606 GI/2016

(743)

dks;yk ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 302-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd]

blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa dks;yk

vfHkizkIr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS;

vkSj js[kkad la[;k ,lbZLkh,y@ch,lih@th,e

¼ih,yth½@ Hkwfe@479] rkjh[k 2 fnlEcj] 2015 dk ftlesa

mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gaS] fujh{k.k

dysDVj] ftyk lqjtiqj vkSj ljxqtk ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy;

esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk &

700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM

¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙrhlx<+½

ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS;

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu

vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½

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- 8]

ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 14—iQjojh 20] 2016] 'kfuokj@ek?k 25—iQkYxqu 1] 1937

No. 8]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 14—FEBRUARY 20, 2016, SATURDAY/MAGHA 25—PHALGUNA 1, 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)

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa

of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk

nsrh gS ;

mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrcn~/k dksbZ

O;fDr&

¼i½ laiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k

mlds mij fdlh vf/kdkj ds vtZu ij vk{ksi ; ;k

¼ii½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds

v/khu dh xbZ dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ {kfr ;k lEHkkfor {kfr

vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu

fdlh uqdlkuh ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk(

¼iii½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds

v/khu lekIr gks xbZ iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds laca/k esa

;k mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds

v/khu lekIr gks x;s [kuu iV~Vs ds fy;s izfrdj

744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13

dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V

enksa ds laca/k esa mixr O;; dks minf'kZr djus ds

fy;s mDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZa vkSj

vU; nLrkostksa dks lqiqnZ djsxk]

bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs

fnu ds Hkhrj Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼jktLo½]

lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006

¼NRrhlx<+½ dks lkSaisxkA

vuqlwph

jsgj if'pe Cykd] foJkeiqj {ks=]

ftyk& lqjtiqj vkSj ljxqtk] NRrhlx<+

¼js[kkad la[;k ,lbZLkh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@ 479] rkjh[k 2 fnlEcj] 2015½

¼d½ jktLo Hkwfe%

Øe

xzke dk

xzke

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= gsDVj

fVIif.k;ka

la-

uke

la[;k

gYdk

esa

la[;k

tkscxk

275

lqjtiqj

204-300

Hkkx

iksaMh

270

lqjtiqj

397-880

Hkkx

lidjk

418

lqjtiqj

108-640

Hkkx

ekuh

659

lqjtiqj

667-780

Hkkx

xsrjk

138

y[kuiqj

ljxqtk

366-440

Hkkx

dqy % 1745-040 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 4311-99 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¼[k½ lajf{kr ou Hkwfe%

Ø-

dEikVZesaV la[;k

ou dk izdkj

{ks= gsDVj

fVIif.k;ka

la-

esa

Hkkx 1728] Hkkx 1729]

lajf{kr ou

593-110

Hkkx

Hkkx 1759] Hkkx 1760]

Hkkx 1761

ohoh,u Hkkx 1843]

lajf{kr ou

389-173

Hkkx

ohoh,u Hkkx 1844-

dqy % 982-283 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 2427-22 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

dqy ;ksx ¼d$[k½ ¾ 2727-323 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 6739-21 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

lhek o.kZu%

d&[k

js[kk] fcUnq *d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke iksaMh vkSj

ekuh ds mRrjh] xzke lidjk ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh

gqbZ xzke lidjk ds iwohZ lhek esa fcUnq *[k* ij feyrh

gSA

[k&x

js[kk] fcUnq *[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lidkj]

ekuh ds iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ jsgj unh ds if'peh

fdukjs esa fcUnq *x* ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk] fcUnq *x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke xsrjk ds

e/; Hkkx] lajf{kr ou ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *?k* ij

feyrh gSA

?k&d

js[kk] fcUnq *?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj lajf{kr ou ,oa

xzke tkscxk ds iwohZ Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq *d*

ij feyrh gSA

[Qk- la- 43015@3@2016&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

745

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 302.—Whereas it appears to the Central

Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the

lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed

hereto;

And whereas, the plan bearing number/SECL/BSP/

GM(PLG)/LAND/479, dated the 2nd December, 2015

containing details of the area covered by this notification

may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District

Surajpur and Surguja (Chhattisgarh) or at the office of the

Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001

or at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited

(Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006

(Chhattisgarh);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957),

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect

for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the

above mentioned Schedule may—

SCHEDULE

Rehar West Block, Bishrampur Area,

District- Surajpur and Surguja, Chhattisgarh

(