch&1)º
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14 of
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank
of Travancore and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 11-01-2016.
[No. L-12012/85/2014-IR(B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 15th December, 2015
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 14 of 2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),
between the Management of State Bank of Travancore
and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri G. A. Paulraj : 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.The Managing Director : 2nd Party/1st Respondent
State Bank of Travancore
Poojapura
Thiruvananthapuram-605012
2.The Branch Manager, 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
State Bank of Travancore
Thiruvannamalai Branch
Thiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner: M/s. A. Gunaseelan,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st and : Sri S. Jayaraman, Advocate
2nd Management
A W A R D
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-12012/85/2014-IR
(B.I) dated 22.01.2015 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the workman Sri G.A.
Paulraj, in seeking regularization as Sub-Staff in
State Bank of Travancore is legal and justified? If
so, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 14/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement
respectively.
3. The case had been posted for enquiry after steps
were completed. Thereafter the counsel for the
Respondents has raised the issue of maintainability of
the dispute and the petitioner’s counsel had sought time
to get the reference schedule amended. Thereafter though
repeated postings were made, neither the petitioner nor
his counsel were present. There was never any
representation on behalf of the petitioner also.
4. What is to be assumed is that the petitioner is
not interested in pursuing the matter. He has not placed
any material before this Tribunal to substantiate his case.
So the reference is to be answered against the petitioner.
In the result the reference is answered against the
petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on
this day the 15th December, 2015) .
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
None
For the 2nd Party/Management :
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Respondent’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
193
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 101-—vksS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cacbZ
edsZaVkby lgdkfjrk cSad fyfeVsM izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdks
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 3@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk1
[la- ,y-12012@52@2008&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2008)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.II,
Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bombay Mercantile Co-opt.
Bank Ltd. and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 11/01/2016.
[No. L-12012/52/2008- IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena, Presiding Officer
ID. No. 3/2008
Syed Moazzam Ali Zaidi,
F/o Gali Bishtiyan,
Moh: Lal Masjid , Rampur (U.P.)
Rampur.
...Workman.
Versus
The Deputy General Manager,
Bombay Mercantile Co-opt. Bank Ltd.,
36, Netaji Subhash Marg,
Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-02
...Management
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-12012/52/2008-IR(B-I) dated 11.03.2008
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication :-
“Whether the dismissal of Sri. Syed Mozzam Ali
Zaidi by the management of Bombay Mercantile Co-
opt. Bank Ltd. is justified and legal? If not, what
relief is the workman concerned is entitled and from
which date?
On 14.03.2008 reference was received in this Tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 03/2008 and claimant union
was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim
statement on 16.05.2008. Where-in he prayed as follows:-
It is therefore, in the above-mentioned facts and
circumstance most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble
Forum to direct the management to quash the Enquiry
Officer’s Report and the Office Orders dated 24.02.2003
and 12.03.2003 in terms of which dismissal of the workman
has been given effect to, accordingly directions be issued
for the re-instatement of the workman with Full Back Wages,
Incidental Benefits , Consequential Benefits, Dues,
Continuity of Service, etc. retrospectively w.e.f. May, 2002;
and Pass such other or further Orders as may be deem fit
and proper in the facts & circumstances of the present
case in favour of the workman and against the management/
Respondent.
Against claim statement management filed written
statement on 27.6.2008 Through which management
prayed as follows:-
In the light of submissions made hereinabove, it is
most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that
the statement of claims filed by the workman may please be
dismissed with costs and proceeding be dropped.
Pass any further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
Workman on 16.08.2008 filed rejoinder. Through
which he reaffirmed the contents of claim statement and on
the same day he filed affidavit in his evidence. He examined
himself as WW1 on 8.4.2015 and tendered his affidavit on
8.04.15.
His examination-in–chief is as follows:-
I tender my affidavit as evidence, which is Ex. WW1/
A . Alongwith this affidavit, I rely on appointment letter
dated 24.02.1989, confirmation letter dated 10.02.1990,
promotion letter dated 27.02.1991, another promotion letter
dated 18.10.1996 , confirmation letter dated 14.05.1997,
medical certificates of my sister and her death certificate,
true copy of my leave record, true copies of letter dated
30.04.2002, letter dated 15.04.2002, letter dated 19.08.2002,
letter dated 25.09.2002, letter dated 14.02.2003 , letter dated
10.03.2003 , letter dated 25.09.2003, letter dated 01.12.2004,
letter dated 15.01.2005, postal receipts in respect of the
aforesaid letters besides AD cards , true copy of leave
application dated 01.09.2001, telegram receipt dated
28.09.2001 alongwith medical record pertaining to my
illness, demand notice dated 07.02.2006 , postal receipt and
AD card in respect of the demand notice, which documents
194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
are Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/61. These documents may be
read alongwith my affidavit.
Workman on 12.08.2013 was partly cross-examined.
His statement is as follows:-
Affidavit was prepared at my directions. Contents of
affidavit were read over to me, then I signed I have five
brother two sisters. Third (sister) was expired in 2003. There
was none to look after my sister except me. Best possible
treatment was done in reputed hospitals of U.P. I have no
approach in Delhi to get the medical facilities in Delhi
Hospitals. I was charge-sheeted in enquiry. Against charge-
sheet I filed reply. Enquiry was proceeded against me ex-
parte. It is wrong to say against me Ex-parte. It is wrong to
say that I wrote a letter to Presenting Officer that I am
unable to come on 12.12.2002. It is also wrong to say that I
knowingly not participated in Enquiry. I am aware of the
fact that Renu Sethi was examined in enquiry who deposed
in favour of bank against me.
It is wrong to say that bank again and again providing
me an opportunity to come and join the duty but I avoided.
Q. In part you were habitual of not coming in officer
and for leave not moving application?
A.No.
Q. Whether you availed leave without leave
application on 3.9.2001 to 18.2.2002?
A. No.
Q. Whether your medical certificate was found false
when you was examined by another Doctors?
A. Department appointed Doctor to verify my medical
certificates examined me after three months since ailing. He
required from me charge of ECG etc. on which I objected
and said that expenses shall be borne by bank. WW1 is
conducting my medical to show my previous medical
certificate false.
My leave application reg. 22.4.2002 was granted by
concerned authority.
Q.Whether it is correct that you moved no
application for extension of leave upto 4.6.2002.
A. No.
Workman was again cross-examined on 20.08.2013.
His statement of cross-examination is as follows:-
It is correct that contents of para no.4 in my affidavit
is true. Sayed Wasif Zaidi brother of me was employed in
Moradabad. Kumari Saba Akhtar Mumtaz was resident of
city and dist. Rampur. I don’t know whether it is mention in
the petition that my sister is independent. I cannot mention
the reason of not mentioning the above fact in the petition.
I am employee of Bank but not aware of the rules and
regulation of Bank. I am aware of leaves of Bank. It is wrong
to say that allegation raised by me against the management
is totally wrong. There is a employer union in Bank but I am
not a member. I made no complaint to union regarding my
harassment in the Bank but I raised protest before the senior
officer of Bank. At this time it is not in my memory whether
I mentioned it or not. I again regain my memory and mention
the fact. Mentioned above I made complain before Senior
Officer about forceful medical examiner demanding fees for
ECG etc. I made aforesaid complain to G.M. for changing
the doctor. It is correct that I allege against commitment of
unfair labour commitment against me. But content of para
11 of affidavit is correct. It is wrong to say that my demand
7.2.2006 is totally wrong . I don’t know whether any leave
of me is due or not.
My permanent address which are in the Bank Office
and in the filed affidavit is having the same address. No
letter have been issued to me regarding my permanent
address. No notice send by bank or received by me so far.
It is wrong to say that knowingly I launched against me. It
is wrong to say I made wrong industrial dispute on wrong
and concocted facts.
On 13.12.2013 affidavit of MW1 Sh. Syed Ali Zaheer
Zaidi was filed. Which was tendered on 27.01.14 . His
examination –in-chief is as follows:-
I tender in evidence my affidavit Ex. MW1/A which
bears my signature at point ‘A’ & ‘B’ . I rely upon my
documents Ex.MW1/1 to MW1/36.
MW1 was cross-examined on 14.3.2014 and his
cross-examination is as follows:-
Workman joined Bank as a peon. After six seven
years workman was promoted as clerk criteria for promotion
from peon to clerk is departmental test, efficiency and
performance. Upto the stage of promotion from peon to
clerk his record was good.
He had gone on long leave first time on 3rd of
September 2001.
Vol. stated he went on unauthorized leave. After long
leave workman has not joined service till now.
It is wrong to suggest that workman was on leave
from 03.09.2001 upto Feb. 2002 on account of severe
jaundice.
In 3rd Sep. 2001 the workman was posted in Delhi
Branch.
Sh. Shakeel Haider was the Delhi Branch Manager
under whom workman was working till September 2001.
There is procedure in the Bank for receiving
application for leave and sanctioning the same.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
195
I do not know whether workman had got any
application sanctioned from Mr. Shakeel Haider.
I identify the signature of Sh. Shakeel Haider as I
worked with him.
Ext. WW1/19 does not bear the signature of Mr.
Shakeel Haider.
It is correct that application dated 1.09.2001 has been
received in the Bank.
Workman has not submitted any medical certificate
in respect of his illness starting with effect from September
2001.
Q.Whether the medical record Ext. WW1/46 to
WW1/58 has been received by the Bank?
A. I am not sure.
In the Feb. 2002 the workman was sent to Bank Dr.
Nitin Batra for check up.
It is wrong to suggest that workman was sent for
medical examination on the ground of exhibited record.
The workman was under treatment in the month of 2002.
Mr. Rizabanullah Sheikh was Savings Branch
Manager.
It is correct that workman was posted under Mr.
Rizabanullah Sheikh in Saving Branch in month of April,
2002.
We have only one branch in Delhi Saving Branch is
only extension.
I can identify the signature of Mr. Rizabanullah
Sheikh.
Ext. WW1/24 bears the signature of Mr. Rizabanullah
Sheikh as sanctioning authority Ext. WW1/24 has been
received in the Bank.
Ext. WW1/45 bears the signature of Sh. Shakeel
Haider as the Sanctioning Authority.
I am not sure whether the documents Ext. WW1/25
to Ext. WW1/44 have been received in the Bank.
Ext. WW1/24 and Ext. WW1/45 application dated
20.4.2002 and 1.9.2001 are part of the bank record.
It is incorrect to suggest that Ext. MW1/22 and Ext.
MW1/23 are manufactured documents.
I will produce the aforesaid documents on next date.
The sole reason for initiating the inquiry against workman
was that he had gone on leave without prior intimation and
sanction.
I do not know whether the inquiry officer is on the
Bank Panel as Inquiry officer. This inquiry was ex-parte.
Documents of workman on record have not been
considered by the inquiry officer.
I was not appeared before the inquiry officer.
It is wrong to suggest that workman has approached
the bank for settlement on several occasions.
The workman was not allowed to join after his
dismissal. I do not know whether workman is unemployed
now.
It is wrong to suggest that manufactured documents
were presented before the inquiry officer.
It is wrong to suggest that punishment of Dismissal
had already been suggested to the inquiry officer.
It is wrong to suggest the prior intimation and
sanction of leave would not have called for an inquiry.
The workman was average in his performance.
It is wrong to suggest that workman had gone on
leave after proper sanction.
It is incorrect to suggest that you are deposing falsely.
On 13.5.2014 affidavit of MW2 Sh. Rais Ahmed was
filed. Which was tendered on the same day . His examination
–in-chief is as follows:-
I tender in evidence my affidavit Ex. MW2/A which
bears my signature at point ‘A’ & ‘B’ .
MW1 was cross-examined on 7.1.2015 and his cross-
examination is as follows:-
The workman joined the Bank as a peon on salary
payable as per rule which I have no knowledge.
Thereafter in the year 1996 workman had promoted
to clerk.
The criteria for such a promotion is written test and
interview.
However the main basis for promotion is efficiency
and performance.
The workman after being promoted as a clerk was
posted in the current branch.
Mr. Shakeel Haider was the branch manager of the
said branch.
I have worked with Mr. Shakeel Haider and I can
identify his signatures.
Ex. WW1/45 bears the signature subsequently he
denied the signature of Mr. Shakeel Haider. The same Exhibit
bears the signature of workman.
I am not aware whether the letter received by bank or
not.
Q1. Is it correct that the workman had given a leave
application dated 01.09.2001 for sick leave to the Branch
Manager Mr. Shakeel Haider who had also sanctioned the
196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
sick leave? (Exh. WW1/45)?
A. Sanction order passed on it appears to be doubtful
to me.
The original of the aforesaid leave application is with
the bank.
Ex. WW1/45 has not been presented by the
management either before the inquiry officer or before this
Hon’ble Court because workman has not given such
application to the bank.
Q2.Whether the medical report in support of
aforesaid application had been received in the bank. Which
is Ex. WW1/46 to 56?
A. I am not aware of it.
Q3.What is the period of absentisum of the workman?
A. I do not remember properly subsequently stated
3.9.2001 to 18.2.2002.
Q4.Whether you can specify any other period of
absentisum ?
A. I do not remember.
Q5.When was the workman send for the medical
checkup after joining from sick leave in the month of
February 2002?
11.2.2002 but workman was not turn up before the
bank doctor for medical checkup.
Q6. Is it correct that in para 2 of your affidavit you
have mentioned on oath that the workman has reported for
medical checkup?
Yes it is correct.
Vol. He appeared on 12th Nov. before the doctor
without doctor prescription. Then he reported.
Q7.Do you know Ms. Rizwan-ul -Sheikh?
A. He was savings branch incharge.
Q8.Is it correct that workman in the month of April
2002 was working under the above named savings branch
incharge Rizwan-ul-Sheikh?
A. I do not know.
Q9.Whether you can recognize the signature of
Rizwan-ul-Sheikh?
A. Yes.
Q10.Whether Ex. WW1/24 bears signature of Rizwan-
ul-Sheikh as sanctioning officer?
A. No.
It is wrong to suggest that the workman has always
proceeded on leave with prior sanction wide Exh. WW1/24
& WW1/45
Q11. Whether you know Syed Ali Zaheer Zaidi?
A. Yes I know him. He is an officer of the bank.
I am not senior to him. He is responsible officer of
the bank.
Q12.Whether you have brought the originals of the
Exh. MW1/22 and MW1/23 with you?
A. I have not brought.
Mr. Zaheer has not asked me to present the aforesaid
Exh, in original before this Hon’ble Court.
Q13.It is correct that absentisum without approval
and sanction is the only charge against the workman?
A. Yes It is correct.
It is correct to suggest that the workman would not
have been dismissed from the service if he would have
sought approval or sanction of the leave.
I have full knowledge of the present case.
Q.It is correct to suggest that the workman for the
reason of his continuous unemployment has approached
the management for settlement regularly during the
pendency of this case?
A. Workman only approached once.
Q.The inquiry officer was appointed by the bank?
A.I do not remember the name of the inquiry officer.
The workman was not appeared before the inquiry
officer.
Q. Whether you have presented the leave sanction /
approval letters, medical record submitted by the workman,
death certificate of the sister, medical report/record before
the inquiry officer consideration?
A. All documents were produced before the inquiry
officer.
It is wrong to suggest that the above mentioned
documents were not presented before the inquiry officer.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
On 23.2.15 affidavit of MW3 Sh. Afzal-ul-Rehman
Khan was filed. Which was tendered and he cross-examined
on 18.8.2015 .
His examination –in-chief is and cross-examination
is as follows:-
I am tendering my affidavit in my evidence as Ex.
MW3/A which bears my signature at point ‘A’ & ‘B’.
Contents of affidavit are based on my personal knowledge
as well as on record.
XXX:- By Sh. Tarun Sharma, Ld. A/R for the
workman.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
197
I am not aware about panel of inquiry officer of the
respondent Bank.
This is the only inquiry which was conducted by me.
I sent notice to workman at his address of District
Rampur & Delhi.
I have not issued any notice to be sent to the workman
by hand.
I have not passed any order for sending the inquiry
proceeding notice to the workman by hand.
No, leave sanctioned document were presented by
the presenting officer in the inquiry proceedings on behalf
of the management.
Q1.Is it correct that workman’s illness documents
were not shown to you by the presenting officer?
A. No.
Vol. stated. The presenting officer has not presented
himself the case of the workman.
Q2. Is it correct that workman’s real sister cancer
disease documents & subsequently her death certificate
was also not presented in the inquiry proceedings by the
presenting officer?
A. No.
Vol. As Above.
Q3.What were the steps taken for a fair inquiry on
receipt of left without address service report?
A. I sent another notice which had not been received
back either served or unserved. But I presume service on
workman under provision mentioned in CPC when notice
is not returned bank within one month then service of notice
is presumed.
Q4.Can you tell this provision?
A. No.
Q5.Is it correct that you have proceeded Ex-parte
against workman in haste under the pressure of the
management?
A. It is wrong.
Q6.Do you know Dr. Batra Personally?
A. No.
Q7. Have you ever met Dr. Batra ?
A. No.
I have no personal knowledge about the examination
of the workman by Dr. Batra.
Q. Is it correct to say that Dr. Batra had examined the
workman after he had recovered from his illness?
A. I have no personal knowledge.
It is wrong to suggest that I have conducted the
inquiry procedure ex-parte under the directions of the
management.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
It is wrong to suggest that I have no personal
knowledge of the Exh. Documents.
Through registered post workman sent copy of
additional synopsis. Copy receipt of registered post letter
filed by workman. Which was delivered to management.
Sufficient opportunities have been afforded to management
to file reply of additional synopsis if any by management.
But management inspite of sufficient opportunities has
not filed any additional synopsis in reply.
In the light of pleadings and evidence of parties on
record as well as principles laid down in aforesaid rulings
including settled law and relevant provisions of law. My
findings on issue no. 1 are as follows:-
In the light of contentions and counter contentions
I perused the questions of determination mentioned in the
schedule of reference, pleadings of claim statement, written
statement, and rejoinder as well as evidence of parties on
record and principles laid down in the cited rulings including
settled law on the point of virus on enquiry and other
relevant provisions of other relating laws.
Perusal of schedule of reference shows that there
are following questions of determination mentioned in it:-
“Whether the dismissal of Sri. Syed Mozzam Ali Zaidi
by the management of Bombay Mercantile Co-opt. Bank
Ltd. is justified and legal? If not, what relief is the workman
concerned is entitled and from which date?”
Out of which question of determination no. 1 includes
in itself enquiry issue as my Ld. Predecessor has not
formulated any issue but proceeded further on the basis of
Questions of determinations.
Under determination of question of determination
No.1. it is to be determined whether disciplinary enquiry
conducted by management against workman Sri. Syed
Mozzam Ali Zaidi, is just,fair and legal? If so its effect?
Burden to prove it lies on management. It is admitted
fact that enquiry against workman was conducted ex-parte
by Sri Afzal –ul –Rehman Khan Suri. Who submitted
enquiry report dated 25.1.2003 on 24.2.2003 . Disciplinary
198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Authority after being satisfied with enquiry report
proposed following punishment to the workman:-
“Dismissal from the services of the Bank without
Notice”
Workman through his oral and documentary evidence
proved that he submitted an application for leave (Ext.
WW1/24) to attend his seriously ill sister Km. Suba Aktar
Mumtaz at his house situated in Rampur (U.P.). The leave
of workman was duly sanctioned by Sh. Rizwan -ul- Shaikh,
Saving Branch Manager- Sanctioning Officer from
22.04.2002 to 4.5.2002.
Application for extension of leave from 5.5.2002 to
8.6.2002 on the ground of illness of the ailing sister was
immediately sent by workman to the management through
under postal certificate. Which are Ext. WW1/25 to Ext.
WW1/26.
On 4.6.2002 management through letter Exh. MW1/1
immediately asked the workman to report on duty for the
reason that the workman had been absent since April 2002
without proper sanction or application / information etc.
Workman on 13.6.2002 sent reply vide under postal
certificate which are Exh. WW1/27 and Ext. WW1/28.
Through, which he informed the management that
his leave has been duly sanctioned by the Sanctioning
Officer, Rizwan-ul-Sheikh saving branch manager on the
application for leave dated 20.4.2002. Which is Ext. WW1/
24 . The workman further, requested for the extension of
leave with effect from 9.6.2002 to 6.7.2002 so that he can
attend to his ailing sister.
It is relevant to mention here that charge sheet dated
5.7.2002 Ext. MW1/3 has been issued to workman by
management. A Domestic Enquiry was proposed to be
conducted against the workman on the basis of charges
mentioned in charge sheet.
An explanation of workman was called upon within
ten days since receipt of the charge sheet. Reply to the
charge –sheet was submitted on 15.7.2002 by the workman
through under postal certificate. Wherein both charges
were denied by the workman. Reply and postal certificate
is Ext. WW1/29 & WW1/30.
The ailing sister of workman could not fight the
dreaded Breast Cancer and died on 13.2.2003. Her medical
record is Ext. WW1/6 to Ext. WW1/22 and her death
certificate is Ext. WW1/23.
Information pertaining to the Death of the workman’s
sister was duly given to the management by letter sent
through fax on 14.2.2003.
Even then an office order on 24.2.2003 has been
passed by management to propose the following
punishment to the workman:-
“Dismissal from the services of the Bank without
notice”.
The said Proposal was based upon the Findings
dated 25.01.2003, which have been arrived at by the Enquiry
Officer, Mr. Afzal-Ul-Rehman Khan Suri, in a Domestic
Enquiry conducted into the Charges leveled against the
Workman vide the Charge Sheet dated 05.07.2002. The
Charges were proved by the Presenting Officer by leading
Oral & Documentary Evidence on behalf of the Management
in an Ex-Parte Domestic Enquiry before the Enquiry Officer.
The Workman was advised to make submissions on the
said Proposal on or before 12.03.2003.
Workman filed claim statement on 16.5.2008
alongwith 58 Photostat copies of documents .
Management filed its written statement on
26.6.2008.Workman filed rejoinder on 2.8.2008. Workman
has moved an application in this case for mediation for the
reason of his poverty and unemployment on 20.05.2009
but management took no interest so settlement proceedings
failed.
Management Bank with an ulterior motive to prolong
the disposal of instant I.D. challenged the jurisdiction of
this Tribunal by way of filing fribulous writ-petition on
7.6.10 in Hon’ble High Court . Which has been decided
and dismissed on 25.04.2012. So management left no stone
unturned to prolong the disposal of this I.D.
No formal issues have been framed by my Ld.
Predecessor. He proceeded to adjudicate the instant
Industrial Dispute on the basis of the questions of
determination mentioned in the schedule of reference .
Workman has filed affidavit in his evidence alongwith
58 documents.
He tendered his affidavit WW1/A and annexed 58
photostat copies of documents to prove his case that he
has proceeded on leave with a sufficient cause to attend
his seriously ailing sister after getting the leave duly
sanctioned from the supervisory Branch Manager.
He was cross-examined at length by management
but nothing could be extracted one in his cross-examination.
Which may damage his case and could be favourable to
management.
Management with intention to discharge its burden
to prove the alleged bonafide dismissal of the workman
examined MW1 Syed Ali Zaheer Zaidi, MW2 Rais Ahmed
and MW3 Afzal –ul –rehman Khan suri Enquiry Officer,
They were cross-examined by Ld. A/R for workman. Then
they admitted certain glaring facts in their cross examination
as follows:-
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
199
CROSS-EXAMINATION: MW-1: SYED ALI
ZAHEER ZAIDI: OFFICER
The Witness admitted as follows:-
“Criteria for being promoted from Peon to Clerk is
Departmental Test, Efficiency and Performance upto the
stage of promotion from Peon to Clerk as per record was
good.
On 03.09.2001 the Workman was posted in Delhi
Branch.
Shri Shakeel Haidar was the Delhi Branch Manager
under whom Workman was working till September, 2001.
There is a procedure in the Bank for receiving
Application for Leave and sanctioning the same.
I do not know whether the Workman had got any
Application sanctioned from Mr. Shakeel Haidar.
I identify the signature of Shri Shakeel Haider as I
worked with him.
It is correct that the Application dated
01.09.2001(EXHIBIT WW1/45) has been received in the
Bank.
The Workman was under treatment in the Month of
February, 2002.
Rizwan-Ul-Shaikh was Savings Branch Manager.
It is correct that the Workman was posted under
Rizwan-Ul-Shaikh in Savings Branch in the Month of
April, 2002.
I can identify the signature of Rizwan-Ul-Shaikh.
(EXHIBIT WW1/24) bears the signature of Rizwan-
Ul-Shaikh as Sanctioning Authority.
(EXHIBIT WW1/24) and (EXHIBIT WW1/45)
Application dated 20.04.2002 and 01.09.2001 respectively
are part of the Bank Record.
It is incorrect to suggest that (EXHIBIT MW1/22)
and (EXHIBIT MW1/23) are manufactured Documents.
I will produce the aforesaid Documents on the Next
Date.
This Enquiry was Ex-Parte. Documents of Workman
on Record of this Bank have not been considered by the
Enquiry Officer.
The Workman was not allowed to join after his
dismissal.
CROSS-EXAMINATION: MW-2: RAIS AHMED
The Witness admitted as follows:
The Workman joined the Bank as a Peon on a Salary
Pay Scale as per Rule, which I have no knowledge.
Thereafter, in the Year 1996 Workman was Promoted
as a Clerk.
The Criteria for such a Promotion is Written Test &
Interview.
However, the main basis for Promotion is Efficiency
and Performance.
The Workman after being promoted as a Clerk was in
the Current Branch.
Mr. Shakeel Haidar was the Branch Manager of the
said Branch.
I have worked with Mr. Shakeel Haidar & I can identify
his signatures.
(EXHIBIT WW1/45) bears the signature.
Subsequently he denied the Signature of Mr. Shakeel
Haidar.
Q.1 Is it correct that the Workman had given a Leave
Application dated 01.09.2001 for Sick Leave to the Branch
Manager Mr. Shakeel Haidar, who had also sanctioned the
Sick Leave (EXHIBIT WW1/45)?
Ans. Sanction Order passed on it appears to be
doubtful to me.
The Original of the aforesaid Leave Application
is with the Bank.
Q.7 Do you know Mr. Rizwan-Ul-Sheikh?
Ans.
He was Savings Branch In-Charge.
Q.9 Whether you can recognize the Signature of
Rizwan-Ul-Sheikh?
Ans. Yes.
Q.12 Whether you have brought the Originals of the
(EXHIBIT MW1/22) and (EXHIBIT MW1/23) with you?
Ans. I have not brought.
Q.13 Is it correct that Absenteeism without approval
& sanction is the only Charge against the Workman?
Ans. Yes, it is correct.
It is correct to suggest that the Workman would
not have been dismissed from Service if he would have
sought approval or sanction of the Leave.
Q.14 Is it correct to suggest that the Workman for
the reason of his continuous Unemployment has
approached the Management for Settlement regularly
during the pendency of this Case?
Ans. Workman only approached once.
200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
CROSS-EXAMINATION: MW-3: AFZAL-UL-
REHMAN KHAN SURI:
The Witness admitted as follows:
I sent Notice to Workman at his address of District
Rampur & Delhi.
I have not issued any Notice to be sent to the
Workman by hand.
I have not passed any Order for sending the Enquiry
Proceeding Notice to the Workman by hand.
No, Leave Sanctioned Documents were presented
by the Presenting Officer in the Enquiry proceedings on
behalf of the Management.
No Documents relating to Workman’s illness were
shown.
No Documents relating to the Workman’s Deceased
Sister Cancer ailment and death thereof were presented in
the Enquiry Proceedings by the Presenting Officer.
Q.3. What were the Steps taken for a Fair Inquiry on
receipt of Left without Address Service Report?
Ans. I sent another Notice which have not received
back either served or un-served. But I presumed Service
on Workman.
Under provision mentioned in Civil Procedure
Code when Notice is not returned back within one Month
then Service of Notice is presumed.
Q.4. Can you tell this Provision?
Ans. No.
Which in itself sufficient to prove the case of
workman and falsify the management stand.
In addition to it MW3 Afzal-ul-Rehman Khan Suri
Enquiry Officer presumed the service of 2nd notice to
workman without applying prescribed procedure.
According to which management has to file postal receipt
of registered post during enquiry . Through which notice
to workman is said to be sent. Thereafter Enquiry Officer
must call for report from concerned Post Office regarding
dispatch and delivery of registered letter to workman. Only
after that enquiry officer was empowered to presume service
of registered notice on workman otherwise not.
Moreover management bank has presented two
photo copies of applications alongwith affidavit in evidence
of MW1 Syed-Ali Zaheer Zaidi. Which are said to be leave
applications of workman filed by him on 22.2.2002. While
this fact was denied by workman. Those photo copies of
applications have been marked as Ext. MW1/22 and MW1/
23 during cross-examination of MW1 in the absence of the
original applications. When MW1 was cross-examined then
he stated that he will produce the original applications in
the Tribunal. However, till date there is no compliance of
the aforesaid undertaking by management. In these
circumstances this Tribunal compelled to draw an adverse
inference against management due to non-production of
aforesaid original applications by management as per
provisions of S.114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. Which
will be that the original of the Ext. MW1/22 and MW1/23
do not exist at all and possibility that these documents are
forged and manufactured by the management cannot be
ruled out. Reason may be whatsoever.
Ld.A/R for workman placed reliance on following
principles laid down by his Lordship of Hon’ble High Court
of Allahabad in case of Virendra Singh Vs. Managing
Director U.P. S.R. T.C Lucknow & Ors. 1196 LLR 340
Allahabad High Court.
“ Petitioner absented from duty without notice –
submitted medical certificate when resumed duty
suspended –charge sheet served for absenting from duty-
Replied- Enquiry held- Removal from Service –Whether
punishment was disproportionate to this misconduct?
Yes.
Held
“The only finding of the enquiry officer is that the
petitioner was absent without any prior intimation and after
he joined he produced medical certificate. Neither the
genuineness of the medical certificate nor the factum of
ailment has been disbelieved by the enquiry officer for
remaining absent from duty without any prior intimation.
In this circumstances the punishment of removal from
service is grossly disproportionate particularly when
ailment could not be notified ordinarily before such ailment
and when admittedly the petitioner has produced the
medical certificate for such an ailment which has been
certified by the proper medical officer, there can not be any
offence of the petitioner at all unless the ailment itself or
medical certificate is found untrue. It appears that the said
aspect has not been properly considered by the disciplinary
authority or the appellate authority keeping in mind the
charges leveled against the petitioner.”
Ld.A/R for the workman also placed reliance on
following principle laid down by their Lordship of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case of DTC Vs. Om Singh 144(2007 )
Delhi Law Times 94(D.B.)
“Period of absence of 14 days stand explained by
application and medical certificate submitted by respondent
while reporting for duty”.
Ld. A/R for the workman also placed reliance on
following principle laid down in case of Mohd. Yousuf Vs.
D.G. of Fire Services (2013 ) 4 S.S.C. 265.
“Notice with regard to departmental enquiry and
copy of enquiry report sent at wrong address- Hence held,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
201
ex-parte enquiry and consequent order of dismissal are
unsustainable.”
Ld. A/R for the workman also placed reliance on
principle laid down in case of Sunil Kumar Vs. 178 (2011)
Delhi Law Time 628 (DB).
Ld. A/R for workman also placed reliance on principle
laid down in case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagan
Nath A/R 1994 S.C. 853.
Ld. A/R for the management tried to distinguish facts
of aforesaid reported case of Virendra Singh with the facts
of instant case and stressed that due to distinguishable
facts ruling of Virendra Singh is not applicable in the instant
case.
Moreover in the instant case Dr. Batra was not
examined by management so only pleadings in this respect
without testimony of Dr. Batra will not prove the aforesaid
alleged stand of management .
So, I am of considered view that principles laid down
in case Virender Singh Supra applies with full force in the
instant case.
Ld. A/R for management also tried to distinguish
facts of aforesaid reported case of D.T.C Vs. Om Singh
with the facts of instant case on the ground that management
has challenged the medical certificate filed by workman
but management failed to adduce any evidence of any
Doctor in this respect. So only pleadings of management
in its W.S without any evidence is of no avail to management
because pleadings without evidence is waste paper.
So, I am again of considered view that principle
laid down in case D.T.C Vs. Om Singh Supra also applies
with full force in the instant case.
Ld. A/R for management also tried to distinguish
facts of aforesaid reported case of Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Director
General Of Fire Services 2013 4 S.C.C 265 with the facts of
instant case on the ground that notice with regard to
departmental enquiry and copy of inquiry report was sent
at the correct and last known address and the address
which are with the bank record and workman has mentioned
the same address in his affidavit in evidence but Ld. A/R
for the management over looked this fact that his witness
MW3. Who is enquiry officer admitted this fact in his cross-
examination that he sent another notice. Which have not
received back either served or unserved. But I presumed
service on workman under provision mentioned in Civil
procedure Code when notice is not returned back within
one month then service of notice is presumed.
It is relevant to mention here that MW3 Afzal-ul-
Rehman–Khan Suri enquiry officer presumed the service
of 2nd notice to workman without applying prescribed
procedure.
According to which management has to file postal
receipt of Registered Post through which notice to workman
is said to be sent.
As per settled law Enquiry Officer must call for report
from concerned Post Office about dispatch & Delivery of
registered notice. After being satisfied he will presume
service of Registered Notice on workman. This fact is also
wanting in the instant case.
Hence in the instant case whole procedure has been
brushed aside by Inquiry Officer , while presuming service
of alleged 2nd registered notice on workman.
So case of workman stands on better footing then
reported case hence principle laid down by their Lordship
of Supreme Court applies with full force in the instant case.
Rulings cited on behalf of management are inapplicable in
the instant case due to distinguishable facts.
Hence ex-parte enquiry and consequent order of
dismissal are unsustainable because enquiry is not just,
fair and legal therefore enquiry report is liable to be set
aside and question of determination No.1 is liable to be
decided in favour workman and against management.
Which is accordingly decided.
Ld. A/R for the workman on the point of issue No. 2
placed reliance on following rulings mentioned in his
written arguments:-
1.Virendra Singh Versus Managing Director, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation Lucknow & Ors: 1996
LLR 340 Allahabad High Court.
2.D.T.C Versus Om Singh : 2007 Delhi Law Times
Volume-144 P-94.
3.Mohd. Yousuf Versus Director General of Fire
Services, Andhra Pradesh and Others :2013 Supreme Court
Cases Volume 4 Page 265.
4.Sunil Kumar Versus UOI & Ors.: 2011 Delhi Law
Times Volume -178 Page -628.
While Ld. A/R for the management filed photocopies
of Judgment of appeal in following appeals:-
Appeal No.1
Appeal (civil) 2332 of 2003
Petitioner:
Principal Secy. Govt. of A.P. & Anr.
Respondent:
M. Adinarayana
Date of Judgment : 06.10.2004.
Appeal No.2
Appeal (civil) 1720 of 2002
202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Petitioner:
Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC)
Respondent:
A.T Mane
Date of Judgment: 27.09.2004
Appeal No. 3
Appeal (civil) 9676 of 2003
Petitioner:
Viveka Nand Sethi
Respondent:
Chairman, J &K Bank Ltd., & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 03.05.2005.
Ld.A/R for workman filed additional synopsis.
Through which he placed reliance on principles laid down
in following rulings:-
Deepali Gundu Surwase Versus Kranti Junior
Adhypak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others.:2013 Volume –
X Apex Decisions (Supreme Court ) Page-89.
Relationship of employer and employee is admitted
fact to employer /management in the instant case.
Employer /management could not prove the charge
of unauthorized absence from duty levied on employee
through its required evidence. While workman has well
required evidence. While workman has well explained his
alleged absenteeism through his reliable and credible
evidence hence his termination is not legal and justified.
Now it is to be decided to what relief workman is
entitled and which direction is required to be given to
employer /management for compliance of award.
Hence settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the
aforesaid points and cited rulings on behalf of parties are
being perused.
Perusal of which shows that in case of Raj Kumar
Dixit Vs. M/s. Vijay Kumar Guari Shankar Kanpur Nagar
2015 L.L.R 990.
Their Lordship of Supreme Court held as follows:-
“When termination of service of workman is held
bad in law, the workman is entitled to the relief of
reinstatement with full back wages as per settled principle
laid down by their Lordship of three –Judges bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab Land
Development & Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding
Officer , Labour Court, (1990) 3S.S.C 682.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of
considered view that question of determination No. 2 which
is relating to relief alongwith reference is liable to be decided
in favour of workman and against management. Workman
is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages since date
of his dismissal i.e May, 2002 and management is liable to
be directed to reinstatement the Workman Syed Moazzam
Ali Zaidi, alongwith full back wages and other
consequential reliefs within reasonable time. Reference is
accordingly decided and claim statement of workman is
accordingly allowed.
Management is directed to reinstate the workman
Syed Moazzam Ali Zaidi, since date of dismissal i.e May,
2002 with full back wages and other consequential reliefs
within 2 months after expiry of period of limitation of
available remedy against this award.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-23.12.2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 102-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e]1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj jsyos
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 63@2011) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y-41011@110@2009&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 63/2011)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Northern Railway and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
11/01/2016.
[No. L-41011/110/2009- IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –
CUM- LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW,
PRESENT:
SHRI RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 63/2011
Ref. No. L-41011/110/2009-IR (B-I) dated :19. 04. 2011
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
203
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangatan Mantri
Uttar Railways Employee Union
283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora (Premvati Nagar)
PO Manak Nagar
Lucknow
(Espousing cause of Shri Radhey Shyam)
AND
1. Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction)
Uttar Railway, Charbagh
Lucknow.
2. Dy. Chief Manager (Stores)
Northern Railway, Stores Depo
Alambagh, Lucknow.
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/110/2009-IR (B-I) dated:
19.04.2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Mandal Sangatan Mantri, Uttar
Railways Employee Union, 283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora
(Premvati Nagar), PO. Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the Dy.
Chief Engineer (Construction), Uttar Railway, Charbagh,
Lucknow & Dy. Chief Manager (Stores), Northern Railway,
Stores Depo, Alambagh, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“Whether the action of management of North Central
Railway, Allahabad/Kanpur in not giving Shri Radhey
Shyam, T.No. 175 status of temporary worker from
the date of completion of 120 days of service is legal
and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
3. The case of the workman’s union, in brief, is that
the workman, Radhey Shyam, has been engaged as casual
labour with in construction unit under opposite party No.
1 and is presently working under opposite party No. 2. It
has been alleged by the workman’s union that the workman
under dispute was to be given temporary status after
completion of 120 days of working as per P.S. N. 7850,
Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian
Railway Establishment Manual; but he was granted
temporary status after five years’ of his engagement, which
is not only unfair labour practice but also is against Article
21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the workman’s union
has prayed that the workmen concerned be granted
temporary status from the date he has completed 120 days’
working with consequential benefits.
4 The management of the North Central Railways
has filed its written statement denying the allegations of
the workman’s union with submission that the workman
under dispute was initially engaged by them as Project
Casual Labour in Construction Unit with intermittent gap
w.e.f. 09.10.74 and has been granted temporary status on
01.01.84 vide letter No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 dated 11.09.86. It
has been submitted that the railway formulated a scheme
to provide the temporary status to Project Casual Labour,
circulated vide No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 dated 1.6.84 as per
directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav &
others Vs. Union of India & others (1985) 2 SCC 648.
The management has submitted that as per modified date
of grant of temporary status, the workmen were screened
and posted accordingly; and is in fruitful employment of
the opposite party for last 20 years, thus, raising the present
industrial disputes after lapse of 20 long years makes it
time barred hence, not maintainable in the eye of law. It is
specifically submitted by the management that the workman
has been engaged as project casual labour and as per
existing Railway Rules 360 days’ continuous service is
required for grant of temporary status, therefore, the claim
of the workmen for grant of temporary status after 120
days is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of
the workman’s union be rejected being devoid of any merit.
5. The workman’s union has filed its rejoinder wherein
apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the
statement claim has submitted that the workman under
dispute has not been appointed in any project, therefore,
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case
(supra) is not applicable on him and he should be granted
temporary status after completion of 120 days of service.
6. The workman’s union has not filed any
documentary evidence in support of its claim; rather it has
stated that the Casual Labour Card in respect of the
workman and his Service Book, is with the employers, in
original.
The management has filed photocopy of Casual
Labour Card and Service Book in respect of the workman
along with its written statement.
7. The workman’s union has examined workman;
whereas the management examined Sri Prabir Kumar Gupta,
Sr. Personnel Officer in support of their claim. The parties
availed opportunity to cross-examine the each other’s
witnesses apart from putting oral arguments as well as
written arguments.
8. Heard learned authorized representatives of the
parties and perused entire evidence on record.
9. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that the workman was not project casual labour;
rather they were casual labour engaged in construction
division/unit. Therefore, he was eligible for grant of
temporary status from the date he completed 120 days of
service. The railway administration instead treated him as
project casual labour and granted him temporary status
204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
after lapse of five years which is unfair labour practice. It is
also contended that the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra) is not applicable on
the workman. The workman’s union has relied on:
(i) Union of India Vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another 2008(116)
FLR 1046.
(ii) Union of India & others Vs. Basant Lal & others
1992 SCC (L&S) 611.
(iii) L. Robert D’Souza Vs. Executive Engineer,
Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124.
(iv) N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy ACJ 1998
1347 SC.
(v) Kuldeep Singh Vs. GM, Instrument Design
Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011
(128) FLR 121.
(vi) Din Mohammed (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India
& others 2002 (92) FLR 1216.
(vii) The Union of India & another Vs. Girja Shankar &
others 2003 (96) FLR 1094.
10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that the workman has been
project casual labour in construction unit and worked with
intermittent gap and he was granted temporary status as
per Railway Board’s letter dated 01.06.84. It has been
submitted that the Railway Board vide its letter dated
11.09.86 modified the date of temporary status to the
workmen in view of decision given by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra). The management
has contended that the workman was not entitled for grant
of temporary status after completion of 120 days
continuous service since he was engaged as project casual
labour and as per existing Railway Rules, 360 days’
continuous services is required for grant of temporary status
to a project casual labour. The authorized representative
of the management has also contended that the workman
has turned up after lapse of more than 20 years and his
cause is not tenable in the eye of law being time barred.
The management has relied on Inder Pal Yadav & others
Vs. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648.
11 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives
of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in
light thereto.
12 The workman has come up with a case that he has
been engaged as casual labour in the Construction Unit of
the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway,
Lucknow and he was entitled for grant of temporary status
on completion of 120 days of service under P.S. N. 7850,
Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of Indian
Railway Establishment Manual; but the management
granted him temporary status after five years’ of their
appointment, amounting to unfair labour practice. The
workman’s union has not filed any documentary evidence
in support of their case; rather it has pleaded that the same
is in power and possession of the Railways.
13 The management of the Northern Railways,
rebutting the claim of the workman’s union has come up
with a clear cut case that the workman had been engaged
as Project Casual Labour and accordingly, he was entitled
for grant of temporary status on completion of 360 days
continuous service; and accordingly, he was granted
temporary status. Later on with the decision of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra), the date of
grant of temporary status was modified vide Railway
Board’s letter dated 11.09.86 whereby the workmen was
given temporary status from previous date. The
management has also stressed upon the facutm of delay in
raising the present industrial dispute after lapse of more
than 20 years. The authorized representative of the
management has pointed out that the workman is working
with the railways for decades; but neither he preferred any
representation, on the issue; nor moved to the court for
redressal of his grievances. It is also stressed by the
management that the workman has raised the present
industrial dispute at a highly belated stage without any
explanation to the delay. It has also been argued that
though there is no limitation in the I.D. Act, 1947; but the
same should not be condoned for the want of any
explanation from the workman’s union. He has also
submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in number of its
verdicts has observed that Courts should exercise their
discretion, judiciously, while condoning the delay.
14 The workman’s union has adduced evidence of
the workman who stated in his cross-examination that he
had been granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.1.84. The
workman admitted the photocopy of service record and
casual labour card, filed by the management, from paper
No. M-9 to 9/7.
15 The workman has not filed any documentary
proof in support of their claim but has relied on the
photocopy of the service record and casual labour card of
the workman, filed by the management. The service record
of the workman shows the entry regarding grant of
temporary status to the workman of different dates and
there after grant of revised temporary status from different
dates as per Railway Board’s circular dated 11.9.86. The
photocopy of the casual labour card, filed by the
management has details regarding working of the workman
with Permanent Way Inspector (Construction) at different-
different stations.
Thus, both the parties have relied on the same set of
documents in support of their different stands.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
205
16. After going through the rival pleadings of the
parties and documentary and oral evidence relied upon by
the parties the bone of contention is as to whether the
workman was Project casual labour or just casual labour
engaged in the railway administration. Had they been
Project Casual Labour then the action of the management
was right and if they were casual labour on the rolls of
railways then they ought to have been granted temporary
status on completion of 120 days continuous service.
The burden that lied upon the workman’s union was
to come with the evidence that the workman was engaged
as casual labour and he completed 120 days continuous
service on this particular date, making him entitled for grant
of temporary status. Thus, it was for the workman’s union
to lead its evidence on two points firstly that the workman
was engaged as Casual Labour and secondly that he
completed 120 days’ of continuous working on such and
such date. But the workman failed to comply with the
above requirement. As it relied on the documentary
evidence i.e. casual labour card which was in power and
possession of the management for working detail; but when
the management filed the photocopy of the same then it
neither calculated the 120 days’ continuous working from
it nor disputed its genuineness. This goes to upheld the
stand taken by the management that the workman was
Project Casual Labour and accordingly he was granted
temporary status on completion of 360 days’ of continuous
working vide Railway Board’s letter dated 01.06.84 and
thereafter granted them revised temporary status from a
back date vide letter dated 11.09.86 as per guidelines of
Hon’ble Apex Court.
17. The workman has relied on Union of India vs.
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar
& another which pertains to termination of services of a
workman in violation of provisions of Section 25 F, G & H
of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are
entirely different; hence not applicable in the present case.
The workman has also relied on Union of India & others
vs. Basant Lal & others 1992 SCC (L&S) 611; wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a workman having
completed 120 days of working becomes entitled for
regularization as temporary worker and the Railway cannot
deny them the temporary status on the ground that they
had been appointed as causal labour on a project work and
not on construction work on open line and as such they
would acquire the temporary status only after completing
360 days of service. But in the present case the workman’s
union failed to specify the date when the different workmen
completed 120 days’ of continuous service, rendering them
for grant of temporary status. The workman’s union has
also relied on L. Robert D’Souza vs Executive Engineer,
Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124 but
the fact of the case law is entirely different from the present
case hence not applicable. Likewise the facts of the case
law relied upon by the workman in the Union of India &
another vs. Girja Shankar & others 2003 (96) FLR 1094,
Kuldeep Singh vs GM Instrument Design Development
and Facilities Centre & another 2011 (128) FLR 123
and Din Mhammaed (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India &
others 2002 (992) FLR 1216 are quite different from the facts
of the present case hence not appreciable.
18. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an action, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the action; and if no evidence is produced, the
party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the
present case burden was on the workman’s union to set
out the grounds to challenge the validity of the action of
the management in not granting the temporary status to
the workman after completion of 120 days’ of continuous
working. For this the burden of proof was on the workman’s
union to come with the evidence, that the workman under
dispute has been engaged by the management of Railways
as casual labour and under Rules they were entitled for
grant of temporary status from completion of 120 days
services with the employers; but the workman’s union has
failed to discharge the burned that lied upon them. The
workman’s union made a pleading, to explain the reason
why it is not in position to file any documentary evidence
before this Tribunal, in their statement of claim to the effect
that the relevant document in support of their claim i.e.
Casual Labour Card is attached in their Service Book. The
workman’s union in its rejoinder required the management
to produce Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman
before this Tribunal, resultantly, the management filed
photocopy of Casual Labour Card and Services Book in
respect of the workman. The workman’s union did not
dispute the service details filed by the management i.e.
Casual Labour Card and extracts of Service Book.
Therefore, when the management has filed the photocopy
of Casual Labour Card as desired by the workman’s union
then it was incumbent upon the workman’s union to come
forward and sort out the relevant extract of the Casual
Labour Card, which bears working details i.e. working period
and number of days, to show that the workman completed
120 days of continuous on such and such date and he was
entitled for grant of temporary status from such date. But
the workman has utterly failed to bring any evidence to the
effect before this Tribunal that the workman was engaged
as Causal Labour and that the workman was casual labour
and it also failed to specify the date as to when the workman
completed 120 days’ of continuous working, making him
eligible for grant of temporary status.
19. On the contrary, the management has come with
a clear cut case that the workman was engaged as Project
Casual Labour with Construction Unit. It is also contended
by the learned authorized representative of opposite party
that there are so many projects which go on with the
206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Construction Unit and the workmen were kept engaged in
different Projects. It is also specifically pleaded and proved
by the management that the workman was granted
temporary status vide Railway Board’s letter dated 01.06.84;
but due to Supreme Court’s direction in Indra Pal Yadav
Case (supra), the Railway Board vide its letter dated 11.09.86,
changed the date of grant of temporary status, as per
modified policy and accordingly, reduced the date of
Temporary Status through notice. The management has
filed photocopy of Service Record in respect of workman,
which bears entries regarding grant of temporary status to
the workman vide letter dated 22/25.02.85.
20. The management has made a specific pleading to
the effect that the claim of the workman’s union is stale one
and time barred as the union has preferred the case before
this Tribunal after lapse of more than 20 years. The
workman’s union in rebuttal has submitted that there is no
provision regarding limitation in the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947; hence their claim is maintainable.
In this regard the workman’s union has relied on N.
Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347;
wherein Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter
delay has observed that length of delay does not matter,
acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. But
the workman’s union has not given any explanation in its
pleadings as to what prevented them to raise an industrial
dispute at an early state. However, in the evidence it has
been stated that the workman/union wrote many letters to
the opposite parties and the same are pending with them;
although no copy of such letter/representation finds its
reference either on record or annexure with the affidavit.
Moreover, the management witness vide para 9 of his
affidavit has denied of submissions of any such application
by the workmen.
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board & others vs. T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141)
FLR 772, Honble Apex Court has observed as under:
“The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights
of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason, approaches the
Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not.
Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstances delay and laches may be fatal
but in most circumstances inordinate delay would
only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the
doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and
inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination
is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does
not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay
does bring a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In
the case at hand, though there has been four years’
delay in approaching the Court, yet the writ Court
chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the
Court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is
to be ignored without any justification. “
Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial
Eye Hospital vs. State of U.P. & others 2013 (138)
FLR 11 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court upholding
the action of the State Government in denying the
making reference of case after 22 years held that it is
not expedient for State government to refer against
order of termination dated 26.6.1982 being old and
stale case, where the workman filed an application
raising industrial dispute after 22 years in 2004.
Hon’ble High Court observed that there is nothing
to indicate as to why the workman could not approach
the authority under the ID Act.
Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear the
workman did not bother to approach the management or
any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and the explanation forwarded by the
workman’s union before this Tribunal is insufficient.
21. Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the
case and law cited hereinabove; I am of considered opinion
that the action of the management of North Central Railway,
Allahabad/Kanpur in not giving temporary status to the
workman, Sri Radhey Shyam, T. No. 175, from the alleged
date of completion of 120 days of service is neither illegal
nor unjustified. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that
the workman’s union is not entitled to any relief.
22.The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
23 Award as above.
LUCKNOW,
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
29th December, 2015
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 103-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj eè;
jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2009) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk 1
[la- ,y&41012@53@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
207
New Delhi, 11th January, 2016
S.O. 103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.15/2009)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Uttar Madhya Railway and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
11/01/2016.
[No. L-41012/53/2008- IR(B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No 15/2009
Ref No.L-41012/53/2008-IR(B-I) dated 25.05.2009
BETWEEN
Sri Rama Shankar Sharma,
281/388 Mill Road,
Mavaiya
Lucknow-4
AND
Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W)
Uttar Madhya Railway, O/o DRM
Uttar Madhya Railway,
Lucknow (U.P.)
AWARD
1. By Order No. L-41012/53/2008-IR(B-I) dated
25.05.2009 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 Rama Shankar Sharma,
Mill Road, Mavaiya, Lucknow-4 and the Sr. Divisional
Mechanical Engineer (C&W) Uttar Madhya Railway, O/o
DRM, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the management of Uttar
Madhya Railway, Lucknow in not cancelling their
order no. 525/E/TX/R.S.Sharma/em-ii/80 dated
16.3.1981 and not giving benefit of pension and
wages to Sri R.S. Sharma is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
3. The workman in his claim statement W-3, has
stated in brief that he was appointed on 01.12.1951, and
was promoted in 1959, to the post of Train Examiner, and
had been working continuously till 17.08.1977, during the
service he has been following the directions of the senior
officers, and never abstained from duty unauthorizedly. It
has further been stated that the applicant during his
service, got ill, and suddenly on 18.08.1977 in the mid night
his condition became grave, his family members consulted
Medical Practitioner for his treatment, opinion and the copy
of sick memo was provided on 19.08.1977 which was sent
to Chief Train Examiner, NR, and from time to time the
workman sent information regarding his sickness to the
concerned persons.
4. The workman has asserted that on being fit to
resume duty, he reported in the office alongwith his fitness
memo on 19.04.1980, then he was referred to Railway Doctor
for his physical examination, the Railway Doctor found
him medically fit, and after examination the fitness memo
was provided to him and he was transferred to Tundla
where he took charge on 20.04.1980. The workman has
alleged that an illegal charge sheet was given to him in July
1980 wherein fact of his unauthorised absence w.e.f.
19.08.1977 to 19.04.1980 was wrongly mentioned while he
was ill during the said period and information was duly
sent, the charge was regarding so called unauthorized
absence and it was not in accordance with Rules, so
application dated 28.08.1980, 14.09.1980 and 16.01.1981 were
sent to the disciplinary authority by the applicant seeking
necessary documents but the same were not provided to
him, the management has violated the principle of natural
justice, Railway Rules and legal provision of I.D. Act., as
well. Unfair labour practice was adopted by the opposite
party.
5. It has been further stated in the claim statement
that on 16.01.1981, the enquiry officer asked only five
questions, no question was sought from any witness,
neither opportunity was provided to the workman to cross
examine the witness or to adduce in the defence, the enquiry
was concluded against railway rules and principle of natural
justice, and the enquiry report was sent on 19.01.1980,
consequently the management passed the punishment
order on 16.03.1981 whereby his services were terminated.
The workman has alleged that no show cause notice was
issued to him before passing the impugned penalty order
dated 16.03.1981, the appeal moved by the workman against
the aforesaid order is still pending, several application and
reminders were sent by the workman which have not been
disposed yet. The workman has prayed to set aside the
above mentioned order dated 16.03.1981, and for payment
of his salary pension and other post retiral dues.
6. The management in its written statement M-10,
has denied the allegations levelled in the claim statement.
The opposite party has stated that the present case is highly
belated and time barred, in the light of the decision of
Hon’ble Apex Court as well. The management has
emphasized as per Railway Rules 1968, the period of
208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
preservation of record is only 10 years in the present
dispute, the enquiry report cannot be questioned by the
workman after the lapse of more than 30 years. The
management has stated that the Railway administration
has taken action as per rules, it has been admitted by the
workman that he himself had appeared in the enquiry
proceeding so there was no violation of natural justice, the
enquiry was fair and proper, the order of removal from
service was taken by the competent authority vide the said
order dated 16.03.1981, this order was not challenged by
the workman during the period of 30 years so it has attained
finality. The management has requested to reject the claim
statement.
7. Preliminary issue regarding fairness etc. of
domestic enquiry has been decided by the then hon’ble
Presiding Officer/Judge vide order dated 09.06.2014, in
favour of the management.
8. The workman filed rejoinder, reiterating his
contentions, already made in the statement of claim.
9. Following preliminary issues were framed at the
request of the parties vide order dated 09.01.2012:
1. Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and
proper?
After framing of preliminary issues the parties were
called upon to adduce its evidence and forward their oral
submissions regarding validity of the inquiry proceedings.
10. After hearing the parties this Tribunal disposed
of the preliminary issue No. 1 in favour of the management
with following observations:
“The disciplinary enquiry was conducted in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and
the workman was afforded all reasonable opportunity
to defend himself. As such, preliminary issue No. 01
is decided in favour of the management. The parties
are called upon to forward their argument regarding
quantum of punishment vide impugned order dated
16.03.81 on 20.06.2014”
Accordingly, the authorized representatives of the
parties argued their respective cases on the issue of
quantum of punishment.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions of the authorized representatives,
pleadings of the parties and entire evidence adduced by
the either parties.
12. The case of the workman is that he was appointed
with opposite party on 01.12.1951 and worked continuously
up to 17.08.1977. He has stated that he fell ill at the mid
night of 18.08.77, the information of which was sent to the
opposite party on 19.08.77 and when he got well, he
appeared in the office of opposite party with fitness memo
on 19.04.80. The management referred him to the Railway
doctor for medical examination, who declared him fit vide
fitness memo date 02.04.80, thereafter, the management
allowed him to join and he was transferred to Tundla;
whereupon he joined on 20.4.80. The workman has come
up with the case that after joining, the management of
railways, illegally issued charge sheet dated July, 80 for
unauthorized absence from 19.08.77 to 19.04.80 and after
conducting disciplinary inquiry, removed him from services
vide penalty order dated 16.30.81; however the appeal
against said penalty order is still pending at the end of
opposite parties.
13. Per contra, it is the case of the management that
the workman had been punished with order of removal
from services vide order dated 16.03.81, passed by the
Competent Authority under Rules. It has contended that
the workman has come up with a stale case, which is highly
belated one after the lapse of 30 years; and the management
has weeded out the documents relating to the official inquiry
as the preservation time of the records provided under
Rules is 10 years. The management has defended the
inquiry and order of removal and has submitted that the
workman did not challenge the same nowhere; and
accordingly has become final.
14. Having gone through rival pleadings and
submission of the parties it comes out that the workman
who was an employee under the opposite party had been
removed vide order dated 16.03.1981 for alleged
unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 19.08.77 to 19.04.80.
The management has defended its action but has shown
its inability to produce any documentary evidence for the
reasons that the case is highly belated one. However, it is
noteworthy to mention here that the management has not
filed any extract of the Weeding Register to substantiate
its version that the records relating to the workman has
been weeded out. Also, the Rule position referred by the
management is relating to the preservation of Disciplinary
Proceedings which provides that “an authenticated copy
of the order regarding imposition of penalty or warning
being placed in the personal file and a suitable entry being
made in the appropriate Service Record. Thus, if it is taken
that the records relating to the disciplinary proceedings
have been weeded out under Rules even then the
management was required to rebut the pleadings of the
workman by filing the copy of personal file/service records
in respect of the workman; but it failed to do so.
The workman has submitted that on returning from
his absence, which was due to his illness, the management
referred him for medical examination by the Railway doctor,
who declared him fit; and accordingly, the management
allowed him to join the duties and transferred him to new
place and thereafter served upon a charge sheet for
unauthorized absence from 19.7.78 to 19.3.80.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
209
The Inquiry Officer in his findings has observed that
the workman failed to give any solid proof of such long
absence and failed to inform the office. The Inquiry Officer
in his report has further observed that he checked his
records i.e. absentee list, attendance register and found no
unauthorized absence during the year 1980 to 1981; this
goes to show that the workman was not a habitual absentee.
15 The workman has contended that the punishment
laid down by the management is disproportionate as it is in
excess to the actual misconduct committed by the workman.
Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Dr. P.L. Singia
2009 (121) FLR 770 (SC), dealing with unauthorized
absence, has stated thus:
“Unauthorized absence (or overstaying leave), is an
act of indiscipline. Wherever there is a unauthorized
absence by an employee, two courses are open to
the employer. The first is to condone the
unauthorized absence by accepting the explanation
and sanctioning leave for the period of the
unauthorized absence in which event the misconduct
stood condoned. The second is to treat the
unauthorized absence as a misconduct, hold an
enquiry and impose a punishment for the
misconduct.”
The court further, while dealing with the concept of
punishment ruled as follows:
“Where the employee who is unauthorizedly absent
does not report back to duty and offer any
satisfactory explanation, or where the explanation
offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the
employer will take recourse to disciplinary action in
regard to the unauthorized absence. Such
disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of
punishment ranging from a major penalty like
dismissal or removal from service to a minor penalty
like withholding of increments without cumulative
effect. The extent of penalty will depend upon the
nature of service, the position held by the employee,
the period of absence and the cause/explanation for
the absence.”
16. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal
India Limited and another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri
and others 2009 (15) SSC 620, Hon’ble Apex Court, after
analyzing the doctrine of proportionality at length, ruled
thus:
“19. The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well-
recognized concept of judicial review in our
jurisprudence. What is otherwise within the
discretionary domain and sole power of the decision-
maker to quantify punishment once the charge of
misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power
is exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a
manner which is out of proportion to the fault. Award
of punishment which is grossly in excess to the
allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open
for interference under limited scope of judicial review.
20. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with
the question of quantum of punishment would be: would
any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment
is like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer
is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude
and degree of misconduct and all other relevant
circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before
imposing punishment.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case directed for
reinstatement of the delinquent for the proved charges of
unauthorized absence for a period of more than six
months, being the punishment of removal unduly harsh
and grossly in excess to the allegations; but withheld the
back wage by the way of punishment for proved
misconduct of unauthorized absence. The Court observed
as under:
“21. In a case like the present one where the
misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorized
absence from duty for six months but upon being
charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his
guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by
stating that he did not have any intention nor desired
to disobey the order of higher authority or violate
any of the Company’s rules and regulations but the
reason was purely personal and beyond his control
and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which
was not accepted, the order of removal cannot be
held to be justified, since in our judgment, no
reasonable employer would have imposed extreme
punishment of removal in like circumstances. The
punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in
excess to the allegations.”
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court relying upon the
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Workman of F.T. &
R.C. vs the Management AIR 1973 SC 1227 in U.P.
Transport Corporation vs State of UP & others 1978
(36) FLR 163 has observed as under:
“even if the Tribunal holds the inquiry to be proper
and fair the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award to
the workman lesser punishment in lieu of discharge
or dismissal as the circumstances may require. In
this view of the law the first submission made by
the learned counsel has no force and we hold that
the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to award relief
to the workman by awarding a lesser punishment.
In order to consider the second submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary
to examine the scope of the power of the Labour Court as
conferred on it under section 11-A of the Act. By this
section wide powers have been conferred on the Labour
Court, Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may
be, to set aside an order of discharge or dismissal and
210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
directed reinstatement or to award a lesser punishment in
lieu of discharge or dismissal.”
17 In the instant case the workman had admittedly
been unauthorizedly absent from 19.7.78 to 19.3.80 without
prior intimation to the high authorities and approval of the
Competent Authority. The inquiry report has specifically
mentioned that he had gone through the current records
relating to the workman i.e. absentee list, attendance
register etc. but did not find any instance of unauthorized
absence in respect of the workman during the year 1980
and 1981, which amounts to sincerity on the part of the
workman towards his duty, therefore the punishment
imposed by the management upon the workman for one
time absence, though considerably long, seems
disproportionate and harsh, particularly when the workman
had been allowed to join the duties on declaring fit by the
railway doctor.
18 The management has opposed the claim of the
workman on the issue of delay. On the issue of delay the
workman has tried to explain his delay by filing the copies
of the various representations moved before various
authorities, including Hon’ble President’s Secretariat. The
opposite party has disputed its genuineness through
pleadings. The workman has submitted that the reference
was made by the appropriate Government after considering
all aspects, including delay, which was under consideration
before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). He
has also contended that there is no limitation providing in
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in The Chief General
Manager, State Bank of India, Chief Office, Lucknow vs.
B.C. Verma & another 1994 LLR 29; while considering
the question as to whether inaction or delay in raising
industrial dispute by the workman can be condoned;
Hon’ble High Court observed as under:
“In the present case, Section 10(1) may be read along
with Section 10 (5). Both the subsections read
together lead to conclusion that ‘at any time’ the
Reference can be made in the exercise of the
administrative power by the Central Government
provided there exists an industrial dispute or the same
is apprehended. He use of expression “at any time’
in both the sub-sections clearly indicates that
legislature never intended any limitation to be
imposed for making reference.”
In the present case, admittedly there is a delay of
many long years but the workman has tried to explain
the same by filing copies of various representations
he moved before the railway administration as well
as before the Secretariat of Hon’ble President of
India, which was forwarded to the Railway Board
lastly on 19.06.1996; but the management has
disputed their genuineness. Hon’ble Apex Court in
Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-
cum-Processing Services Society Ltd. & another
1999 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay
of seven years has held that the Court can mould
relief by refusing back wages or directing payment
of part of back wages.
Thus, although there is an inordinate delay since the
cause of action arose in the year 1981; but the workman
kept on representing the same before various authorities,
lastly in the year 1996.
19 Therefore, under the facts and the circumstances
of the case and considering the law cited hereinabove, it
comes out that the punishment, imposed by the
management upon the workman for proved/admitted
unauthorized one time absence from 19.07.78 to 19.03.80 is
not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the
allegations made in the charge sheet. Also, there is neither
any allegation, in the charge sheet, that the workman was a
habitual absentee nor there is any evidence on the record
to the effect; whereas on the contrary the Inquiry Office in
his report has found that no instance of unauthorized
absence of the workman in the year 1980 and 1981.
Therefore, the punishment order dated 16.03.1981 is set
aside in exercise of discretion conferred upon this Tribunal
under proviso 11-A of the Act; and the management is
directed to reinstate the workman, Ram Shankar Sharma,
with all consequential benefits, including continuity in
service etc., less back wages, by the way of punishment
for his unauthorized absence and inordinate delay in raising
the present industrial dispute.
However, from perusal of records it is evident that
since the workman has already attained the age of
superannuation, therefore, at this juncture he would be
entitled for all retiral benefits only under Rules, from the
date of his superannuation, which be paid to the workman
within 08 weeks of publication of the award, failing which;
the amount due shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
The reference is adjudicated accordingly.
20 Award as above.
Lucknow,
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
28th December, 2015
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 104-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj iwoZ jsyos
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
dj.k] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 68@2014) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk1
[la- ,y&41011@89@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
211
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 104. —In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2014)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of North Eastern Railway
and their workman, received by the Central Government on
11/01/2016.
[No. L-41011/89/2014- IR(B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -
CUM- LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 68/2014
Ref. No. L-41011/89/2014-IR(B-I) dated: 18.11.2014
BETWEEN
Anchal Sangthan Secretary
Rail Sevak Sangh
C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi
49, Tilak Nagar
Lucknow.
(Espousing cause of Sri Krishna Kumar)
AND
1. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer
North Eastern Railway
DRM Office, Ashok Marg
Lucknow.
2. The Chief Medical Superintendent
North Eastern Railway
Gonda (UP)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/89/2014-IR(B-I) dated:
18.11.2014 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 Anchal Sangthan Secretary, Rail
Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar,
Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern
Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow & the Chief
Medical Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gonda
(UP) for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy ç'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh d`".k
dqekj ik.Ms; iq=k Jh çrki ukjk;.k] IokbaVeSu dks iqjkuh
isa'ku u nsdj ubZ isa'ku fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/ gS\
;fn ugha rks dkexkj fdl jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\**
3. On receipt of the reference order the workman’s
union was issued registered notice to file his statement of
claim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses before Tribunal on 20.01.2015 with an
advance copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the
workman’s union appeared before this Tribunal and
requested for a date for filing of statement of claim.
4. On successive dates the management also turned
up. Since the case was related to grant of old pension
scheme instead of new pension scheme, the parties were
advised to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.
Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on
19.06.2015.
5. On 19.06.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi, Secretary of the
workman’s union was present whereas the opposite parties
were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma, Chief
Welfare Officer.
6. The opposite party filed M-4, letter signed by Sri
P.B. Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North
Eastern Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/
F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The
management in letter M-4, referring circular dated 29.10.2014
has stated that the Railway Board, New Delhi vide their
circular dated 29.10.2014 has directed to cover the
employees who got temporary status prior to 01.01.2004
may be covered under Old Pension Scheme.
7. A copy of the M-4 was furnished to the workman’s
union. The authorized representative of the workman’s
union sought time to consult the workman; and accordingly,
the case was taken up on 12.12.2015 at National Lok Adalat.
The Authorized representative of the workman’s union,
Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents of letter,
M-4 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed willingness to
withdraw the present industrial dispute being claim settled;
and made an endorsement thereupon as under:
“Since the relief claimed by the workman/union has
been accepted by the O.P. hence further proceeding
in this case may kindly be dropped in interest of
justice.”
8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the
workman’s union for dropping of the proceedings, there is
no grievance left with the workman’s union as the present
industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old pension to
the workman by the railway management and the
management of the railway has granted the same vide
circular 2012/F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway
Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands settled;
and no relief is required to be given to the workman
212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly
9. Award as above.
Lucknow,
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
28th December, 2015
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 105-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj jsyos
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k
y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 36@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk1
[la- ,y&41011@105@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.36/2011) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Northern Railway and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
11/01/2016.
[No. L-41011/105/2010- IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –
CUM- LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 36/2011
Ref. No. L-41011/105/2010-IR(B-I) dated: 14.03.2011
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangthan Mantri
Uttar Railway Karmchari Union
283/63 Kh, Garhi Kananora(Premwati Nagar)
PO – Manak Nagar
Lucknow – 16.
(Espousing cause of Sri Jintendra Singh)
AND
Senior Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel)
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow.
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/105/2010-IR(B-I) dated:
14.03.2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Mandal Sangthan Mantri, Uttar
Railway Karmchari Union, 283/63 Kh, Garhi Kananora
(Premwati Nagar), PO – Manak Nagar, Lucknow and Senior
Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
WHETHER THE DEMAND OF THE UNION
REGARDING PLACING SHRI JINTENDRA SINGH
S/O RADHEY SHYAM, ASSISTANT LOCO PILOT,
LOCO-SHED, LUCKNOW IN THE PENAL OF 1983-
84 ABOVE HIS JUNIORS AND GRANT OF PAY
BENEFITS ACCORDINGLY IS LEGAL AND
JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT RELIEF THE UNION IS
ENTITLED?”
3. The case of the workman’s union, in brief, is that
the workman was appointed as cleaner w.e.f. 12.01.1980
and worked as such till 03.09.1981 continuously, when he
had been retrenched w.e.f. 04.09.1981 illegally. The workman
challenged his retrenchment before CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur in I.D. No. 48/83 and 163/1983 and the
Tribunal was pleased to reinstate the workman with back
wages from the date of retrenchment vide their award dated
19.02.1987 and 25.11.1985. The management challenged
the award of CGIT, Kanpur before Hon’ble High Court,
which was rejected; likewise the SLP too before Hon’ble
Apex Court was rejected; accordingly, the workman was
reinstated on 03.08.1983. It is alleged that the management
vide its order No. 220 E/1-5/Screening/ Loco dated 30.08.1991
regularized the workman on the post of Loco Cleaner;
whereas it absorbed other junior workmen in the panel for
the year 1983-84 on the basis of 120 days working up to
30.09.98, which is in violation to the provisions of Railway
Rules. It is submitted by the workman’s union that Shri
Amarjeet Singh & Sri Abdul Aziz were also included in the
panel for year 1992 but later on included in the panel of
year 1983-84 on the orders of Hon’ble CAT, Lucknow.
Likewise, other workmen viz. Sri Pratap Bahadur & Ahmad
Ali, who were earlier included in panel for the year 1992
were included in the panel for year 83-84 as per order of
this Tribunal. Accordingly, the workman’s union has prayed
that the name of the workman, be included in the panel of
the year 83-84 which consequential benefits.
4. The management of the railways has filed its
written statement, denying the claim of the workman’s union
and has contended that the workman’s union has sought
the relief placing the name of the workman in the panel of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
213
year 1983-84, which is not permissible because of the
seniority of other employees will be effected and they are
not arrayed as party in present industrial dispute and if the
relief is granted, several other workers may prefer the matter
in courts since their seniority shall be affected. The
management has specifically submitted that the industrial
dispute has been referred after lapse of more than 25 years
without any rhyme or reason or any sufficient explanation;
and accordingly, the same is liable to be rejected on the
point of limitation.
5. The workman’s union has filed its rejoinder
wherein apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in
the statement claim has submitted that there is no limitation
provided in the industrial disputes Act, 1947.
6. The parties filed documentary as well as oral
evidence in support of their respective case and forwarded
oral arguments.
7. Heard learned authorized representatives of the
parties at length and perused entire evidence on record.
9. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that since the termination dated 04.09.81 has
been held illegal and the workman had been reinstated
with consequential benefits, therefore he is entitled for
inclusion in the panel of year 1983-1984. He has relied
upon:
(i) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ
1347.
10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that the workman was screened
and rightly placed in the seniority panel vide order dated
30.08.1991. The management has vehemently contended
that the workman is not entitled to be included in the panel
for the year 1983-84, inasmuch as the present industrial
dispute is time barred and the workman has raised this
industrial dispute when he found that some other workmen
got benefit from different Court/Tribunals. The
management has relied on:
(i) M. Ramakotaiah & others vs. Union of India &
others 2007 (6) AWC 6556 (SC).
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the learned authorized representatives
of the parties and scanned the entire evidence available on
record.
12. Admittedly, the workman had been terminated
w.e.f. 04.09.1981 and his termination had been declared to
be illegal and was reinstated with back wages by the CGIT-
cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. Also, the Hon’ble High Court
in writ petition, filed by the management of railways, upheld
the award regarding reinstatement and the management in
compliance of award reinstated the workman and paid him
back wages. However, the management’s contention over
the issue referred to this Tribunal is, that the workman was
screened and was rightly placed in the seniority panel for
1991 and he is not entitled for inclusion in the panel for
year 1983 as he was not in service at that point of time;
more so because the present industrial dispute has been
raised after lapse of more than 25 years.
13. Thus, the question to be adjudicated is as to
whether the workman is entitled to be included in the
seniority panel of 83-84, which was denied to him,
consequent upon his termination in the said year? It is
admitted fact that the workman was not in service due to
illegal termination in the relevant year 1983, when the
seniority panel was drawn and his name was not
considered. The termination of the workman was quashed
by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and in compliance
thereof the management reinstated the workman, treating
the termination as non-est and paid back wages in
compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court.
As per award of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, the
reinstatement order was not qualified one to be given effect
to the extent of monetary benefits only. As per settled
procedure, logically and legally reinstatement required grant
of all service benefits including seniority as if the
termination had not taken place. The management complied
with the order of reinstatement without giving seniority
and released monetary benefits to the workman. On the
quashing of termination order, it has to be assumed that
the workman was never been terminated and continued to
be in service notionally. The effect of the reinstatement is
that the workman would be deemed in service on the last
post held on the date of termination. Accordingly, he is
entitled for preference over his juniors and to be included
in the seniority panel for the year 1983-1984.
14. The management of the railways has come up
with a contention that the present industrial dispute is time
barred as it has been raised after lapse of more than 25
years. The workman’s witness during his cross-
examination stated that he moved an application before
DRM; but has not filed its copy before this Tribunal. He
further, stated that when the management did not act upon
his repeated representations, then he raised the present
industrial dispute. The authorized representative has
contended that the workman has not given any reliable
explanation for inordinate delay of 25 years; rather he turned
up when the other got successful. He stressed that the
order of the Hon’ble CAT, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in
respect of Amarjeet Singh was delivered on 26.04.1993; but
the workman has raised present industrial dispute in 2011,
without any explanation.
15. The management has relied upon N.
Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347;
wherein Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter
of delay has observed that length of delay does not matter,
acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion.
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board & others vs T.T. Murali Babu 2014
214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(141) FLR 772, Honble Apex Court has observed as
under:
“The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights
of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason, approaches the
Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not.
Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstances delay and laches may be fatal
but in most circumstances inordinate delay would
only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the
doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and
inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination
is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does
not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay
does bring a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In
the case at hand, though there has been four years’
delay in approaching the Court, yet the writ Court
chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the
Court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is
to be ignored without any justification.”
Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye
Hospital vs State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the
State Government in denying the making reference of case
after 22 years held that it is not expedient for State
government to refer against order of termination dated
26.6.1982 being old and stale case, where the workman
filed an application raising industrial dispute after 22 years
in 2004. Hon’ble High Court observed that there is nothing
to indicate as to why the workman could not approach the
authority under the ID Act. On the issue of delay the
workman has tried to explain his delay by pleading that he
kept on making representations before the authorities; but
in the absence of any copy thereof his contention cannot
be relied upon. There is no other explanation about delay.
Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear that
the workman did not bother to approach the management
or any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and he approached this Tribunal when he
come to know about favourable order of courts in similar
nature of cases, which points out towards opportunitism
of the workman. Moreover, the explanation forwarded by
the workman’s union before this Tribunal is insufficient.
16. In the present case, admittedly there is delay of
approximately 20 years as he was screened vide order dated
30.08.1991. The workman’s union failed to give any logical
explanation for this inordinate delay of 20 years. Hon’ble
Apex Court in Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative
Marketing-cum-Processing Services Society Ltd. &
another 1999 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay
of seven years has held that the Court can mould relief by
refusing back wages or directing payment of part of back
wages.
17. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the
case and the case laws cited hereinabove, I am of considered
opinion that the action of the management of Railway in
not including the name of the workman in the panel for
year 83-84 was illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, I come
to the conclusion that the workman is entitled for placement
in the panel of 1983-1984 above his juniors, subject to his
suitability under Rules. He shall be entitled to services
benefits under Rules; however, he would be liable for
payment of only 1/3rd of back wages, in view of delay in
raising the present industrial dispute.
18. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
19.Award as above.
LUCKNOW,
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
31st December, 2015
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 106-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj iwoZ
jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2014) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011@90@2014&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2014)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of North Eastern Railway and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
11/01/2016.
[No. L-41011/90/2014- IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –
CUM- LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 69/2014
Ref. No. L-41011/90/2014-IR(B-I) dated: 18.11.2014
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
215
BETWEEN
Anchal Sangthan Secretary
Rail Sevak Sangh
C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi
49, Tilak Nagar
Lucknow.
(Espousing cause of Sri Raja Ram)
AND
1. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer
North Eastern Railway
DRM Office, Ashok Marg
Lucknow.
2. The Chief Medical Superintendent
North Eastern Railway
Gonda (UP)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/90/2014-IR(B-I) dated:
18.11.2014 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 Anchal
Sangthan Secretary, Rail Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P.
Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar, Lucknow and Sr. Divisional
Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, DRM Office,
Ashok Marg, Lucknow & the Chief Medical
Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gonda (UP) for
adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy ç'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh jktk
jke iq=k Jh eFkqjk çlkn] ckSDliksVZj dks iqjkuh isa'ku u nsdj
ubZ isa'ku fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/ gS\ ;fn ugha rks
dkexkj fdl jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\**
3. On receipt of the reference order the workman’s
union was issued registered notice to file his statement
of claim complete with relevant documents, list of
reliance and witnesses before Tribunal on 20.01.2015 with
an advance copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of
the workman’s union appeared before this Tribunal and
requested for a date for filing of statement of claim.
4. On successive dates the management also turned
up. Since the case was related to grant of old pension
scheme instead of new pension scheme, the parties were
advised to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.
Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on
19.06.2015.
5. On 19.06.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi, Secretary of the
workman’s union was present whereas the opposite parties
were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma, Chief
Welfare Officer.
6. The opposite party filed M-4, letter signed by Sri
P.B. Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North
Eastern Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/
F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The
management in letter M-4, referring circular dated 29.10.2014
has stated that the Railway Board, New Delhi vide their
circular dated 29.10.2014 has directed to cover the
employees who got temporary status prior to 01.01.2004
may be covered under Old Pension Scheme.
7. A copy of the M-4 was furnished to the workman’s
union. The authorized representative of the workman’s
union sought time to consult the workman; and accordingly,
the case was taken up on 12.12.2015 at National Lok Adalat.
The Authorized representative of the workman’s union,
Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents of letter,
M-4 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed willingness to
withdraw the present industrial dispute being claim settled;
and made an endorsement thereupon as under:
“Since the relief claimed by the workman/union has
been accepted by the O.P. hence further proceeding
in this case may kindly be dropped in interest of
justice.”
8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the
workman’s union for dropping of the proceedings, there is
no grievance left with the workman’s union as the present
industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old pension to
the workman by the railway management and the
management of the railway has granted the same vide
circular 2012/F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway
Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands settled;
and no relief is required to be given to the workman
concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly
9. Award as above.
Lucknow,
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
28th December, 2015
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 107-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@2013)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012@08@2013&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.66/2013) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Southern Railway and their workman,
received by the Central Government on 11/01/2016.
[No. L-41012/08/2013- IR(B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 21st December, 2015
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 66/2013
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the
Management of Southern Railway and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri D. Emarose : 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager (Law)
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Southern Railway
Moore Market Complex
Chennai-600003
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: Sri S. Raghupathi, Advo-
cate
For the 2nd Party/Respondent : M/s K.V. Sanjeev Kumar,
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-41012/08/2013-IR (B.I)
dated 27.05.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of Southern
Railways in removing Sri D. Emarose, Ex. Leave Reserves
Porter is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 66/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner was recruited by the Respondent
as Casual Labour on 29.11.1978. On completion of 120 days
he was granted temporary status against permanent
vacancy and was working satisfactorily. On 06.09.1996, a
Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on the
allegation of impersonation. An enquiry was conducted
against the petitioner. But it was not done in a fair and
proper manner. Based on the report of the enquiry penalty
of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The
petitioner approached the Administrative Tribunal against
the said order The Tribunal set aside the order and directed
the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service. The
Respondent filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras against the said order and the High Court
directed the Respondent to conduct denovo enquiry and
finalize the issue within three months. The Respondent
nominated an Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry. The
Enquiry Officer acted flouting the statutory rules. The
Appointing Authority did not issue any show cause notice
to the petitioner before imposing the major penalty of
removal of the petitioner from service on the basis of the
enquiry. An order may be passed setting aside the penalty
of removal of the petitioner from service and extend all
consequential benefits to the petitioner.
4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The petitioner claiming to be Emarose was known by
the name G. Baskaran and secured an employment as
Khalasi by impersonating himself as D. Emarose. This came
to light pursuant to a written complaint received from D.
Emarose alleging that the petitioner obtained the job by
impersonation. On investigation it came to light that the
petitioner who obtained job as Leave Reserve Porter at
Chennai Central in the name of D. Emarose is actually
not Emarose and not son of Damodaran Mudaliar as
claimed by him. The petitioner was found to be one
G. Baskaran, S/o Ganesan. He had secured employment
with the assistance of a retired employee, Damodaran
Mudaliar. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and
an enquiry was conducted against him. The Enquiry
Officer submitted report against the petitioner and the
Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of
termination from service on the petitioner, based on the
report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner challenged
the order before the Administrative Tribunal and the
Tribunal set aside the order of termination and directed
reinstatement of the petitioner in service and conduct of
a fresh enquiry. The Respondent challenged this order by
way of Writ Petition and by order dated 09.04.2009 the
Hon’ble High Court confirmed part of the order passed
by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal ordered further
enquiry. However, the order of reinstatement directed by
the Tribunal was set aside by the High Court. In compliance
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
217
to the order of the High Court an enquiry was conducted.
The Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the
petitioner is proved and that he had contravened Rule-
3(i)(i) & (iii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules,
1966. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the
petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority who considered the
enquiry report and the written statement of the petitioner
held that the petitioner has taken up employment in the
name of Emarose and that the details given by him in the
Service Register are not of his. The penalty of dismissal
from service was imposed on the petitioner on
05.03.2010. The order of the Disciplinary Authority was
confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the
Revising Authority. The petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.
5. Since the petitioner had raised a preliminary
objection that domestic enquiry against him was
conducted against the principles of natural justice, this
was considered as a Preliminary Issue. By order dated
22.05.2015 this Tribunal has found that the enquiry was
conducted in a fair and proper manner.
6. On merits Ext.W1 to Ext.W12 were marked on
the side of the petitioner and Ext.M1 to Ext.M7 were
marked on the side of the Respondent. Both sides did not
adduce any oral evidence.
7. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the action of the Respondent in remov-
ing the petitioner from service is justified?
(ii) What if any is the relief to which the petitioner
is entitled?
The Points
8. The petitioner had been recruited as Casual
Labour by the Respondent in 1978. After some time he was
given temporary status against permanent vacancy. In the
year 1996 a charge memo was issued to the petitioner
alleging that he is actually not what he represented himself
to be for obtaining job but he has got the job by
impersonating the real person by name D. Emarose. An
investigation was conducted and he was found to be one
Baskaran, S/o Ganesan and not D. Emarose which he
represented himself to be. A charge sheet was issued to
him, an enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry
officer’s report against him he was dismissed from service.
He challenged the dismissal before the Administrative
Tribunal and the Tribunal found that the domestic enquiry
was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. The Tribunal
directed that the petitioner should be reinstated in service
and a fresh enquiry should be conducted. The Respondent
challenged this order before the High Court and the Hon’ble
High Court reversed that part of the order directing that
the petitioner should be reinstated in service. However,
the order of the Tribunal that a denovo enquiry is to be
conducted was upheld by the High Court. Ext.W2 is the
report of First Enquiry Officer. Ext.W3 is the order of the
Administrative Tribunal and Ext.W4 is the order of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the Writ Petition
challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal.
9. The Hon’ble High Court while ordering denovo
enquiry had prescribed a time limit. The Enquiry Officer
nominated by the Respondent in compliance with the order
of the High Court conducted enquiry within the period and
submitted report. Ext.W5 is the said report. Ext.W6 is the
order of the Disciplinary Authority removing the petitioner
from service based on Ext.W5 report. Ext.W7 is the order
in the appeal filed by the petitioner and Ext.W9 is the order
in revision.
10.Though the report of the Enquiry Officer is
produced, the documents pertaining to the enquiry
including evidence of witnesses are not produced by the
petitioner. However, a perusal of the Enquiry Officer’s report
and the subsequent orders confirming the order of
termination of the petitioner from service are sufficient to
come to a conclusion regarding the issue involved.
11.As seen from Ext.W5 the report of the Enquiry
Officer, the charge memo issued to the petitioner is as below:
Sri G. Baskaran, S/o Sri N.P. Ganesan impersonated
as Sri Emarose, S/o A.S. Damodaran Mudaliar (Retired
Senior Parcel Clerk/MIS) and secured employment in
Southern Railway and is now working as LRP/MIS
Thus the person working in the name of Sri D.
Emarose contravened Rule-3(i)(i) & (iii) of Railway Service
(Conduct) Rules, 1966.
12.By the time the new Enquiry Officer started
enquiry, out of the witnesses examined in the earlier enquiry
proceedings, the person by name Emarose, S/o Damodaran
Mudaliar who is said to have been impersonated by the
petitioner was not available. Another witness examined
earlier was also not available. Though the statement of
Damodaran Mudaliar was recorded by the Investigating
Officer he was not examined in the earlier enquiry
proceedings. An attempt to examine him in the later enquiry
proceedings proved futile as he was dead by that time.
The only witness actually examined by the Enquiry Officer
is one Rajamohan, Retired SPO. The Enquiry Officer
seems to have relied upon the evidence of the earlier
witnesses also to come to a conclusion regarding the issue
involved. In fact this could not be relied upon as the earlier
enquiry proceedings was already set aside.
13. SW3 Rajamohan examined before the Enquiry
Officer is the one who had conducted investigation which
is seen named as confronted enquiry in the enquiry
proceedings. Ext.S7 is the findings of the enquiry in which
it is found that Baskaran, S/o Ganesan got himself
appointed in the Railways as Emarose, S/o Damodaran.
14. The clinching evidence available against the
petitioner in the enquiry proceedings is his own written
218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
defence brief. Though the defence brief is not produced
by the petitioner probably because of the damaging
consequence, the gist of the brief is available in the report
of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has stated that
the defence brief contained an admission on the part of the
petitioner that he was son of the brother of Damodaran
Mudaliar whose son is the real Emarose. As seen from the
defence brief, Damodaran Mudaliar was upset that his son
rejected the offer of appointment with the Railways and
wanted the petitioner to join the Railways in the name of
his Son, Emarose. The defence brief proceeds to state that
the petitioenr had the eligibility requirements to be absorbed
as Casual Labour in the Railways even without Damodaran
Mudaliar’s help and therefore he had not acted as
somebody else but only took up the assignment in the
name of Emarose to satisfy Damodaran Mudaliar. Thus the
very defence brief submitted on behalf of the petitioner
before the Enquiry Officer shows that he is actually not D.
Emarose, the person he himself projected as one in the
Respondent establishment, but someone else.
15. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted a
written argument on behalf of the petitioner. The written
argument evades the issue whether the petitioner is Emarose
himself or is someone else who had pretended to be Emarose.
The written argument does not refer to the defence brief
submitted before the Enquiry Officer also. What is stated
in the written argument is that the petitioner has applied
with his own signature and did not forge signature in the
name of Emarose and so there was no question of
impersonation of anybody already working in the Railways.
According to the counsel this would show that there was
no impersonation on the part of the petitioner.
16.The only charge against the petitioner is that he
projected himself as someone else for obtaining employment
with the Respondent in contravention of Rule-3(i)(I) & (iii)
of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The very
admission of the petitioner shows that he obtained job in
the Railways in the name of another person. This is nothing
but impersonation. For years and years he had been
projecting himself as another person with the Respondent
and had been drawing salary from the Respondent.
17. After the initial enquiry was set aside and a fresh
enquiry was ordered, opportunity was available for the
petitioner to prove that he is actually Emarose as projected
by him. Not only that he did not put forth any evidence
to this effect but admitted himself that he is someone else
and not Emarose. The action of the petitioner in accepting
job in the name of someone else is a gross misconduct
calling for severe penalty. It was only proper on the part of
the Respondent to impose the penalty of termination from
service. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
In view of my discussion above, the reference is
answered against the petitioner. An award is passed
accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 21st December, 2015)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
Service Register of the Petitioner
Ext.W2
28.02.1997
Finding of the Enquiry Officer Mr.
S. Nagarajan
Ext.W3
10.01.2005
Order of Hon’ble CAT, Madras
Bench in OA No. 429/2004
Ex.W4
09.04.2009
Order of Hon’ble Madras High
Court, Madras in WP No. 22355/
2005
Ex.W5
20.05.2009
Finding of the Enquiry Officer Mr.
K. Moorthy
Ext.W6
05.03.2010
Penalty Advice issued by Respon-
dent
Ext.W7
17.05.2010
Order of Respondent in Appeal
Ext.W8
22.06.2010
Revision Petition of Petitioner
Ext.W9
07.01.2011
Order of Respondent in revision
Ext.W10
25.06.2012
Order of Respondent
Ext.W11
-
Copy of details of procedure fixed
for imposing
major penalty in Part-IV of The
Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968
Ext.W12
-
Copy of Extract of Rule 25/3 of The
Railway Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1968
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
29.11.1978
Service Register of the Petitioner
Ext.M2
23.02.1990
Railway Board Establishment No.
41/90
Ext.M3
11.10.1990
Railway Board Establishment No.
182/90
Ext.M4
28.02.1997
Enquiry Proceedings
Ext.M5
-
Rule No. 200(1) of Railways
Establishment Manual and Rule
25(2) of Disciplinary Railways
Rules, 1968
Ext.M6
10.01.2005
Order passed by Hon’ble CAT in
OA No. 429 of 2004
Ext.M7
09.04.2009
Order passed in WP No. 22355 of
2005 passed by Hon’ble High
Court of Madras
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
219
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 108-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj if'pe
jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2014)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&41011@42@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2014)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of North West Railway and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
11/01/2016.
[No. L-41011/42/2014-IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 40/2014
Reference No.L-41011/42/2014-IR(B-I)
dated: 13.5.2014
The Zonal Executive President
Uttar Paschim Railway Karmachari Sagh
8-A, DAV Collage, Staff Colony, Byavar Road,
Ajmer-305001
V/s
The Chief Works Manager
N.W. Railway
Jodhpur.
AWARD
19.11.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
“Whether the action of the management of Chief
Works Manager, N.W. Railway, Jodhpur for not
paying family pension, other retirement dues and
appointment under compassionate ground to Smt.
Dhooli Devi Meghwal, W/o Late Shri Durga Ram,
Ex. Painter as per Railway Board Rules is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order,
registered notices were issued to the parties as per the
order of the tribunal dated 23.5.2014 fixing 9.7.2014 for filing
statement of claim. On 9.7.2014 Smt. Dhuli Devi was present
in person along with Sh. Kamlesh Kumar. Sh. Trilok Chand,
Chief O.S., Establishment was present on behalf of opposite
party. Adjournment was sought from the applicant side
which was allowed fixing 15.9.2014 for statement of claim.
In between 23.5.2014 & 9.7.2014, on 9.6.2014 a registered
letter was received from the office of Chief Factory Manager,
Carriage Workshop, North West Railway, Jodhpur in relation
to the reference which was kept on record of the file. The
content of the letter is an information regarding deceased
Durgaram which indicates that he was not an employee of
the railway & he did not die as railway employee hence, his
wife Smt. Dhuli Devi is neither entitled for family pension
nor appointment on compassionate ground.
3. On 15.9.2014 Sh. Rajendra Gupta, Advocate came
in appearance on behalf of applicant alleging that he will
submit statement of claim & authority on next date. On
behalf of opposite party Chief Personnel Inspector, Railway,
Md. Shams Kamar Ansari was present. Next date 24.11.2014
was fixed for filing statement of claim. On 24.11.2014 Sh.
P.C.Saini, Zonal President, NWR Employees Union was
present & asked for adjournment for filing statement of
claim which was allowed fixing 16.2.2015 for filing statement
of claim. Chief Personnel Inspector, Railway, Md. Shams
Kamar Ansari was present on behalf of opposite party. On
16.2.2015 presiding officer of the tribunal was on leave. Sh.
Rajendra Gupta, Advocate for applicant & Chief Personnel
Inspector, Railway, Md. Shams Kamar Ansari was present
on behalf of opposite party. Next date 6.5.2015 was fixed
for filing statement of claim as the same was not filed on
16.2.2015. On 6.5.2015 Sh. Rajendra Gupta, Advocate for
applicant came in appearance & alleged to file statement of
claim & authority on behalf of applicant on next date
17.8.2015. Sh. Kailash Chandra Sharma, Officer Incharge
was present on behalf of Railway. On 17.8.2015 Sh. R.C.Jain
learned representative was present on behalf of applicant
& Sh. Kailash Chandra Sharma, Officer Incharge was present
on behalf of Railway. Statement of claim was not filed &
further time was sought to file statement of claim.
Adjournment was allowed by the tribunal fixing 26.10.2015
for filing statement of claim.
4. On 26.10.2015 Sh. Rajendra Gupta, learned
Advocate on behalf of applicant & Sh. Kailash Chandra
Sharma, Officer Incharge was present on behalf of opposite
party. Presiding Officer of the tribunal was on leave.
Statement of claim was not filed & 9.11.2015 was next date
fixed for filing statement of claim.
220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. On 9.11.2015 none appeared on behalf of
applicant. Sh. Lokesh Kumar, Senior Clerk (Personnel) was
present on behalf of Railway who opposed any further
adjournment providing opportunity to the applicant for
filing statement of claim. It was alleged by the opposite
party that more than a year has elapsed since applicant
side has been served & applicant side has been
continuously provided with opportunity to file statement
of claim which has not been filed yet hence, further
opportunity should be closed. Looking into order-sheet of
the proceeding it appears that since 9.7.2014 applicant side
has been in appearance but statement of claim has not
been filed till 9.11.2015 hence, further opportunity for filing
statement of claim was closed on 9.11.2014 & case was
reserved for award.
6. It is pertinent to note that on 13.5.2014 reference
order was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction to
file statement of claim within 15 days from the date of receipt
of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement of claim
on the direction of Ministry nor on notice & knowledge of
the proceeding pending before the tribunal. It appears that
applicant is not interested & willing in submitting the claim
for adjudication. In the circumstances & in the absence of
material evidence brought on record, tribunal is unable to
record the finding on the issues referred to it on merit.
Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is passed in this matter.
The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
7. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 109-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj if'pe
jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2015)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&41011@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2015)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of North West Railway and their workman,
received by the Central Government on 11/01/2016.
[No. L-41011/01/2015- IR( B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 11/2015
Reference No. L-41011/01/2015-IR (B-I)
dated: 10.2.2015
The Zonal Working President
North West Railway Karmchari Sangh
8-A, DAV Collage Staff Colony
Bayavar Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
V/s.
1. The Chief Factory Manager
North West Railway
Ajmer (Rajasthan).
2. The Dy. Chief Electrical Engineer (Co)
North West Railway
Ajmer (Rajasthan).
AWARD
26.11.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
^^D;k izca/ku eq[; dkj[kkuk izca/kd] mRrj if’pe jsyos] vtesj o
mi eq[; fo|qr vfHk;ark ¼dk0½] mRrj if’pe jsyos] vtesj }kjk
,y Mh lh bZ dq’ky dkexkj p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk esa ik= deZpkfj;ksa
dks Hkh vik= ?kksfCkr fd;k tkus dh dk;Zokgh cS/kkfud ,oa U;k;
laxr gS] ;fn ugh arks izkFkhZ ;wfu;u fdl jkgr dh vkSj dc ls ikus
dh gdnkj gS \**
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order,
registered notices were issued to the parties as per the
order of the tribunal fixing 24.6.2015 for filing statement of
claim. On 24.6.2015 Sh. P.C.Saini, Zonal President of North
Western Railway Karamchari Sangh was present in person
for applicant. On behalf of opposite party Railway Sh.
Purnendu Sharma, Learned Advocate was present. Sh.
P.C.Saini requested to adjourn the proceeding & asked for
time to file statement of claim on next date 7.9.2015. On
7.9.2015 none appeared on behalf of applicant. Sh. Purnendu
Sharma, Advocate was present on behalf of opposite party.
Case was adjourned by tribunal on its own motion in interest
of justice & further 18.11.2015 was fixed for filing statement
of claim by applicant. On 18.11.2015 none appeared on
behalf of applicant & statement of claim was not filed. On
behalf of opposite party their learned representative were
present. Again, case was adjourned on 18.11.2015 by
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
221
tribunal fixing 26.11.2015 for filing statement of claim by
applicant.
3. On 26.11.2015 neither anyone appeared on behalf
of applicant nor statement of claim was filed. On behalf of
opposite party their learned representative appeared who
opposed providing further opportunity to the applicant
with contention that since June, 2015 applicant has been in
appearance but statement of claim has not been filed
whereas opposite party has been in appearance on all the
dates. On basis of objection mentioned above raised by
opposite party further opportunity for filing statement of
claim by applicant was closed & case was reserved for
award.
4. It is pertinent to note that reference order dated
10.2.2015 was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction
to file statement of claim within 15 days from the date of
receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement
of claim on the direction of Ministry nor on notice &
knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal.
It appears that applicant is not interested & willing in
submitting the claim for adjudication. In the circumstances
& in the absence of material evidence brought on record,
tribunal is unable to record the finding on the issues referred
to it on merit. Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is passed in
this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
5. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 110-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@2014)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&41011@38@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 110.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2014)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of North Easern Railway
and their workman, received by the Central Government on
11/01/2016.
[No. L-41011/38/2014- IR(B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 38/2014
Ref. No. L-41011/38/2014-IR(B-I) dated: 06.05.2014
BETWEEN
Anchal Sangthan Secretary
Rail Sevak Sangh
C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi
49, Tilak Nagar
Lucknow.
(Espousing cause of Sri Kamta Prasad)
AND
1. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer
North Eastern Railway
DRM Office, Ashok Marg
Lucknow.
2. The Chief Medical Superintendent
North Eastern Railway
Gonda (UP)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/38/2014-IR(B-I) dated:
06.05.2014 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 Anchal Sangthan Secretary, Rail
Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar,
Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern
Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow & the Chief
Medical Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gonda
(UP) for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy ç'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh dkerk
çlkn iq=k Jh da/kkbZ] liQkbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku u nsdj ubZ isa'ku
fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/ gS\ ;fn ugha rks dkexkj fdl jkgr
dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\"
3. On receipt of the reference order the workman’s
union was issued registered notice to file his statement of
claim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses before Tribunal on 17.07.2014 with an
advance copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the
workman’s union appeared before this Tribunal and
requested for a date for filing of statement of claim.
4. On successive dates the management also turned
up. Since the case was related to grant of old pension
scheme instead of new pension scheme, the parties were
advised to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.
Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on
08.05.2015.
222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi, Secretary of the
workman’s union was present whereas the opposite parties
were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma, Chief
Welfare Officer.
6. The opposite party filed M-5, letter signed by Sri
P.B. Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North
Eastern Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/
F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The
management in letter M-5, referring circular dated 29.10.2014
has stated that the Railway Board, New Delhi vide their
circular dated 29.10.2014 has directed to cover the
employees who got temporary status prior to 01.01.2004
may be covered under Old Pension Scheme.
7. A copy of the M-5 was furnished to the workman’s
union. The authorized representative of the workman’s
union sought time to consult the workman; and accordingly,
the case was taken up on 12.12.2015 at National Lok Adalat.
The Authorized representative of the workman’s union,
Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents of letter,
M-5 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed willingness to
withdraw the present industrial dispute being claim settled;
and made an endorsement thereupon as under:
“Since the relief claimed by the Union has been
accepted by the opposite party, further proceeding
of this case may kindly be dropped.”
8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the
workman’s union for dropping of the proceedings, there is
no grievance left with the workman’s union as the present
industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old pension to
the workman by the railway management and the
management of the railway has granted the same vide
circular 2012/F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway
Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands settled;
and no relief is required to be given to the workman
concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly
9. Award as above.
Lucknow
28th December, 2015
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 111-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad
vkWiQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] fnYyh ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 293@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&12025@01@2016&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 111.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 293/
2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No.I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of Bikaner
& Jaipur and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 11/01/2016.
[No. L-12025/01/2016-IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO. 1, DELHI
ID No. 293/2011
SHRI SURENDER KUMAR,
House No.51/14, Gali No.13,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat,
New Delhi 110 005
...Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,
Region – 1, Ahimsa Bhavan,
Shankar Road, New Rajender Nagar,
New Delhi
...Managements
AWARD
Brief facts giving rise to the present claim under
Section 2A read with Section 2A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) are that the claimant
Shri Surender Kumar joined State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
as Clerk in 1980 and was an active member of the State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Employees Union, Delhi. Lastly,
he was Vice President of the above union when he was
discharged from service in an illegal manner on 07.05.2011
and at that time, he was posted at Paschim Vihar branch of
New Delhi. The claimant was issued a show cause notice
dated 17.11.2009(Annexure W2) with the following
allegations:
(i)
You facilitated M/s Mohit Trading Co.,
M/s Surana Brothers, M/s S.N. Enterprises and
M/s Nanglia Traders to open Current Accounts
in the branch and to route heavy and suspicious
transactions in their newly opened accounts.
(ii)
You took the payment of both the cheques of
Rs.9850.00 and Rs.9800.00 on 20.05.2009 from Shri
Madan Pal Manocha (SWO) in the deceased
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
223
constituents’ accounts M/s. Shakti Enterprises
and M/s. Krishna Traders respectively though
cheque No.260309, 260310 issued in the account
of M/s. J.K. Kitchen were surrendered by them at
the time of closure of account on 16.06.2008.
iii)
The proprietor in both the accounts M/s. Shakti
Enterprises and M/s. Krishna Trader, viz. Shri S.C.
Gulati had already expired on 22.03.2009. Thus, in
connivance with Shri Madan Pal Manocha, you
perpetrated fraud in the account of the deceased
constituents of the bank.
2. Claimant replied to the above notice and denied
the allegations made vide letter dated 05.12.2009. Thereafter,
claimant was placed under suspension on 14.12.2009 and
charge sheet was issued against the workman on 18.02.2010
vide Annexure W4. It is also averred in the statement of
claim that the claimant made a request to the bank on
12.04.2010 that he was not supplied with the documents
proposed to be relied by the management in respect of
charges leveled against him, as is evidence from Annexure
W5. Supply of documents was necessary so as to enable
the claimant to effectively defend himself. Initially,
preliminary enquiry was conducted against him. Thereafter
regular charge sheet Ex.WW1/1 was served upon him.
Since the reply submitted by the claimant was found to be
not satisfactory, as such Shri Rameshwar Dayal was
appointed as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was conducted
against the claimant and report dated 10.02.2011 was
submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and copy of the
same was supplied to the claimant. It is clear from perusal
of the report that Articles 2 and 3 were held to be not
proved by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, show cause
notice dated 18.04.2011 was also served upon the claimant
to present facts before the Disciplinary Authority and reply
dated 18.04.2011 and reply 18.04.2011 was also filed by the
claimant. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with
the findings of the Enquiry Officer qua article of charges 2
and 3 and held that these charges also stand proved against
the claimant herein as a result of which, he was discharged
from service vide order dated 07.05.2011. Thereafter, the
claimant herein preferred an appeal against the order dated
07.05.2011 in terms of Bipartite Settlement but the same
was also rejected on 01.07.2011 by the Appellate Authority.
It was thereafter the workman raised an industrial dispute
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), New
Delhi in terms of provisions of the Act, but no settlement
could be arrived due to anti-workman stand of the
management. Finally the present claim was filed before this
Tribunal by the workman as a period of 45 days had expired
after raising the industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer and no decision was given within the stipulated
period.
3. Management denied all the material averments
contained in the statement of claim and took preliminary
objections that the misconduct contained in charge sheet
dated 18.02.2010 stood proved in the departmental enquiry
held against the claimant, which is in consonance with
principles of natural justice. Commensurating with the
gravity of charges, the workman was imposed punishment
of ‘discharge from service with superannuation benefits’.
Punishment is legal, justified and proportionate to the
misconduct committed by the claimant. Secondly, the
workman has impugned the departmental enquiry solely
on the premise that documents were not supplied to him
whereas the workman had duly participated in the above
enquiry and proceedings dated 12.04.2010 shows his
admission to receipt of documents and list of witnesses.
Management is a financial institution constituted under
the State Bank of India Act, 1959 and its employees cannot
be allowed to peril and gnaw the very existence of the
institution by committing grave misconducts. Since the
Disciplinary Authority held the charges to be proved, as
such, court is not required to sit as an Appellate Court over
the same. On merits, the management has admitted the
factum of employment of the claimant since 1980 and
admitted para 1 to 3 of the statement of claim. However,
bank denied allegations regarding non-supply of
documents by the Enquiry Officer to the claimant. It is
alleged that the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with
the findings of the Enquiry Officer and independently
perused the evidence on record in the domestic enquiry.
Opportunity was given to the claimant herein to represent
against the tentative findings and representation was filed
by he workman, which is 12.03.2011. It was thereafter that
the disciplinary authority after considering the entire record
and evidence on record, issued show-cause notice to the
workman proposing punishment of discharge from bank
service with superannuation benefits.
4. Against this factual background, my learned
predecessor on the basis of the above pleadings, framed
the following issues vide order dated 29.09.2011:
(i) Whether the enquiry conducted by the bank was
just, fair and proper?
(ii) Whether punishment awarded was proportionate
to the misconduct of the claimant?
(iii) As in terms of reference
(iv) Relief
5. Issue No.(i) was treated as preliminary issue as it
pertained to domestic enquiry conducted by the
management and thereafter parties were called to adduce
evidence on the above issue. Management, in support its
case, examined Shri M.L. Makkar, Manager as MW1 and
Shri S.K. Puri, as MW2, and tendered their affidavits as
Ex.MW1/A and Ex.MW2/A respectively and the workman
examined himself as WW1 and tendered his affidavit as
Ex.WW1/A. Workman has also adduced documentary
evidence pertaining to the domestic enquiry held by the
management.
224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. My learned predecessor, after hearing the parties
and considering material on record insofar as findings on
the preliminary issue is concerned, vide order dated
27.0t.2012 held as under:
“17. In his report dated 10.02.2011, Enquiry Officer
found that charge Nos. 2 and 3 were not established
against the claimant. The Disciplinary Authority
differed with the Enquiry Officer and recorded
findings to the effect that those charges also stand
established. Findings, so recorded by the
Disciplinary Authority, were conveyed to the
claimant, who was given an opportunity to make a
representation against them. It is settled proposition
of lay that Disciplinary Authority may differ with the
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. When the
Disciplinary Authority differs from the findings of
the Enquiry Officer, he is duty bound to intimate his
attitude to the delinquent employee and to offer him
opportunity to make a representation. Law to this
effect was laid by the Apex Court in Narain Mishra
(1969 SLR 657). Here in the case, the Disciplinary
Authority differed with the findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer, communicated his findings to the
claimant and gave him an opportunity to offer
explanation against those findings. These facts make
it clear that the Disciplinary Authority had not at all
violated principles of natural justice. No prejudice
was caused to the claimant when the Disciplinary
Authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry
Officer.
7. In para 22, my learned predecessor held as under:
22.The Enquiry Officer recorded findings in favour
of the claimant in respect of imputation Nos. 2 and 3.
He concluded that those charges are not proved
against the claimant. However, the Disciplinary
Authority had not agreed with the Enquiry Officer.
It is settled proposition of law that the Disciplinary
Authority may differ with the findings arrived at by
the Enquiry Officer. When the Disciplinary Authority
differs with the Enquiry Officer, he is under an
obligation to record his provisional conclusion and
give show-cause notice of the proposed punishment
to the employee concerned. Here, in the case, the
Disciplinary Authority recorded his provisional
conclusions on imputation Nos. 2 and 3, which
conclusion are extracted thus:
Imputation No.2
1. The Investigation Report of Shri Rakesh Gupta in
the matter clearly mentioned that you took the payment of
both the cheques of Rs.9850.00 and Rs.9800.00 on 20.05.2009
from Shri Madan Pal Manocha(SWO) in the deceased
constituents’ accounts M/s. Shakti Enterprises and M/s.
Krishna Traders respectively though cheque No.260309,
260310 issued in the account of M/s. J.K. Kitchen were
surrendered by them at the time of closure of account on
16.06.2008.
2. Your name is also appearing in the cashier payment
scroll for taking the payment of both the cheques 260309
and 260310.
3. Our Lawrence Road, Delhi branch has also
advised that the cheque book to which both the cheques
No.260309 and 260310 pertains was found from your drawer.
There are sufficient circumstantial evidences, hence
the Imputation No.2 Stands Fully Proved.
Imputation No.3
1. the Investigation Report of Shri Rakesh Gupta in
the matter clearly mention that the proprietor in both the
accounts M/s. Shakti Enterprises and M/s Krishna Trader,
viz. Shri S.C. Gulati had already expired on 22.03.2009. Thus,
in connivance with Shri Madan Pal Manocha, you
perpetrated fraud in the account of the deceased
constituents of the bank.
2. Your name is also appearing in the cashier payment
scroll for taking the payment of both the cheques 260309
and 260310.
3. Our Lawrence Road, Delhi branch has also
advised that the cheque book to which both the cheques
No. 260309 and 260310 pertains was found from your drawer,
hence Imputation No.3 Stands fully proved
There are sufficient circumstantial evidences, hence
the Imputation No.2 stands Fully Proved.
8. After considering the entire evidence on
preliminary issue, it was held that since the Disciplinary
Authority has taken into consideration extraneous material
in recording his provisional conclusion regarding
Imputation Nos. 2 and 3, which culminated into passing of
the final order, as such, it was held that the enquiry was not
fair. Findings recorded Imputation Nos.1, 2 and 3 were
held to be stuck in cobweb of illegality. When major portion
of the report is found to be ultra vires., in that situation the
bank loses the preliminary issue. Resultantly, it was
concluded that the enquiry conducted by the bank is
neither fair nor just nor legal. In view of this, preliminary
issue was answered in favour of the claimant and against
the bank.
9. Since in the written statement, Bank pleaded that
in case enquiry is set aside, in that eventuality opportunity
is given to the management to prove the charges on merit
against the claimant herein. Thereafter, opportunity was
afforded to both the parties to adduce evidence in respect
of the above charges. Management, in support of its case,
examined Shri Rakesh Gupta, Chief Manager as MW3 and
Shri Amit Kumar as MW4. However, Shri Surender Kumar
has not stepped into the witness box in rebuttal to the
above evidence.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
225
10.Before I proceed to consider evidence adduced
by the management on merits, it is necessary to bear in
mind legal position pertaining to the value of domestic
enquiry when preliminary issue has been decided against
management. In the case of Karnataka Road Transport vs.
Laxmi (2001) Lab.I.C 1777, Constitution Bench of Supreme
Court considered entire spectrum of law on the subject
and held that it was not open to the management to rely
upon the domestic enquiry proceedings already held by
the Enquiry Officer, including evidence recorded by him. It
was also held that the issue relating to the domestic enquiry
conducted by the management should always be tried as
preliminary issue and the Tribunal is required to render
findings on that issue first after ascertaining whether
principles of natural justice have been followed or enquiry
is otherwise unfair or stands vitiated on account of other
legal reasons. Finally, if the domestic enquiry is found to
be unfair or against principles of natural justice, evidence
collected in such an enquiry cannot be taken into
consideration by the Court and Tribunal has to decide the
question of misconduct afresh after affording opportunity
to both parties. The Hon’ble Apex Court clarified that record
pertaining to domestic enquiry would not constitute
‘material on record’ within the meaning of Section 11A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I am in full agreement
with the contention of the management that this Tribunal
is not bound by strict principles of criminal law i.e. ‘proof
beyond reasonable doubt’. It is well settled that in a
domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of
evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply.
All materials which are logically probative for a prudent
mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay
evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility.
It is true that departmental authorities and administrative
tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and
should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not
relevant under the Indian Evidence Act.
11.In the case in hand, Ms.Kitu Bajaj, urged that
management only harps on charge No,4 and the
management is only pressing charge No.4 pertaining to
misconduct of the workman herein. At this stage, it is
proper to mention the Article of Charges which were framed
against the workman herein and the same are as under:
1. You facilitated M/s. Mohit Trading Co., M/s.
Surana Brothers, M/s S.N. Enterprises and M/s. Nangia
Traders to open Current Accounts in the branch and to
route heavy and suspicious transactions in their newly
opened accounts.
2. You took the payment of Rs.9850.00 and
Rs.9800.00 on 20.05.2009 from Shri Madan Pal
Manocha(SWO) in the deceased constituents’ accounts
M/s. Shakti Enterprises and M/s. Krishna Traders
respectively though cheque No.260309, 260310 issued in
the account of M/s. J.K. Kitchen were surrendered by them
at the time of closure of account on 16.06.2008.
3. The proprietor in both the accounts M/s. Shakti
Enterprises and M/s. Krishna Trader, viz. Shri S.C. Gulati
had already expired on 22.03.2009. Thus, in connivance
with Shri Madan Pal Manocha, you perpetrated fraud in
the account of the deceased constituents of the bank.
4. Following unauthorized and fraudulent
transactions were put through under your ID:
(a)On 28.01.2009, the entry of IBIT dated 19.01.2009
for Rs.12.00 lac was adjusted with debit to IBR A/c
98611103551 on the strength of an advice dated
23.01.2009 received from Rohini, Delhi, Code 10841
which was meant for adjusting cash remittance entry
dated 23.01.2009 of IBIT.
(b) On 02.03.2009, a cheque for Rs.15.10 lac was
lodged in clearing value dated 04.03.2009 in the
account of M/s. Oracle Infotech Pvt. Ltd. the cheque
was returned unpaid but the cheque was debited to
the account on 16.03.2009, i.e. after gap of 12 days.
The debit was made in the account by you against
the fraudulent credit of Rs.15.00 lac done by you
from proceed of IBR advice dated 04.03.2009
representing cash remittance responding advice of
Branch, Delhi, Krishana Nagar, Code 10015 detailed
in para (c).
(c)On 16.03.2009, you posted following fraudulent
transactions in the system to provide undue financial
gain to M/s. Oracle Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
Debited IBR Account 98611103551 Rs.15.00 lac
(IBR advice dated 04.03.2009 Branch Code 10015
Credited M/s. Oracle Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Rs.15.00 lac
(A/c 61039670841
12.In order to establish allegations contained in
Charge No.4, It is necessary to refer to statement of
Shri S.K. Puri MW2 who was Manager in Lawrence Road
branch of the Bank from August 2009 till May 2010. After
his examination on November 20, 2012, his cross-
examination was deferred. On 31.12.2012, this witness
requested the Tribunal for deferring his cross-examination
so as to check the record as to whether the workman
herein ever dealt with the seat relating to current accounts
of customers. On next date of hearing, i.e. 22.01.2013, Shri
S.K. Puri, MW2 deposed that no office order came to his
knowledge which may show that workman ever dealt with
seat relating to current accounts of customers. To a court
question, i.e. ’Please go through the documents Ex.MW2/
1 to Ex.MW2/6 whether any transaction in respect of these
documents was ever handled by the workman herein’. He
answered ‘Some time may be given to me to check the
record and answer the above proposition’. Thereafter, this
witness never appeared before the Tribunal to answer the
query of the Tribunal. Resultantly, the Tribunal is bound
to draw adverse inference against the bank, particularly
when no explanation whatsoever has been given by the
Bank for non-appearance of Shri S.K. Puri. Shri Rakesh
226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Gupta, MW3 has stated that claimant was not handling
current accounts officially. This witness also admitted that
punishment given to Shri Manocha who was charged with
same misconduct was different, again shows partisan and
discriminatory attitude of Bank towards the workman
herein. Further, Shri V.K.Virmani, vide Ex.MW1/W2 had
stated that claimant had no role whatsoever in transaction
mentioned in charge No.4. It is also necessary to mention
that when claimant, WW1 after finding on preliminary issue,
he tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.WW1/B. There is
no cross-examination specially by the bank on any specific
point, particularly charge No.4. It is a matter of common
practice that when payment of cheque is made, the
signature of the person receiving the payment is taken on
reverse of the cheque. It is also noteworthy that cheques
Ex.MW1/W6 and Ex.W1/W7 nowhere bears signatures of
the workman herein as a token of the fact that the claimant
has received payment of the above two cheques. Though
cashier has recorded name of the claimant to payment scroll
Ex.MW1/52 and Ex.MW1/W3 may suggest that claimant
has received the payment. But the workman herein was
neither working on this seat nor handling current accounts
at the relevant time. There is no practice in the bank to
record the name of receipt of amount on the payment scroll.
13.It is also appropriate to refer to the statement of
MW3, Shri Rakesh Gupta. The Chief Manager has
specifically tendered in evidence, report of the Investigating
Official, Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Ex.MW2/3. As discussed
above, reports of the above witnesses cannot be taken
into consideration so as to prove charges against the
workman inasmuch as this witness after holding of the
preliminary issue to be unfair and against principles of
natural justice, has not entered into the witness box. It is
not out of place to mention here that even the Enquiry
Officer has held Charges Nos. 2 and 3 were not proved
against the workman herein.
14.Shri Rakesh Gupta has admitted in his cross-
examination that the workman herein, Shri Surender Kumar
was not handling Current Accounts official and while filling
account opening form of the aforesaid current account,
the claimant facilitated routing of heavy amounts through
the said accounts. However, in his affidavit, he has not
stated that the claimant had routed heavy accounts through
the above accounts and in report MW1/W5, branch made
payment of cheque No.260310 dated 20.03.2009 in favour
of Shri Ankit Kumar drawn by M/s. Krishna Traders for
Rs.9800.00 on 20.05.2009. He has further admitted whenever
payment is received by a person, his signature is obtained
on reverse of the negotiable instrument . Cheques, Ex.MW1/
W6 and Ex.MW1/W7 nowhere bears signatures of the
claimant in token of the fact that he has received payment
of the aforesaid cheque. This also goes to show that the
claimant cannot be primarily made responsible for the
wrongful withdrawal of the amount, if any, from the bank
accounts. It was the cashier in fact who has recorded
name of the workman herein on the payment scroll,
Ex.MW1/W52 and Ex.MW1/53 to indicate payment of the
four cheques were received by the claimant. In such a
situation, examination of the cashier was essential so as to
unfold the truth. Moreover, there was no practice in the
bank to record name of the recipient of an amount of a
cheque on the payment scroll. If this practice was being
followed by the bank, in that eventuality, signatures on the
back of the cheque would be suggestive of the fact as to
who received the payment. This witness also deposed
that Shri Madan Lal Manocha was proceeded
departmentally and was awarded punishment of stoppage
of three annual increments with cumulative effect. Since
Shri Manocha, admittedly was a very senior official and it
is clear that for the unlawful act, he was awarded harsh
punishment and Manocha has tried to pass on the buck
on Shri Surender, the workman herein, on the grounds that
his name has been mentioned on the scroll discussed
above. Why different punishment has been awarded to
the workman herein was not clearly explained by the
management. Therefore, mere allegation on Manocha that
he had paid the amount to the workman herein cannot be
taken as a gospel truth.
15.Statement of Shri Amit Kumar, MW4, is also not
of much help so as to prove charges against the workman
herein. He has simply deposed in para 2 of the affidavit
regarding fraudulent transactions which was put by the
workman herein through his ID. However, he has clarified
that he was not posted at Lawrence Road branch of the
management during the period to which the charges relate
and has no personal knowledge of the present enquiry. He
had no knowledge regarding filing of any case in respect
of the above incident. He has clarified that he has nothing
to say about the count of charge Nos. 2 and 3. He has
further clarified in his subsequent cross-examination that
Shri Virmani, Deputy Manager has cleared the above
cheque under consideration. Thus, it is clear that the
workman herein cannot be solely blamed and other senior
officials have tried to pass on the buck on the junior official
so as to save their skin. Further, workman herein in fact
has no direct role whatsoever in the transactions
mentioned in charge No.4, as was admitted by Shri Virmani
in Ex. MW1/W2.
16.I have gone through the judgments relied by the
management, i.e. State of Haryana Vs. Rattan Singh (AIR
1977 SC 1512. It was a case of a conductor whose duty
was to collect fare from the passengers and issue tickets.
Since the conductor was not issuing tickets and was caught
by the flying squad resulting in enquiry. After domestic
enquiry his services were terminated. The conductor filed
a suit and challenged order of termination to be nullity and
Trial Court passed judgement in favour of the conductor,
which was affirmed in appeal. High Court dismissed the
Second appeal in limine and thereafter matter was taken to
the Apex Court.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
227
17. Careful appraisal of the judgement shows that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that for an inquiry,
strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act may not apply. All material which are logically
probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no
dispute with this proposition of law but how it helps the
case of the management could not be strictly answered by
the management.
18.Shri Inderjit Singh, authorized representative
appearing on behalf of the workman had placed reliance in
the case of Shri Rajender Yadav Vs. State of MP [2013 (137)
FLR 239] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed
that role of co-delinquent who had demanded and received
the money more serious that the other delinquent who has
played a passive role but was awarded serious punishment
of dismissal. Doctrine of equality applies to all who are
equally placed, even among persons who are found guilty.
In another case, K. Aggarwal Vs. the Factory Manager,
Gwalior [2001 (91) FLR 380], Hon’ble High Court has
highlighted that it must be pleaded and proved by the
management that (i) the workman was holding a position
of trust and confidence, (ii) by abusing such position, he
commits acts which results in forfeiting of the same and
(iii) to continue him in service would be embarrassing and
inconvenient to the employer. All these three aspects must
be present to refuse reinstatement on ground of loss of
confidence. There is neither any doubt nor any dispute
with the above proposition of law inasmuch as position of
bank official is very pivotal who deals with public money
and stands in fiduciary relations with the management as
well as the customers whose accounts such official is
dealing.
19.However, in the case in hand management has
not proved the direct role of the workman herein in
commission of fraud and simply because there is an entry
on the scroll that he has received money cannot absolve
the management of its requirement to prove the charges
against the charged employee. Moreover, these documents
have already been considered by the Tribunal while
rendering findings on the preliminary issue. It was only
thereafter that the Tribunal has held the finding of the
Enquiry Officer to be unfair and against principles of natural
justice.
20.It is held that the management has failed to prove
the charges against workman herein, as required under the
law.
Relief
Net result of the discussion is that the management
has failed to prove the charges of misconduct against the
workman herein. Resultantly, order dated 07.05.2011 of
‘Discharge from the Bank’s service with superannuation
benefits’ Ex.WW1/1 is, hereby, set aside and it is held that
the workman herein, Shri Surender Kumar is ordered to be
reinstated with back wages alongwith all consequential
benefits. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award
be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under
Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 112-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14 ) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33@2007) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&41012@10@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2016
S.O. 112.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Northern Railway and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
11/01/2016.
[No. L-41012/10/2006-IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. No. 33/2007
Sh. Ali Hasan , S/o Sh. Rashid,
R/o Village, Teli Wala Guzaar Patil
Post Dandera Roorkee,
Distt, Haridwar,
Haridwar
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Senior DEN(II),
O/o Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway Railway,
Near Delhi Rly. Station,
New Delhi
2.
The Assistant Engineer,
Northern Railway,
Meerut Cantt.
Meerut (U.P.)
...Management
228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No. L-41012/10/2006-IR(B-I) dated
27.07.2007 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of Northern
Railway in terminating services by imposing the
penalty of removing from service w.e.f 12.07.2000, of
Sh. Ali Hasan S/o Sh. Rashid, Gangman (in Gang No.
75, TPRI, Northern Railway, New Delhi) on the alleged
charges of misconduct leveled against him vide
chargesheet dated 27.04.2000 , is legal, fair and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned
is entitled?
On 03.08.2007 reference was received in this Tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 33/2007 and claimant union
was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim
statement on 31.12.2007. Wherein he prayed as follows:-
It is prayed to the Hon’ble Tribunal that it may
pleased to pass Award holding that the order of disciplinary
and appellate authorities are illegal and invalid, in view of
the submissions made hereinabove. It may further be held
that the workman is entitled to relief of reinstatement with
back wages and other consequential benefits. The reference
be answered accordingly.
Against claim statement management filed written
statement on 29.01.2008. Through which management
prayed as follows:-
That the prayer clause is also wrong, false, incorrect
and hence denied. That it is denied that workman is entitled
to any award from this Hon’ble Tribunal in his favour thus
declaring the order of disciplinary and appellate authorities
as illegal and invalid in view of the submissions made herein
above. That it is also further wrong and hence denied that
the workman is entitled to relief of reinstatement with back
wages and other consequential benefits.
That on the contrary in view of the true submissions
maybe herein above, the present statement of claim which
is wrong, false, incorrect, ill motivated with not even an
iota of truth in it deserves to be declined completely for
want of merits.
Claimant on 30.04.2008 filed Rejoinder. Wherein he
prayer as follows:-
It is prayed to the Hon’ble Tribunal to pass Award as
prayed in the prayer clause of the claim statement.
My Ld predecessor on 13.05.2013 framed following
issues:-
1.
Whether enquiry conducted by the management
is just, fair and proper?
2.
Whether punishment of removal from service
commensurate to the misconduct of the claimant?
3.
As in terms of reference.
Workman filed affidavit on 7.11.2013 and examined
himself as WW1 and he was also cross-examined on
18.02.2014. His statement as follows:-
I tender in evidence my affidavit Ex.WW1/A which
bears my thump impression at point ‘A’ and ‘B’ I rely upon
the document Ex.-1 and Ex. WW-2 and photocopies marked.
Ex.WW1 to WW4 and photocopies mark 1 to mark-4
XXXX:- By Mrs. Mithlesh Singh, advocate for
Northern Railway.
I cannot read and write English. I am not aware of
contents of evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A. I
had worked for 22 years with Northern Railway. During my
employment with Railway. I reside at village Teliwara and
near Roorkee station. One Mr. Jaipal, Chotey, Suraj Singh,
and Jamel were my colleagues during my employment. I
had filed the reply to the charge sheet marked I have not
brought today the copy of my reply to the document
marked-1. I have also not filed in the present matter and
neither can I bring on the next date.
I cannot tell on the document marked WW2 to where
it mentioned that I was admitted in the hospital. I do not
have any other document with regard to my illness Except
for document already marked WW2 . It is wrong to suggest
that documents mark WW2 suggest that documents mark
WW2 not state that I was admitted in the hospital. I
cannot tell the date when I was admitted to the hospital. I
am not aware of the contents of my appeal. Which is marked
IV in my evidence. I got my appeal prepared from one of
the Railway Office. However I cannot tell his name and
designation. I had furnished all the documents and
information with regard to charge sheet issued to me for
the purpose of preparation of appeal . I cannot tell when I
filed the appeal with the DRM office. The appeal was
prepared within 2 days . I had shown the letter marked -4 to
my friend who were prepared my appeal. He had told me
the contents of the same after reading it . I had also filed an
application for condonation of delay with the Railway
after the receipt of letter-4. I had not filed and neither I can
bring the copy of said application. It is wrong to suggest
that I never filed the application of condonation of delay. It
is correct that FIR No. 139/2000 u/s C-323/504/506 IPC was
registered against me and I have exhibited the same as
WW-2 in my evidence as well. It is correct that I have filed
the complaint after registration of FIR against me. My
relations with 4 persons namely Jaipal Chotey, Jakel and
Suraj Singh were cordial during my employment with
Railway. It is wrong to suggest that attacked my senior
when he caught me sitting ideal volunteered my fight was
with Chotey as he was not working properly . I was beaten
by Sh. Dinesh Kumar as I refute to bribe him. I never filed
any written complaint against Sh. Dinesh kumar to any of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
229
the Senior Officer. Volunteers:- I have informed to seniors
orally. Sh. Dinesh Kumar asked me for bribe privately. It is
wrong to suggest that Sh. Dinesh Kumar never asked me
for any bribe. It is wrong to suggest that I am making false
story subsequently as Dinesh Kumar was seriously injured
and I had six stitches in his head. I was not aware of the
appointment of Enquiry officer in 27.04.2000. Again said I
had the knowledge of the same after being confronted of
para -4 of my affidavit. I am not aware whether any letters
were sent by the Railway to me. I did not attend the office
after the fight till I was terminated. Volunteered I was
terminated. Volunteered I was in the hospital from the same
day. I was taken to hospital one gangman namely Raje Ram
on the date of incident. The four witnesses deposed against
me at the instant of Sh. Dinesh Kumar. It is wrong to suggest
that proper Enquiry was conducted against me but I avoided
the same as I had no merits in my favour. It is wrong to
suggest that I have given the false stands in my appeal to
the DRM office. It is wrong to suggest the order passed by
the Railways were communicated to me regularly. It is wrong
to suggest that I have filed application with Railway to
condonation of delay of my appeal. It is wrong to suggest
that I was held guilty by Railways for misconduct and
violence after giving due opportunity to me as per law. It is
wrong to suggest that I have deposed false and have filed
the false Industrial Disputes before this Court.
Then workman closed his evidence. So, 16.4.2014
was fixed for management evidence.
On 16.4.2014 affidavit of MW1 Sh. Chhota was filed.
Which was tendered on 16.9.2014. His examination–in-chief
is as follows:-
I tender in evidence of my affidavit Ex. MW1/A which
bears my signature at point ‘A’ and ‘B’ . Copy of entire
official record documents Exh. MW1/1(colly) (OSR)
containing 42 pages.
I tendering my authorization letter dts. 28.05.2014 as
Ex. MW1/B.
Management witness was cross-examined on
11.3.2015 and his statement of cross-examination is as
follows:-
I am unable to read and write in English. Generally I
affixed L.T.I but rarely use to sign.
I am unaware of the fact my affidavit in evidence
contains what so ever facts.
I know Ali Hasan since about 17-18 years.
In between aforesaid period I and Ali Hasan were
simultaneously.
It is correct that no quarrel except the quarrel
mentioned in written statement took place between Ali
Hasan and any other officer of any management.
Ali Hasan was never punished prior to the
punishment of the instant case.
Sh. Dinesh Kumar was looking after the work of my
gang for the last about 7-8 years.
It is incorrect to suggest that aforesaid Dinesh Kumar
reduces the attendance of workman to the extent of 50%
(Halfdays of actual presence).
Vol: Stated he reduces the attendance to the extent
of 50% on that day.
On the date of appearance there was some lacking in
my performance of work. Ali Hasan inflected below through
panji to Dinesh Kumar.
Ali Hasan was working nearby to me.
I do not know the name of inquiry officer who
conducted inquiry again Ali Hasan.
Inquiry officer took my statement during inquiry.
I do not know whether I stated before him that Ali
Hasan was working at a distance from me and whether any
exchange of words took place between Ali Hasan and
Dinesh Kumar.
I stated before inquiry officer that Ali Hasan infected
below through Panji. I cannot ascend any reason if he
mentions in my statement that I do not know through which
weapon Ali Hasan inflected below to Dinesh Kumar.
It is correct that Sh. Dinesh Kumar marked my
attendance half day instead of one day after checking my
work.
I stated before the inquiry officer that Sh. Dinesh Kr.
also checked the work of Ali Hasan and other workman I
also stated to inquiry officer that I saw Ali Hassan and Sh.
Dinessh Kr. were fighting. At that time Ali Hasan was armed
with panji & Sh. Dinesh Kumar, having sheet.
Voluntary stated sheet means attendance sheet.
It is incorrect to suggest that no mar took place
between Ali Hasan & Dinesh Kr. It is also incorrect to
suggest that Dinesh Kr. tried to extort money from Ali Hasan
to which Ali Hasan has not agreed.
It is also incorrect to suggest that due to which Ali
Hasan has falsely implicated .
It is also in correct to suggest that Dinesh Kr. himself
slipped over line & received injuries.
It is also incorrect to suggest that case against Ali
Hasan has been fabricated.
It is also incorrect to suggest that I am deposing
falsely.
Then management closed its evidence. So, 5.5.2015
was fixed for arguments.
230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management on 7.7.2015 filed written arguments.
Wherein it mentioned as follows:-
1.That the present petition is liable to be dismissed
as the same is filed without any cause of action and is also
without any merits and truth in it and his completely based
upon concocted stories concealed facts.
2.That the workman besides concealing many facts
in his petition did not disclose that he was held guilty of
assault on his senior who caught the workman not doing
his job properly and on being asked to do so he was brutally
assaulted by the workman. That there are the statement of
witnesses of the incidence filed by the respondent, besides
FIR against the workman and complete detailed factum
and process report. That further the admissions and
revulsions of the workman during his cross examination
expose his false and wrongful claim before this Hon’ble
Court. That the present claim is liable to be dismissed on
this score alone.
3.That the workman also misleads this Hon’ble
Tribunal by concealing that he had full knowledge of inquiry
against him and had full knowledge of decision against
him yet he did not file any appeal in time nor did he join the
inquiry. That the said factum were exposed before this
Hon’ble Court by virtue of admission of fact by the
workman in his cross.
4. That as per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence
Act, the onus /burden to prove his case was upon the
workman himself, which he miserably failed to discharge.
That the workman failed to prove even an iota of his case
before this Hon’ble Tribunal. That on the contrary the
workman admitted various true and real facts which goes
against workman himself and further disqualify the
workman’s case in the litmus test of evidence and merits
both.
5.The workman on the contrary to his claim admitted
in his cross-examination that he got the enquiry notice but
it was he who did not contest it. That this clearly shows
that an enquiry was conducted and the workman was well
aware of it, yet he preferred not to appear or contest the
same. That the present claim is liable to be dismissed on
this score alone.
6. The workman on the contrary to his claim admitted
in his cross-examination that he had the information and
copy of the orders passed against him. That this clearly
shows that the workman was well aware of the orders passed
against him, yet he preferred not to appeal or contest the
same within time. That there is no infirmity in the orders of
the Railways and hence the present claim petition is liable
to be dismissed on this score alone.
7.That further the notices were also sent by registered
post and by pasting as well besides by hand messenger to
the workman, but yet he ignored the same and did not
prefer to contest or place his stand (if any). That the proper
inquiry was conducted, statement of witnesses was also
recorded, wherein after completion of entire process a
speaking order were passed against the workman and he
was communicated with the same and the said orders were
admittedly well in his knowledge. That thus there is no
infirmity in the orders of the railways and hence the present
claim petition /appeal is liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs on this score alone.
8.That the respondent Northern Railway has exhibited
the inquiry report in their evidence which is Ex. RW1/
1(colly) and which is the complete proof of neutrality and
fair trial on part of the railways and the same is unchallenged
in cross-examination by the workman as well. That nothing
unlawful has been proved out of it by the workman to
show that anything was contrary to the law and his rights
which was done by the respondent railway. That thus again
the workman failed to show and prove that there was any
infirmity/illegality in the orders of the respondent and hence
the present claim petition is liable to be dismissed on this
score alone.
9.That Ex. RW1/1 shows of a detailed inquiry,
statement of witnesses taken, FIR against workman which
the workman has admitted in his cross–examination as well
as his rejoinder as well.
10.That as regards the appeal, the workman has
admitted in his cross-examination that he filed appeal after
45 days and he did not file any application for condonation
of delay as well as while filing the appeal. That it is settled
principle that the appellate authority cannot ignore/
overlook the statutory procedure and process of law and
thus it cannot suo moto condone the delay in filing the
appeal in contravention of the law. That the delay beyond
limitation period to file appeal of appeal can only be
condoned if it is prayed for by virtue of any application to
do so and after evaluating the fairness and merits of the
reasons given in such application to justify the delay
thereof. That even the Court of Law do not admit time
barred appeal unless it is accompanied by an application
for condonation of delay in filing and the same is being
allowed by the Hon’ble Court on merits.
11.That it is apparently clear beyond doubt that a
proper enquiry and fair opportunity of trial was given to
workman but the workman deliberately did not opt to
content the same and also subsequently failed to file an
appeal within the stipulated time. That while during his
cross-examination the workman admitted many true facts
which he did not disclose in his present claim and the said
revulsions shatter the false claim of the petitioner like a
house of cards and the present claim is liable to be
dismissed on this score alone.
12.That the onus to prove his allegations is upon the
workman as per the Indian Evidence Act, while the
testimony of the workman and his cross-examination shatter
his own false claim and expose him to the jury. That it is a
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
231
settled those who does not come with clean hands should
be shown the door. That by mere false allegations based
upon concocted stories and by hiding true facts from this
Hon’ble court, the workman cannot expect nay favorable
orders from this Hon’ble Court. That the on the contrary
the workman was morally and legally bound to place true
and fair fats before this Hon’ble Court rather than the
concocted stories put by him.
That the workman as miserably failed to prove his
false claim in accordance with the law as well as on merits
and thus the present claim petition is liable to be dismissed
with costs by this Hon’ble Court.
Workman filed written arguments. Wherein he
mentioned as follows:-
1.That the petitioner/workmen joined the services of
the Northern Railway as Gang man in the year 1978 and
later on he was made a permanent . At the time of alleged
occurrence the workman was posted at Tappri Railway
Station as Gangman. The workman carried out his duties
with utmost sincerity and diligence to the entire satisfaction
of his seniors. It is alleged that the workman abused his
senior and caused bodily harm to him on 20.04.2000. The
allegations are false and made with oblique motive at the
instance of his senior Denesh Kumar who abused and hit
the workman as the workman did not fulfill the demand of
Denesh Kumar to pay monthly money. On the refusal of
workman Denesh Kumar used to mark the workman absent
for half day and threatened for dismissal from service. On
20.04.2000 Denesh Kumar abused the workman and beat
him with his foot and kicks. Consequently the workman
suffered shock and injuries which developed chest point
and hypertension he was treated at S.B.D. Hospital
Saharanpur and was advised bed rest.
The workman lodged a criminal case no. 1161/2000
u/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. against Denesh Kumar about the
occurrence and Denesh Kumar also lodged a case F.I.R.
No. 137/2000 u/s /323/504/506 I.P.C about the same
occurrence. Both the cases are pending trial in the court of
A.C.J.M. Saharanpur. Copies of the cases are Ex.- WW-1
AND WW-2. Up to now Denesh Kumar did not appear in
the court and record his evidence, cases are still pending
and decision is awaited. The management by his Ex-parte
enquiry removed the workman from service.
2.The workman examined WW-1 Ali Hassan who
supported the complainant Ex-WW-1A and management
examined Chotta MW-1 who submitted copy of the Enquiry
Report Ex. RW/1 containing 42 pages.
3.The Enquiry conducted by the management is Ex-
parte and Principle of Natural Justice was not followed.
The workman was ill and getting treatment from Govt. S.B.
D. Hospital Saharanpur. The management provided him no
opportunity to represent himself and make representation.
There is nothing on record to show that any information
about the Enquiry was sent to the workman and it was
served on him by post or physically or returned undelivered
or refusal to take it, no statement of any person was
recorded during Enquiry . The procedure followed herein
was in violation of Natural Justice.
4.The enquiry officer during enquiry did not examine
complainant Denesh Kumar and there is no copy of the
alleged FIR and Medical Report of Denesh Kumar in Ex.-
RW/1 (containing 42 Pages ) and no statement of the witness
who had taken Denesh Kumar to Hospital from the spot. It
shows that the Enquiry was not conducted properly.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar case of Hardwari Lal
Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and others AIR 2000 Supreme
Court 277 has held that the Enquiry was not proper and the
Dismissal order was set aside with the direction that the
delinquent be reinstated. Photocopy of the judgment is
attached herewith.
5.In Ex.-RW/1 (Containing 42 pages) there is no
enquiry report prepared by the enquiry officer containing
reasons for reaching on the conclusion that the charge is
proved. There is no evidence that copy of the Enquiry
Report was supplied to the workman. The enquiry was not
conducted fairly.
6.The workman was not given any Notice to show
cause against the punishment of Dismissal from service,
and the workman was removed from service.
Sir, the workman has rendered about 23 years of
service and has undisputable past conduct of service
record, the authorities have not taken it in to consideration
while imposing the punishment for misconduct, and the
workman is out of job from the last 15 years. In view of the
Ex-parte, unfair and improper enquiry it is prayed in the
prayer clause of the claim statement.
In the light of pleadings of evidence of parties I
perused the written arguments filed by parties.
Perusal of order dated 13.5.2013 makes it crystal clear
date my Ld. Predecessor framed following issues:-
1. Whether enquiry conducted by the management
is just, fair and proper?
2. Whether punishment of removal from service
commensurate to the misconduct of the claimant?
3. As in terms of reference.
Out of which issue no. 1 treated as preliminary issue
and parties were accorded opportunities to adduce their
evidence.
Workman in his evidence produced himself as WW1.
Through, which he tried to prove the inquiry conducted
against him by management is not just, fair and proper as
well as punishment of removal from service is not in
proportion to his alleged misconduct on this count he
claimed for reinstatement alongwith back wages.
In written arguments filed on behalf of workman his
Ld. A/R placed reliance on principle laid down in case of
232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 277.
While on the other hand management in his turn produced
MW1 Sh. Chhota, who tendered his affidavit on 16.09.2014
and he was cross-examined on 11.3.2015 by Ld. A/R for
workman.
Although, case was fixed for disposal of preliminary
issue but Ld. A/R’s for the parties with the consent of the
parties pressed all the issue for their disposal.
My issue wise finding is as follows
Issue No. 1 issue is as follows:-
“Whether the action of the management of Northern
Railway in terminating services by imposing the penalty of
removing from service w.e.f 12.07.2000, of Sh. Ali Hasan
S/o Sh. Rashid, Gangman (in Gang No. 75, TPRI, Northern
Railway , New Delhi) on the alleged charges of misconduct
leveled against him vide chargesheet dated 27.04.2000 , is
legal, fair and justified?
Which was treated as preliminary issue. Perusal of
aforesaid issue makes it crystal clear that burden to prove
this issue lies on management. Management to prove this
issue produce inquiry report etc. and examined MW1 Sh.
Chhota. Through his credible and reliable evidence
management proved issue no.1. In rebuttal workman tried
to prove that inquiry was ex-parte and no opportunity was
given to him to defend in inquiry. But cross-examine of
workman makes it crystal clear that he himself admitted
that notice was received by workman and inspite of service
he didn’t turn up in inquiry proceedings to defend himself.
So non –participation by workman in itself does render
inquiry illegal and workman cannot take benefit on his own
fault. Moreover, disciplinary authority agreed with the
opinion of inquiry officer and notice was sent to workman
of his proposed punishment. Then workman filed no reply.
So dormancy of workman cannot be rewarded. His
dormancy in itself confirms the conclusion of disciplinary
authority.
Moreover, workman filed time barred appeal without
application for condonation of delay as required under
Indian limitation act.
In these circumstances this Tribunal has no option
except to believe the evidence of management on the point
of proof of issue no. 1. Hence Issue no. 1 is liable to be
decided against workman and in favour of management.
Which is accordingly decided.
FINDING ON ISSUE NO. 2
This issue relates to punishment which appears to
be in proportion of punishment. In the instant case workman
was awarded punishment of removal on the ground of proof
misconduct as he used filthy and abusive language against
management as well as workman assaulted MW1 Sh.
Chhota who proved his assault through, his reliable and
credible evidence. So this Tribunal is unable to hold that
punishment of misconduct of workman is not in proportion
of misconduct. This issue is also liable to be decided against
workman and in favour of management. Which is
accordingly decided.
FINDING ON ISSUE NO. 3
Issue no. 3 relates to relief to workman but issue no.
1 and 2 have already been decided against workman and in
favour of management. So workman Sh. Ali Hasan entitled
to no relief.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of
considered view that present reference is liable to be
decided against workman in favour of management. Which
is accordingly decided.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-22.09.2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 113-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2013) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2016
S.O. 113.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/
29/2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12.01.2016.
[No. L-22013/1/2016- IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DIST. &
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Present :
SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-
Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 29 OF 2013
Tuesday, the 17th day of November, 2015
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
233
Between:-
A.KARUNAKAR REDDY, S/o. Yadava Reddy, Age 44 years,
C/o.Sri B.Amarender Rao, Advocate, Behind Bharath Petrol
Bunk,
Raghupathirao Nagar, Ganga Nagar,
PO: Godavarikhani-505209, Dist. Karimnagar.
— Petitioner.
A n d
1. The Superintendent of Mines,Singareni Collieries
Co.Ltd.,
GDK
No.1
Incline,
RG-I
Area,PO.Godavarikhani, Dist.Karimnagar.
2. The Chief General Manager, Singareni Collieries
Co.Ltd., Ramagundam Area-I, PO: Godavarikhani,
Dist.Karimnagar.
3. The Chairman & Managing Director, Singareni
Collieries Co.Ltd., PO. Kothagudem,
Dist.Khammam.
— Respondents.
This case coming before me for final hearing in
the presence of Sri B.Amarender Rao, Advocate for the
petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the
respondents; and having been heard and having stood
over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered
the following:-
AWARD
1. This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act
challenging the dismissal of the petitioner by the
respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents’ company
to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of
service, all other consequential attendant benefits full back
wages.
2. Petitioner was dismissed from service by
respondent No.2 vide office order dt.22-11-2001 with the
following charge.
CHARGE:-
“25(25) - Habitual late attendance or habitual absence
from duty without sufficient cause during the year 2000”.
3. Petitioner challenges his dismissal order. The
petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler against the
absenteeism vacancies of fillers under the dependent
employment scheme during the year 1996 and he discharged
his duties to the fullest satisfaction of his superiors till his
dismissal from service. The attendance particulars of the
petitioner are as follows:-
Sl.No.
Particulars of pay sheet & year
Total musters
1.
Pay sheet of December -12/1996
(140) musters
2.
Pay sheet of December -12/1997
(223) musters
3.
Pay sheet of December -12/1998
(82) musters
4.
Pay sheet of December -12/1999
(80) musters
5.
Pay sheet of December -12/2000
(83) musters
While the petitioner was working as Badli Filler
(Underground), as the underground atmosphere and coal
dust did not suit to his health, the petitioner suffered from
chronic ill-health, fever, joint & body pains diseases from
the year 1998 – 1999. Petitioner underwent prolonged
medical treatment in the respondents’ company hospitals
and other referral hospitals at regular intervals. But due to
underground work, his health was not cured completely.
4. Domestic enquiry was not conducted fairly and
properly without giving sufficient opportunity to the
petitioner to defend himself. 2nd respondent passed the
dismissal order straight away without issuing prior show
cause notice proposing the said capital punishment of
dismissal from service. The petitioner had put in more than
the 100 musters and infact more than double i.e., (223)
musters during the year 1997. As such, it cannot be termed
as misconduct. There is reasonable and sufficient cause
for the alleged absence of the petitioner. In pursuance of
the respondents’ letters, petitioner appeared before the
Head Office, Kothagudem during the years 2005 and 2012,
but he was not given any posting orders. Eversince the
date of dismissal from service, the petitioner is facing lot of
hardship and misery to eke out livelihood for all his family
members. Hence, the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
5. In response to this challenge, respondents filed
counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The
application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to
the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three
years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment
or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-
section (1). Petitioner was dismissed from service in the
year 2001. Petitioner kept quiet for all these years and filed
this petition after lapse of 12 years which is barred by
limitation U/Sec.2A(3) of Industrial Disputes Amendment
Act, 2010. The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler in
the respondents company on 24-07-1996. As the petitioner
was a chronic absentee who had put in only 83 musters in
the year 2000, he was charge sheeted. According to Section
52(2) of the Mines Act, 1952 an underground employee is
required to put in minimum musters of 190 and surface
employee is expected to put in minimum of 240 musters.
The following attendance particulars of the petitioner
indicate the fact that the petitioner was not regular to his
duties during the period from 1996-2001, his attendance
particulars as under:-
Sl.No.
Year
No. of musters.
1.
1996
140
2.
1997
225
3.
1998
82
4.
1999
80
5.
2000
83
6.
Sept., 2001
9
234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
During the period from January, 2000 to December,
2000, the petitioner had put in only 83 musters. As the
above act amounted to misconduct under Standing Orders
Clause No.25.25 of the company, the petitioner was charge
sheeted and enquiry notice was sent to his residential
address through RPAD, but the same was returned as
undelivered. As such, paper publication of charge sheet-
cum-enquiry notice was given in “Vaartha Telugu news
daily paper” on 03-06-2001 with a direction to attend enquiry
on 14-6-2001, but the petitioner neither appeared personally
before the enquiry officer nor informed the reason for his
absence. Therefore ex-parte enquiry was conducted. After
considering the documentary evidence and other evidence
on record, the enquiry officer submitted his unbiased report
holding that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct.
The petitioner was issued show cause notice along with
copies of enquiry proceedings and enquiry report giving
an opportunity to submit his explanation if any, but the
petitioner failed to submit any representation. The
respondents’ company dismissed the petitioner from service
vide letter dt.25-11-2001 stating that the petitioner was a
chronic absentee. Therefore, the respondents pray to
dismiss the petition without granting any relief to the
petitioner.
6. During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-8
and Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-9 are marked.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers
on record.
8. On a consideration of respective contentions of
both parties, the following point requires to be determined:-
“Whether the punishment of dismissal of the
petitioner is justified and proportionate?”
9. POINT:- The allegation levelled against the
petitioner is that he had put in only 83 musters and remained
absent on rest of the days during the period from January,
2000 to December, 2000. Charge sheet is marked as Ex.M-1
which is returned unserved under Ex. M-2. Charge sheet-
cum-enquiry notice is marked as Ex.M-3 and paper
publication is marked as Ex.M-4. Enquiry proceedings are
marked as Ex.M-5 and enquiry report is marked as Ex.M-6.
The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dt.
22-11-2001 under Ex.M-9.
10.The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler under
dependent employment scheme in place of his father, by
office order dt.21/22-7-1996 under Ex.W-1. From July, 1996
to December, 1996, he had put in 140 musters as per Ex.W-
6 pay sheet for the month of December, 1996. During the
year 1997, he put in total (223) musters as per Ex.W-7.
Petitioner was called for interview by the High Power
Committee for reappointment on 21-4-2005, as per Ex.W-5.
This petition is filed in the year 2013. Hence it cannot be
said that the petitioner approached this court with abnormal
delay. Infact, a worker is entitled to legal aid as per the
provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Even
though this Industrial Tribunal has been functioning in
this place since 1988, there is no awareness for legal aid for
industrial workers. Therefore, this petition cannot be
dismissed on the point of delay in approaching this
Tribunal.
11. In a decision reported in DIVISION BENCH
JUDGMENT OF GUJARATH HIGH COURT REPORTED
IN 1982 LAB.IC.1031 BETWEEN: R.M., PARMAR VRS.,
GUJARATH ELECTRICITY BOARD, the following guide
lines were laid down in the matter of inflicting punishment
of discharge and dismissal:-
1. In a disciplinary proceeding for an alleged fault of
an employee, punishment is imposed not in order
to seek retribution or to give vent to feelings of
wrath.
2. The main purpose of a punishment is to correct
the fault of the employee concerned by making
him more alert in the future and to hold out warning
to the other employees to be careful in the
discharge of their duties so that they do not
expose themselves to similar punishment. And
the approach to be made is the approach parents
make towards an erring or misguided child.
3. It is not expedient in the interest of the
administration to visit every employee against
whom a fault is established with the penalty of
dismissal and to get rid of him. It would be counter-
productive to do so for it would be futile to expect
to recruit employees who are so perfect that they
would never commit any fault.
4. In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness
it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is
commensurate with the magnitude of the fault.
Surely one cannot rationally or justly impose the
same penalty for giving a slap as one would
impose for homicide.
5. When different categories of penalties can be
imposed in respect of the alleged fault, one of
which is dismissal from service, the disciplinary
authority perforce is required to consult himself
for selecting the most appropriate penalty from
out of the range of penalty available that can be
imposed, having regard to the nature, content and
gravity of the default. Unless the disciplinary
authority reaches the conclusion that having
regard to the nature, content and magnitude of
the fault committed by the employee concerned,
it would be absolutely unsafe to retain him in
service, the maximum penalty of dismissal cannot
be imposed. If a lesser penalty can be imposed
without seriously jeopardizing the interest of the
employees the disciplinary authority cannot
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
235
impose the maximum penalty of dismissal from
service. He is bound to ask the inner voice and
rational faculty why a lesser penalty cannot be
imposed.
6. It cannot be over looked that by and large it is
because the maximum penalty is imposed and total
ruination stares one in the eyes that the employee
concerned is obliged to approach the court and
avail the costly time-consuming machinery to
challenge in desperation the order passed by the
disciplinary authority. If a lesser penalty was
imposed, he might not have been obliged to take
recourse to costly legal proceedings which result
in loss of public time and also result in considerable
hardship and misery to the employee concerned.
7. When the disciplinary proceedings end in favour
of the employee, the employer has often to pay
back wages say for about 5 years without being
able to take work from the employee concerned.
On the other hand, the employee concerned would
have had to suffer economic misery and mental
torture for all these years. Even the misery of
being obliged to remain idle without work would
constitute an unbearable burden. And when the
curtain drops every one is left with a bitter taste
in the mouth. All because the extreme penalty of
dismissal or removal is imposed instead of a lighter
one.
8. Every harsh order of removal from service creates
bitterness and arouses feeling of antagonism in
the collective mind of the workers and gives raise
to a feeling of class conflict. It does more harm
than good to the employer as also to the society.
9. Taking of a petty article by a worker in a moment
of weakness when he yields to a temptation does
not call for an extreme penalty of dismissal from
service. More particularly, when he does not hold
a sensitive post of trust (pilferage by a cashier or
by a store keeper from the stores in his charge, for
instances, may be viewed with seriousness). A
worker brought up and living in an atmosphere of
poverty and want when faced with temptation,
ought not to, but may yield to it in a moment of
weakness. It cannot be approved, but it can
certainly be understood particularly in an age
when even the rich commit economic offences to
get richer and do so by and large with impunity
(and even tax evasion or possession of black
money is not considered to be dishonorable by
and large). A penalty of removal from service is
therefore not called for when a poor worker yields
to a momentary temptation and commits an offence
which often passed under the name of kleptomania
when committed by the rich.
12.It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that as Badli Filler, petitioner was appointed in
the respondents company as Badli Filler by order dt.
21/22-7-1996 on compassionate grounds and he put-in best
attendance in 1996 and 1997. Due to working in the
underground mine, petitioner suffered from chronic ill-health
and joint pains and he underwent prolonged medical
treatment in the company hospital and other referral
hospitals at regular intervals. He could put in 83 musters in
the year 2000 which fell short of 17 musters as against the
required for 100 musters. Hence, he contended that the
extreme punishment of dismissal from service is not
justified. On the other hand it is argued on behalf of the
learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner
was a chronic absentee, he had put-in only 83 musters in
the year 2000, that he did not improve his attendance and
that from the year 1998 he has put in less musters of 80 and
odd per year; as such he was dismissed from service by
order dt.25-11-2001.
13.Admittedly petitioner joined in July 1996, he had
put-in good attendance of 140 musters in 6 months of 1996
and 225 musters in the year 1997. Therefore, in view of my
above discussion and documentary evidence on record, I
hold that extreme punishment of dismissal is shockingly
disproportionate and arbitrary; and that this is a fit case
where this Court can exercise discretion U/Sec.11 of ID Act
and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated into service as
afresh Badli Filler to meet the ends of justice.
14.In the result, the order of dismissal dt.22-11-2001
marked as Ex.M-9 is set aside and the respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as “Afresh
Badli Filler” subject to physical fitness for the post. The
petitioner is not entitled to any back wages, continuity of
service or any other attendant benefits.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of November,
2015.
G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman:-
For Management;-
-Nil-
Nil-
E X H I B I T S
For workman:-
Ex.W-1 Dt.
21/22-7-1996 Appointment order of Badli
Filler x.copy
Ex.W-2 Dt.
30-11-2000
Transfer order x.copy
Ex.W-3 Dt.
22-11-2000
Dismissal order x.copy
236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W-4 Dt.
23-11-2001
Office memo (dismissal order)
Ex.W-5 Dt.
11-04-2005
Interview call letter of petitioner
to
attend
High
Power
Committee at Head Office,
Kothagudem.
Ex.W-6 Dt.
—
Payment sheet for the month
of 12/1996
Ex.W-7 Dt.
—
Payment sheet for the month
of 12/1997
Ex.W-8 Dt.
20-07-2013
Demand letter with ack.,
For Management:-
Ex.M-1 Dt.
25-02-2001
Charge sheet o/copy
Ex.M-2 Dt.
20-04-2001
Undelivered postal returned
cover with ack.,
Ex.M-3 Dt.
—
Charge sheet-cum-enquiry
notice
Ex.M-4 Dt.
03-06-2001
Vaartha
Telugu
daily
newspaper
Ex.M-5 Dt.
14-06-2001
Enquiry proceedings
Ex.M-6 Dt.
—
Enquiry report
Ex.M-7 Dt.
12-08-2001
Show cause notice
Ex.M-8 Dt.
16-08-2001
Ack., to show cause notice
Ex.M-9 Dt.
22-11-2001
Dismissal order.
ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 114-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2013) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2016
S.O. 114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/
21/2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12.01.2016.
[No. L-22013/1/2016-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-VI ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Present :
SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-
Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21 OF 2013
Saturday, the 7th day of November, 2015
Between:-
Thatikonda Sammaiah, S/o. Gattaiah,
Age 50 years, Occ: Coal Filler,
R/o. Laxmipuram,
Mandal Ramagundam
Dist. Karimnagar
...Petitioner
And
1. The Colliery Manager, VI Incline,
Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.,
Godavarikhani.
2. The Chief General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.,
RG-I, PO Godavarikhani,
Dist. Karimnagar.
3. The Managing Director (Adm),
Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.,
PO. Kothagudem,
Dist.Khammam
...Respondents.
This case coming before me for final hearing in the
presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the
petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the
respondents; and having been heard and having stood
over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered
the following:-
AWARD
1. This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act
challenging the dismissal of the petitioner by the
respondentNo.2 praying for his reinstatement into service
by giving relief of Rs.3,000/- per month as MMC and also
Rs.6,000/- till one gives employment.
2. Petitioner was dismissed from service by
respondent No.2 vide office order dt.13-01-2000 with the
following charge.
CHARGE:-
“Clause 25.25 - Habitual late attendance or habitual
absence from duty without sufficient cause”.
3. Petitioner challenges his dismissal order. The
petitioner was appointed as an employee on 1-1-1970 and
he discharged his duties to the fullest satisfaction of his
superiors till his dismissal from service on 11-06-2000 by
the 2nd respondent. The petitioner got employment in place
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
237
of his father-in-law under “settlements” of 12(3) of I.D.,
Act. The health of the petitioner was not good and he
could not attend to his duty in 1999 and the respondent
suspended the petitioner from service from 21-11-1999 to
30-11-1999. Subsequently, the petitioner was allowed to
attend his duty. As the petitioner’s eyes vision deteriorated,
he was referred to Area Hospital on 22-8-1999 buy the
Dy.CME, GDK and the petitioner took treatment upto
18-10-1999. The Chief Medical Officer, Kothagudem, made
the petitioner fit on 1-10-1999. The petitioner’s vision did
not improve and he used to absent frequently in 1999. The
petitioner put in only 130 musters in 1999.
4. The petitioner is entitled to MMC of Rs.2,000/-
and Rs.6,000/- from 1-4-1998 and 1-5-2008, but the
respondents company without declaring “unfit” dismissed
from service in the year 1999. Punishment of dismissal from
service is extremely harsh, highly excessive and shockingly
disproportionate. Hence, the petitioner prays to allow the
petition.
5. In response to this challenge, respondents filed
counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The
respondents company being mining industry is a Central
Government subject and the petitioner ought to have
approached the CGIT, Hyderabad. This petition is not
maintainable before this Court and is liable to be dismissed.
The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall
be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry
of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as
specified in sub-section (1). The petitioner was dismissed
from service in the year 2000. The petitioner kept quiet for
all these years and filed this petition after lapse of 14 years
which is barred by limitation U/Sec.2A(3) of Industrial
Disputes Amendment Act, 2010. The petitioner was
appointed in the respondents company on 25-11-1970. The
petitioner was irregular to his duties. According to Section
52(2) of the Mines Act, 1952 an underground employee is
required to put in minimum musters of 190 and surface
employee is expected to put in minimum of 240 musters.
The following attendance particulars of the petitioner
indicate the fact that the petitioner was not regular to his
duties and in no year he had put in 190 musters during the
period from 1996 to 2000.
Sl.No.
Year
No. of musters.
1.
1996
148
2.
1997
115
3.
1998
92
4.
1999
70
5.
JAN-APR 2000
18
During the period from January, 1999 to December,
1999, the petitioner had put in only 70 musters. As the
above act amounted to misconduct under Standing Orders
Clause No. 25.25 of the company, the petitioner was charge
sheeted. After considering the documentary evidence and
other evidence on record, the enquiry officer submitted his
unbiased report holding that the petitioner is guilty of
misconduct under company standing orders.
6. Petitioner was a chronic absentee and he had put
in only 92 musters in the year 1998. As such the petitioner
was issued charge sheet in the year 1999 and disciplinary
proceedings were conducted. The respondent suspended
the petitioner for a period of 10 days. Inspite of being
punished once, petitioner failed to improve his attendance.
As such, the petitioner was charge sheeted once again in
the year 2000. Petitioner suffered from defective vision of
left eye due to cataract and underwent ECCE with PBI left
eye at Main Hospital, Kothagudem on 10-9-1999 and after
taking treatment he was found fit for duty. The petitioner
participated in the enquiry conducted by the respondents.
During the enquiry, petitioner stated that due to ill-health,
he could not attend duties. Therefore he remained absent
from duties and voluntarily accepted the charge levelled
against him, by affixing his thumb impression thereon. The
petitioner was issued show cause notice duly enclosing
enquiry proceedings report with an advise to make his
representation if any within seven days of the notice. The
petitioner received show cause notice on 9-5-2000 by affixing
his thumb impression, but failed to submit his explanation.
Accordingly, the respondents company dismissed the
petitioner from service. The petitioner is not entitled to
MMC @ Rs.3,000/- or Rs.6,000/- from 01-04-1998 or declare
him medically unfit. The respondents company after
considering the past record of the petitioner and on findings
that there were no extenuating circumstances for taking a
lenient view was constrained to dismiss the petitioner from
service. The respondents company conducted the enquiry
proceedings duly in accordance with the principles of
natural justice and law giving full opportunity to the
petitioner. Therefore, the respondents pray to dismiss the
petition without granting any relief to the petitioner.
7. During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-3
and Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-7 are marked.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on
record.
9. On a consideration of respective contentions of
the parties, the following points require to be determined:-
“Whether the punishment of dismissal of the
petitioner is justified and proportionate?”
10. POINT : The main charge levelled against the
petitioner is that the petitioner habitually absented for his
duties and he had put in only 70 musters from January,
1999 to December, 1999. Charge sheet dt.19-3-2000 is marked
as Ex.M-1. Enquiry call letter is marked as Ex.M-2. A
declaration dt.5-4-2000 was obtained from the petitioner
stating that he does not have any objection to conduct
enquiry proceedings in English, under Ex.M-3. As can be
seen from the charge sheet and other enquiry proceedings,
238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the petitioner is illiterate; he cannot even put his signature
and hence put his thumb impression. The enquiry
proceedings under Ex.M-4 and enquiry report under Ex.M-
5 are cyclostyled formats. Particulars of petitioner, charge
sheet number and alleged answers of petitioner as “yes”
were filled up in the said cyclostyled proforma containing
standard questions. There was no scope for recording
specific defence of the petitioner and to explain reasons
for his alleged absenteeism.
11.On perusal of the record, it is a clear case where
29 years of service put in by the petitioner was brushed
aside on the ground of unauthorized absence, without
making proper enquiry into the cause of absence of the
petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner was an underground
worker in the mines and there was every possibility that
after 29 years of service, he was unable to do his duties
regularly. This Tribunal will be failing in its duty, if the
manner in which the domestic enquiry was conducted is
not referred to. The domestic enquiry proceedings and
report is a cyclostyled form and it is mentioned in the report
as though the petitioner admitted his unauthorized absence
and his thumb impressions were taken. Unfortunately, the
respondents failed to consider the fair record of the
petitioner for 29 years and resorted to the extreme step of
dismissal from service. By taking into account the
perfunctory manner in which domestic enquiry was
conducted and the disproportionality of the punishment,
this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that disciplinary
action taken by the respondents is unjustified, harsh and
amounting to victimization. When an illiterate worker
suddenly finds that he is dismissed from service abruptly
on the ground of absenteeism, there is bound to be delay
in approaching the Tribunal, considering the lack of
awareness among the workers and lack of financial support.
12.Subsequent to the filing of this petition, the
petitioner is said to be suffering from paralysis. Even
otherwise the petitioner passed the age of superannuation.
Therefore, in order to serve the ends of justice, it is held
that the petitioner is deemed to have retired from service
voluntarily from the date of his dismissal from service i.e.,
w.e.f., 13-06-2000. The petitioner shall be extended all
consequential service benefits and retirement benefits as
if he is deemed to have retired from service voluntarily
from 13-6-2000.
13. In the result, dismissal order dt.11-6-2000 under
Ex.M-7 is set aside and the petitioner shall be deemed to
have retired from service voluntarily w.e.f., 13-6-2000. The
respondents shall extend all consequential service benefits
and retirement benefits to the petitioner.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, on this the 7th day of November, 2015.
SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman:-
For Management;-
-Nil-
Nil-
E X H I B I T S
For workman:-
Ex.W-1 Dt. 11-06-2000
Dismissal order x.copy
Ex.W-2 Dt. 14-07-2000
Demand letter
Ex.W-3 Dt. 19-03-2000
Enquiry report, photostat copy
For Management:-
Ex.M-1 Dt. 19-03-2000
Charge sheet
Ex.M-2 Dt. 02-04-2000
Enquiry notice with ack.,
Ex.M-3 Dt. 05-04-2000
Declaration of petitioner on
enquiry proceedings in English
Ex.M-4 Dt. —
Domestic enquiry proceedings
Ex.M-5 Dt. 19-03-2000
Enquiry report
Ex.M-6 Dt. 21/27-4-2000 Show cause notice
Ex.M-7 Dt. 11-06-2000
Dismissal order.
ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 115-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2013) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2016
S.O. 115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/
31/2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12.01.2016.
[No. L-22013/1/2016-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-VI ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Present :
SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-
Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
239
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 31 OF 2013
Monday, the 16th day of November, 2015
Between:-
K. Eshwaraiah, S/o. Rajamallaiah,
Age 45 years, E.C.No.2900002,
Ex. Badli Filler,
C/o. Sri B.Amarender Rao,
Advocate, Ganga Nagar,
PO: Godavarikhani-505209,
Dist. Karimnagar
...Petitioner
And
1.
The Superintendent of Mines,
VI Incline, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,
SRP No.1 Incline, SRP Area,
PO: Srirampur,
Dist.Adilabad.
2.
The General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.,
Srirampur Area, PO: Srirampur,
Dist.Adilabad.
3.
The Chairman & Managing Director,
Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.,
PO. Kothagudem,
Dist.Khammam
...Respondents
This case coming before me for final hearing in the
presence of Sri B.Amarender Rao, Advocate for the
petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the
respondents; and having been heard and having stood
over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered
the following:-
AWARD
1. This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act
challenging the dismissal of the petitioner by the
respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents’ company
to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of
service, all other consequential attendant benefits full back
wages.
2. Petitioner was dismissed from service by
respondent No.2 vide office order dt.04-12-2003 with the
following charge.
CHARGE:-
“25.25 - Habitual absenteeism from duty without
sufficient cause during the year 2002”.
3. Petitioner challenges his dismissal order. The
petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler in the year 1996
and he discharged his duties to the fullest satisfaction of
his superiors till his dismissal from service. The petitioner
put in more than (180) physical musters every year as
against the minimum (100) musters. The performance of
the petitioner from 1996 till 2002 is very good. The (3 pay
sheets of 1999 to 2001 showing the cumulative total musters
put in by the petitioner are as follows:-
Sl.No.
Particulars of pay sheet & year
Total musters
1.
Pay sheet of December, 1999
(161) musters
2.
Pay sheet of August, 2000 (by
12/2000, he put in more than
160 musters)
(85) musters
3.
Pay sheet of December, 2001
(131) musters
While the petitioner was working as Badli Filler
(Underground), as the underground atmosphere and coal
dust did not suit his health, the petitioner suffered from
chronic ill-health, fever, joint & body pains diseases from
the year 2001 onwards. Petitioner underwent prolonged
medical treatment in the respondents’ company hospitals
and other referral hospitals at regular intervals. But due to
underground work, his health did not recoup.
4. Domestic enquiry was not conducted fairly and
properly without giving sufficient opportunity to the
petitioner to defend himself. 2nd respondent passed the
dismissal order straight away without issuing prior show
cause notice proposing the said capital punishment of
dismissal from service. The petitioner had put in more than
150 musters in several years prior to 2002. As such, it
cannot be termed as misconduct. In pursuance of the
respondents’ letter dt.14-4-2005 and 9-4-2012, petitioner
appeared before the Head Office, Kothagudem, but he was
not given any posting orders. Eversince the date of
dismissal from service, the petitioner lost his livelihood
and incurred huge debts for his medical and domestic
expenses. Petitioner is facing lot of hardship and misery to
eke out livelihood for all his family members. Hence, the
petitioner prays to allow the petition.
5. In response to this challenge, respondents filed
counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The
application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to
the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three
years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment
or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-
section (1). The petitioner was dismissed from service in
the year 2003. The petitioner kept quiet for all these years
and filed this petition after lapse of 10 years which is barred
by limitation U/Sec.2A(3) of Industrial Disputes
Amendment Act, 2010. The petitioner was appointed in
the respondents company on 16-08-1996. As the petitioner
was a chronic absentee who had put in only 47 musters in
the year 2002, he was charge sheeted. According to Section
52(2) of the Mines Act, 1952 an underground employee is
required to put in minimum musters of 190 and surface
employee is expected to put in minimum of 240 musters.
The following attendance particulars of the petitioner
indicate the fact that the petitioner was not regular to his
duties and in no year he had put in 190 musters.
240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sl.No.
Year
No. of musters.
1.
1997
152
2.
1998
156
3.
1999
161
4.
2000
135
5.
2001
131
6.
2002
47
During the period from January, 2002 to December,
2002, the petitioner had put in only 47 musters. As the
above act amounted to misconduct under Standing Orders
Clause No.25.25 of the company, the petitioner was charge
sheeted. Due to his prolonged absenteeism, R-1 was
bound to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner in the year 2003 for his unauthorized absence
for 251 days in the year 2002. Respondents’ company
conducted the enquiry duly following the principles of
natural justice and the petitioner participated in the
enquiry. Having proved to be guilty, the respondents’
company put the petitioner under observation. But the
petitioner failed to improve his attendance during
observation period. Therefore, the respondents’ company
dismissed the petitioner from service w.e.f., 4-12-2003.
Though the petitioner received charge sheet, he failed to
submit his explanation.
6. Show cause notice along with copies of enquiry
proceedings and enquiry report was sent to the residential
address of the petitioner giving an opportunity to submit
his explanation if any which was returned as undelivered
by the postal authorities. Later respondents’ company
gave paper publication in Andhra Jyothi daily on 18-9-
2003 advising the petitioner to collect the copies of enquiry
proceedings so as to enable the petitioner to submit his
representation if any within 7 days. But the petitioner failed
to submit his representation. On 15-4-2003 respondents’
company advised the petitioner to attend counseling
session. Petitioner was counseled on 12-5-2003 to improve
his attendance. Petitioner requested the respondents’
company to excuse him for his misconduct and assured to
improve his attendance if opportunity was given. As
such, the petitioner was given an opportunity and he was
kept under observation for a period of 3 months. But the
petitioner failed to improve his attendance during the
observation period. The respondents’ company dismissed
the petitioner from service w.e.f., 04-12-2003 stating that
the petitioner was a chronic absentee. Therefore, the
respondents pray to dismiss the petition without granting
any relief to the petitioner.
7. During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-7
and Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-9 are marked.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers
on record.
9. On 24-11-2014, counsel for the petitioner filed
Memo U/Sec.11-A of ID Act praying to decide the quantum
of relief to which the petitioner is entitled to, on the basis
of the evidence on record and gravity of the charge.
10.
On a consideration of respective contentions
of both parties, the following point requires to be
determined:-
“Whether the punishment of dismissal of the
petitioner is justified and proportionate?”
11.
POINT:- The main charge levelled against the
petitioner is that the petitioner habitually absented for his
duties and put in 47 musters only from January, 2002 to
December, 2002. Charge sheet dt.25-2-2003 is marked as
Ex.M-1. The letter dt.15-4-2003 advising the petitioner to
see the Welfare Officer with family members for counseling
under Ex.M-2 shows that the petitioner had put in 135
musters during the year 2000 and 131 musters during the
year 2001. In the undertaking letter-cum-explanation dt.12-
5-2003 under Ex.M-3 the petitioner stated that due to
jaundice, he underwent treatment and hence could not
attend to his duties regularly. Enquiry proceedings and
medical certificates submitted by the petitioner before the
enquiry officer are marked as Ex.M-4. The petitioner clearly
deposed before the enquiry officer that he suffered from
jaundice, general weakness and low B.P., which troubled
him for not attending to his duties and that he took
treatment in the company hospital and also at Karimnagar.
The petitioner submitted treatment slips and medical
certificates issued by the SCCL Hospital and private
hospital, Karimnagar to substantiate his plea that he
suffered from ill-health and took treatment during the year
2002. The OP tickets show that the petitioner took
treatment during the period from 15-2-2002 to 12-6-2003
and the medical certificate dt.13-1-2003 shows that he was
imparted treatment from 26-11-2002 to 13-11-2003 by
Dr.T.Muralidhar Rao, MBBS., Karimnagar. These medical
records were produced by the petitioner before the enquiry
officer, in support of his defence that he could not attend
to his duties regularly during the year 2002 on account of
ill-health.
12.
Pay slips for the years 1999 and 2001 marked
as Ex.W-1 & W-3 show that the petitioner had put in 161
musters and 131 musters respectively during the above
previous years. Call letters under Ex.W-5 & W-6 shows
that the petitioner attended interview at Head Office,
Kothagudem on 23-4-2005 and 27-4-2012, as directed by
the respondents.
13.
On perusal of the record, it is a clear case where
the medical record produced by the petitioner and his oral
evidence for the cause of absenteeism during the year
2002 was not considered in proper perspective by the
enquiry officer. The enquiry report does not show the
explanation and defence putforth by the petitioner. The
OP medical prescriptions produced by the petitioner during
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
241
the enquiry shows that he was imparted treatment in the
hospitals of the respondents’ company and the contention
of the respondents in their counter that the petitioner did
not produce anybody as his witness does not hold any
water. The medical prescriptions and certificates produced
by the petitioner are not contradicted by the respondents.
The previous attendance particulars of the petitioner
during the previous periods from 1997 till 2002 (charge
sheeted year) are as under:-
Sl.No.
Year
No. of musters.
7.
1997
152
8.
1998
156
9.
1999
161
10.
2000
135
11.
2001
131
12.
2002
47
(charge sheeted
year)
The petitioner was kept under observation period
for 3 months from 12-5-2003 under Ex.M-3. But before
expiry of the said observation period, enquiry was
conducted by the respondents on 26-7-2003 and report
was submitted holding the charge levelled against the
petitioner is proved.
14. In view of the above evidence placed before this
court and the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
supra, the absence of the petitioner during the year 2002 is
substantiated by the medical treatment under Ex.M-4 and
the petitioner cannot be held guilty of serious misconduct,
as his absence during the above period cannot be disputed
in view of the OP chits produced by him during enquiry. In
view of the plausible explanation putforth by the petitioner
supported by medical documents, this court is constrained
to hold that the extreme punishment of dismissal from
service is shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled
against the petitioner and it is highly arbitrary.
15. It is true that the petitioner was dismissed from
service during the year 2003; but the call letters under Ex.W-
5 & W-6 proves that he was moving before the respondents
till the year 2012. The petition is filed in the year 2013.
Hence it cannot be said that the petitioner approached this
court with abnormal delay. Infact, a worker is entitled to
legal aid as per the provisions of Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987. Even though this Industrial Tribunal has been
functioning in this place since 1988, there is no awareness
for legal aid for industrial workers. Therefore, this petition
cannot be dismissed on the point of delay in approaching
this Tribunal.
16. In view of my above findings, the dismissal order
passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered opinion that reinstatement of the petitioner into
service with continuity of service and attendant benefits
while denying entire back wages would meet the ends of
justice.
17. In the result, dismissal order dt.4-12-2003 under
Ex.M-8 is set aside and the respondents’ company is hereby
directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with
continuity of service and attendant benefits. However, he
is not entitled to any back wages.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of November,
2015.
G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman:-
For Management;-
-Nil-
Nil-
EXHIBITS
For workman:-
Ex.W-1 Dt.
—
Pay sheet for the month of
December, 1999
Ex.W-2 Dt.
—
Pay sheet for the month of
August, 2000
Ex.W-3 Dt.
—
Pay sheet for the month of
December, 2001
Ex.W-4 Dt.
04-12-2003
Dismissal order x.copy
Ex.W-5 Dt.
14-04-2005
Letter issued to the petitioner
to attend before the High
Power
Committee
at
Kothagudem, x.copy
Ex.W-6 Dt.
09-04-2012
Letter issued to the petitioner
to attend interview at Head
Office, Kothagudem.
Ex.W-7 Dt.
09-07-2013
Demand letter
For Management:-
Ex.M-1 Dt.
25-02-2003
Charge sheet
Ex.M-2 Dt.
15-04-2003
Letter issued to the petitioner
advising him to attend
counseling.
Ex.M-3 Dt.
12-05-2008
Undertaking letter given by the
petitioner during counseling for
improvement his attendance
Ex.M-4 Dt.
26-07-2003
Enquiry proceedings
Ex.M-5 Dt.
05-08-2003
Enquiry report
Ex.M-6 Dt.
20-08-2003
Undelivered returned postal
cover with ack.,
242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.M-7 Dt.
18-09-2003
Andhra Jyothi Telugu daily
paper show cause notice
published.
Ex.M-8 Dt.
04-12-2003
Dismissal order
Ex.M-9 Dt.
04-12-2003
Undelivered returned postal
cover with ack.,
ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 116-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
29@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@01@2016
dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@27@2001&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2016
S.O. 116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2001)
of the Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of Damagoria Colliery of BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
12.01.2016.
[No. L-22012/27/2001- IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 29 OF 2001
PARTIES:
The Management of Damagoria Colliery, B.C.C.L.
Vs.
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Shri P. K. Das, Ld.
Advocate (BCCL)
For the union (Workman)
:
Shri S. K. Singh, Br. Secy,
JMS
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 15-12-2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
27/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 05.09.2001 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Damagoria
Colliery under BCCL in denying regularization of Shri
Ashok Kumar Singh, General Mazdoor Cat.I in the
post of Dresser w.e.f. 09.06.1998 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief he is entitled to?”
Having received the Order No. L-22012/27/2001-
IR(CM-II) dated 05.09.2001 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 29 of 2001
was registered on 24.09.2001 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned. The workman appeared through his
representatives.
The workman has stated in his written statement that
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, General Mazdoor of Damagoria
Colliery has been authorized to work as Dresser (T) with
effect from 09.06.1998. As per norms of the Company and
as per certified standing order, if a permanent workman is
employed as probationer/trainee in a new permanent post
more than six months he should be regularized, permanent
in the post in which they have been working more than six
months. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has completed six months
continuous service as Dresser on 09.06.1998 and he is
entitled to be regularized as Dresser with effect from
09.06.1998. The dispute could not be settled amicably in
conciliation proceeding and therefore the dispute was
referred to the Tribunal. The workman has prayed through
Union to hold that action of the management of Damagoria
Colliery in not regularizing services of Sri Ashok Kumar
Singh with effect from 09.06.1998 in the post of Dresser is
illegal, unjustified and against the certified standing order
of M/s. B.C.C.L. and pass order to regularize Sri Ashok
Kumar Singh as Dresser with effect from 09.06.1998 and
pay wages and other consequential benefit from the date
of regularization as Dresser.
Management of M/s. B.C.C.L. has stated in their
written statement that Sri Ashok Kumar Singh had been
authorized to work as Dresser (T) with effect from 09.06.1998
and had been posted at Damagoria Colliery Dispensary.
Certified Standing order defines only probationer and
permanent workman but never directed for any
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
243
regularization or promotion as alleged by the Union. The
regularization in a particular post depends upon the
availability of post, vacancy and eligibility. Merely working
in a certain post does not confer right to entitlement to be
regularized in the post. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh was called
for an interview for the post of Dresser (T) at B.C.C.L. H.Q.
on 11.05.2001 and he had been qualified for the post of
Dresser (T) by H.Q. Office Order No. BCCL/PA-V/Selection/
Dresser(T)/02/1110-60 dated 25/26.03.2002 and he had been
posted in the Central Hospital, Dhanbad for obtaining one
year training experience from Company hospital. The
Dresser in medical department is a very sensitive post which
links with human lives. For being a regular Dresser, minimum
qualification as per Cadre Scheme for Para-medical Staff
(Dresser/OT Assistant) vide I.I.No.21 dated 1st August, 1990
is Matriculate with one year training certificate from
Company Hospital / Recognized Institute / Govt. Hospital
etc. Till date Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has objected through
his Union to join at Central Hospital, Dhanbad due to
pendency of case before the C.G.I.T., Asansol and as per
Cadre Scheme, he has to obtain one years training
experience from Company’s Hospital which is the nearest
Company hospital from CV Area as because there is no
Co’s Hospital anywhere at CV Area. The Management of
Damagoria Colliery has not done any wrong by not
regularizing Sri Ashok Kumar Singh as regular Dresser, but
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh himself responsible for not
obtaining one years experience from Company’s Hospital
(not from any Dispensary) as per Cadre Scheme of CIL in
vogue. The claim is denied.
Documents have been filed by both the parties.
Workman Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has filed affidavit in his
oral evidence. He has been cross-examined on behalf of
the Management of M/s. B.C.C.L. Management of M/s.
B.C.C.L. has not filed any oral evidence in his support.
Both parties to the reference have filed written
arguments. I perused the written arguments as well as record
of the reference.
Management has stated in his written argument that
Ashok Kumar Singh was posted as Dresser (T) at Laikdih
Deep Colliery Dispensary in his existing capacity. There
was no training provision facility at Laikdih Deep Colliery.
That only by quoting a hospital wrongly nomenclatured
which is in fact, a dispensary, the employee concerned
wants himself to be regularized as Dresser without having
any training of a Para-Medical staff. As per scheme of the
company for selection of a person in a Dresser’s job, he
must have one year training certificate from Co’s Hospital
/ Recognized Institute / Govt. Hospital. The claim of the
Union that the concerned workman has been properly
trained at Laikdih Dispensary has been vehemently denied
as there is no training facility available in these two
dispensaries to train a person properly as a Dresser. If
untrained person will be regularized as Dresser violating
the cadre scheme, it will cause irreparable harm to the
Company .The company has training facility at Central
Hospital, Dhanbad which is properly equipped to train
persons for the job of Dresser. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh was
directed for reporting for training at CHD and unless a
person is imparted with training properly, he cannot be
selected to the post of Dresser. Hence the Company has
advised Sri Ashok Kumar Singh to attend training
programme at CHD in the year 2002 and in fact, all those
persons who have attended training programme have
already been regularized as Dresser vide Office Order No.
BCCL/PA-V/Selection/Dresser(T)/2003/2837-2897 dated
10.11.2003 excluding Sri Ashok Kumar Singh , who
deliberately did not attend training programme at CHD in
spite of direction given to him by the Management vide
order dated 26.03.2002, which was received by him.
On the other hand, Sri S.K. Singh, Area Working
President of Janta Mazdoor Sangh has filed written
argument on behalf of workman. He has stated that Sri
Ashok Kumar Singh, concerned workman was appointed
as Underground General Mazdoor, Cat-I. Sri Ashok Kumar
Singh was directed to attend on 06.12.1996 in a suitability
test for the post of Dresser (T) before the Constituted and
approved job suitability committee vide Letter No. CPM/
XII/03/B-10/96/2722 dated 27/28.11.1996. Sri Ashok Kumar
Singh was selected for the post of Dresser (T) by the Job
Suitability Committee and deployed to work as Dresser (T)
at Laikdih Area Hospital. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has started
to work as Dresser (T) at Laikdih Area Hospital, Laikdih,
M/s. B.C.C.L. as per office Order No. CPM/XII/03/B-10/97/
211 dated 23/29.01.1997 and has worked at Laikdih Hospital
till 08.12.1997. Sri Singh was transferred from Laikdih Area
Hospital to Damagoria Hospital on 09.12.1996 vide office
order No. 2773 and till date Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has
been working as Dresser (T) at Damagoria Colliery Hospital.
As per Certified Standing Order of M/s. B.C.C.L. if a
permanent workman is employed as Probationer / Trainee
in new permanent post for more than six months he should
be regularized / permanent in the post in which they have
been working more than six months. Union has filed certified
copy of Certified Standing Order of M/s. B.C.C.L. Union
has also stated that the Management of Damagoria Colliery
of M/s. B.C.C.L. is trying to mislead the court through
their written argument dated 11.08.2004 submitting irrelevant
documents and irrelevant talks which are not fit for the
case in hand. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has been working as
Dresser (T) with effect from 23/29.01.1997 to till date i.e.
about seven years under different Medical Superintendent
rank doctor of M/s. B.C.C.L. in several Hospitals of the M/
s. B.C.C.L. The orders and circulars issued by the
management in the year 2002 could not be admissible in
the instant case as because the case was referred before
the Tribunal in the year 2001 and industrial dispute was
raised in the year 1998. The management of Damagoria
Colliery has been depriving the workman concerned by
not regularizing Sri Singh as Dresser after completion of six
244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
month service with effect from 09.06.1998 on the basis of
training formula which is against the certified standing order
of M/s. B.C.C.L. The certified standing order of M/s.
B.C.C.L. is the terms of employment of the workman with
Company and Coal Company are to abide by the terms of
employment, as per certified standing order it has been
prayed in the written argument to ignore the illegal plea
and argument of company and pass order as prayed in
their written statement.
It is admitted fact that Sri Ashok Kumar Singh was
appointed as UG General Mazdoor on 06.07.1991. The Chief
Personnel Manager constituted committee to hold D.P.C.
in respect of Sri Asoke Kumar Singh on 27/28.11.1996. The
Chief Personal Manager by Order No. CPM/XII/03/B-10/
97/211dated 23/29.01.1997 deployed Sri Ashok Kumar Singh
as Dresser (Training) and posted at Laikdih Deep Colliery
Dispensary of M/s. B.C.C.L. in his existing capacity. The
Chief Personnel Manager by Ref No.PM/XII/03/A-2/97/
2773 dated 09.12.1997 transferred Sri Ashok Kumar Singh
from Laikdih Deep Colliery Dispensary to Damagoria
Dispensary in his existing grade and designation. The Chief
Personnel Manager on recommendation of Departmental
Selection Committee selected 17 workmen including the
concerned workman Ashok Kumar Singh on the post of
Dressers (T) in their existing pay-scale by a order Ref No.
BCCL/PA-V/Selection/Dresser(T)/2002/1110-60 dated 25/
26.03.2002. The above appointment letter dated 25/
26.03.2002 contained instruction that all seventeen workmen
selected for the post of Dresser (T) including the concerned
workman Sri Ashok Kumar Singh will impart training for a
period of one year. After completion of successful training
of one year, as per rule of the company, they will be
regularized in Technical Group (F) in pay-scale 3505-75-
4856. In the same very appointment letter dated 25/
26.03.2002 the Medical Superintendent, Central Hospital,
Dhanbad was requested to arrange for training of all
seventeen workmen named in the list including concerned
workman Sri Ashok Kumar Singh. The copy of letter of Dy.
Chief Personnel Manager, Ref. No. DCPM/XII/03/JM/2002/
398 dated 30/31.07.2002 addressed to
Sri Subhash Kumar Singh, Area Working President,
Janta Mazdoor Sangh has been filed on record. Dy. Chief
Personnel Manager in reference to Letter No. JMS/AWP/
CVA/2002/402 dated 10.4.2002 of Sri Subhash Kumar Singh
has intimated that as per cadre scheme one year training is
essential for the post of Dresser (T). Dy. Chief Personal
Manager has requested Sri Subhash Kumar Singh, Area
Working President, J.M.S. to advise concerned workman
Ashok Kumar Singh to attend training so that he may be
regularized after completion of training. From the contents
of this letter it is evident that after deployment on the basis
of Dresser (T) Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has not undergone
training as per direction of M/s. B.C.C.L.
The concerned workman Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has
stated in his affidavit dated 19.2.2013 in para-3 that he was
sent to Area Hospital, Laikdih by the Chief Personnel
Manager, Chanch Victoria Area in accordance with the
recommendation of job suitability Committee to take training
as Dresser. The Management has categorically stated in
para-5 that Sri Ashok Kr. Singh was required to undergo
training in Central Hospital, Dhanbad. The Management
of M/s. B.C.C.L. has stated in their written statement that
at Laikdih there is no hospital, there is only a dispensary.
Equipment and facility are only available at Central Hospital,
Dhanbad for training purpose. Therefore the statement of
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh does not inspire confidence that
he imparted training at Laikdih Dispensary.
Photostat copy of Cadre Scheme for Para-Medical
staff Dresser to Senior O.T. Assistant, NCWA-IV is on
record. This Cadre Scheme has been issued on 1st August,
1990. As per Cadre Scheme, Matriculate with one years
training certificate from the Co’s hospital / recognized
Institute / Govt. Hospital is the minimum qualification for
the post of a Dresser. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh in cross-
examination at Page 4 has stated “ the qualification of
Dresser is Matriculate “.From the evidence of Sri Ashok
Kumar Singh it is apparent that he is not telling truth
regarding training. He has tried to conceal the factum of
training. From the materials available on record it is apparent
that one year training along with matriculate is pre-requisite
for the post of selection of Dresser (T) at M/s. B.C.C.L.
H.Q. A workman can not regularize if he lacks necessary
qualification or training as required by the guidelines of
any industry or employer.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka &
Ors. v/s M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in A.I R 2010 S.C
page 2587 has held as follows :-
“ where the appointments are not made or continued
against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed
do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the
appointments will be considered to be illegal.”
In the light of view expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court,
since concerned workman Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has not
imparted training which is pre-requisite for regularization,
he is not entitled for regularization.
According to clause 7.2 of Standing order permanent
workman has been defined as a workman who is employed
on job permanent in nature for a period of at least six months
or who has satisfactorily put in six months continuous
service in a permanent post as a probationer. According to
clause 7.3 of Standing Order, the probationer has been
defined as a person who is provisionally employed to fill a
vacancy in permanent post for a period not exceeding six
months. The certified Standing orders are not applicable to
the present case, because Sri Ashok Kumar Singh lacks
basic qualification for the questioned post. The very basis
for selection on the post of Dresser (T) was conditional to
impart a training of one year. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has
not undergone training as directed by the Management
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
245
of Damagoria Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L.
In view of discussions made above, I come to the
conclusion that the action of the management of Damagoria
Colliery under M/s. B.C.C.L. in denying regularization of
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, General Mazdoor, Cat-I, on the
post of Dresser, with effect from 09.06.1998 is legal and
justified and consequently, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh is not
entitled to any relief.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per
above discussion. Send the copies of the order to
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
information and needful. The reference is accordingly
disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 117-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@2007) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@56@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2016
S.O. 117.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Bonjemehari Colliery
of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 12/01/2016.
[No. L-22012/56/2007- IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 74 OF 2007
PARTIES:
The management of Bonjemehari Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Chandan Gorain
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
P. K. Goswami, Ld. Adv. (ECL)
For the union (Workman): None
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 17.12.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-22012/
56/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 18.09.2007 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union to step up the
basic pay of Sri Chandan Gorain, E.P. Fitter Excavator
Category-A at par with his junior is legal and justified?
If so, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/56/2007-
IR(CM-II) dated 18.09.2007 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 74 of
2007 was registered on 01.10.2007 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out. P.K. Goswami is present on behalf of
the management but none appears on behalf of the
workman/union.
It is found from the record that the union is neither
appearing nor taking any step from after 05.11.2007.
Registered notices were issued on 19.12.2011, 01.05.2015
& 08.07.2014 but all in vain. So far 39 dates have been
granted and after last notice 6 dates have been granted but
no response from the union / workman. It seems that the
workman / union has now no interest to proceed with this
case further. As such the case is closed and accordingly a
‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 118-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@2007) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@108@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, 12th January, 2016
S.O. 118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 52/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 12/01/2016.
[No. L-22012/108/2007-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 52 OF 2007
PARTIES:
The management of Bhanora Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Denu Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
None
For the union (Workman)
:
None
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 14.12.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-22012/
108/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 09.07.2007 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL
in dismissing Shri Biswanath Bouri w.e.f. 12.04.2004
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled? ”
Having received the Order No. L-22012/108/2007-
IR(CM-II) dated 09.07.2007 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 52 of
2007 was registered on 26.07.2007 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out. Both parties are absent.
Despite several adjournments any party neither
appears nor takes any step. As such the case is closed and
accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
O R D E R
Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 119-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ebZlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82@1997) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012@45@1996&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2016
S.O. 119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 82/1997 of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Korea Colliery of SECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
12/01/2016.
[No. L-22012/45/1996 - IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/82/97
Regional General Secretary,
MP Koyla Khadan Driver and Operators Sangh,
Chirimiri Area,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 16] 2016@ikS"k 26] 1937
247
P.O Haldibadi,
Surguja (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
Korea Colliery of SECL,
Post Korea colliery,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of December 2015
1. As per letter dated 10-3-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/
45/96-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Korea
colliery of Chirmiri area of SECL in reverting Shri
Raghupati Gorai S/o Shri S.C.Gorai from the post of
Driver to Catgory II Mazdoor and ordering deduction
of Rs.1000/- as damages from his salary vide order
dated 14-4-94 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through Union at Page 4/1 to 4/4. Case of Ist party Union is
employee Raghupati is its member. After failure of
conciliation proceeding, dispute is referred by Government.
That 2nd party issued order dated 14-4-94 reverting Ist party
workman from post of Driver to post of General Manager
Cat-II and deduction of Rs.1000 from his salary. The legality
for enquiry conducted against workman is challenged. That
the charges are vague and incapable of being replied.
Enquiry Officer was not appointed as per service rules.
Enquiry conducted against workman was empty formality.
Principles of natural justice were violated. Enquiry Officer
acted as prosecutor rather than judge. Enquiry Officer
should have considered that the materials on record
doesnot establish charges against workman. The
punishment imposed against workman is too harsh looking
to the nature of misconduct. The findings of enquiry Officer
are perverse. The findings of enquiry Officer were not
supplied to workman neither shown to him. It caused
prejudice to him. Enquiry Officer did not apply his mind
while holding the charge against workman held proved.
On such ground, Ist party prays the order dated 14-4-94 be
set aside.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/10
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that workman
was appointed as Driver. He wasdeployed as Tipper Driver.
He was served with several chargesheets in the past.
Workman was provided opportunity to improve. The
details of chargesheets are given Charge sheet No. 3150-
55 issued on 18-6-92 for misconduct under clause 26.5,
26.23, chargesheet No. 3173-79 was issued on 20-6-92.
Chargesheet No. 3572 dated 3-9-92 was issued regarding
habitual absence without sufficient cause under clause
26.24. That while workman was working as tipper driver in
Korea colliery, suptd. Engineer submitted report dated
10-7-93. In pursuance of said report, chargesheet No. 674
was issued to workman on 20-7-93 regarding damage
caused to the tipper and workman stopped the tipper work
etc. workman submitted reply to chargesheet on 22-7-93.
Reply was found unsatisfactory Shri Kewat Sr. Under
Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri
Y.P.Trika, suptd. Engineer was appointed as management
representative. The details of enquiry conducted against
workman are given in para-10 of the statement. It is
contented that workman participated in enquiry alongwith
co-worker. The witnesses of management were cross-
examined. It is reiterated that enquiry was properly
conducted. Violation of principles of natural justice have
been denied. As per report submitted by enquiry Officer,
charges against workman were proved. Considering the
proved misconduct, punishment was imposed. It is denied
that punishment is harsh. According to 2nd party, the lesser
punishment was imposed against the workman. Enquiry
Report was supplied to him. On such ground, 2nd party
submits that punishment imposed against workman is legal.
4. Considering evidence adduced by parties as per
order dated 1-9-2014, enquiry conducted against workman
is found proper and legal.
5. Considering pleadings on record and order of
enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and
determination are as under. My findings are recorded
against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the misconduct alleged
In Affirmative
against workman is proved from
evidence in Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of reversion In Affirmative
etc. imposed against workman is proper
and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
6. In view of enquiry conducted against workman is
found legal as per order dated 1-9-2014, question whether
misconduct alleged against workman are proved needs to
be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Both
parties donot adduce evidence on other issues. The record
of enquiry is produced at Exhibit M-1 to M-12. Enquiry
Report is produced at Exhibit M-13. Order of punishment
248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 16, 2016/PAUSA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
impugned is produced at Exhibit M-14. Original enquiry
proceeding is also produced. The statements of
management’s witness Sarvar Ali, V.K.N.Pillai Asstt.
Foreman, recorded in Enquiry Proceeding shows that on
19-7-93 morning, Ist party workman had come to garage,
tipper No. 9030 was driven by workman at around 1.30 AM.
Workman returned to garage with said tipper. The welding
of the trolley of tipper was found damage. Workman was
directed to drive tipper No. 6406. Workman refused to drive
said tipper saying that oil pressure was not working. The
statement of management’s witness Shri V.K.N.Pillai shows
that in morning of 19-7-93, workman returned with Tipper
No. 9030 after carrying one trip. The trolley of the tipper
was damaged. Workman was given other tipper No. 6406.
He refused to drive said tipper. The evidence on record of
Enquiry Proceeding is sufficient to prove the misconduct
alleged against workman. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1
charges against workman are proved from evidence in
Enquiry Proceedings, punishment of reversion imposed
against workman and recovery of damages Rs.1000/- from
salary of workman cannot be said excessive. Therefore I
record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, 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.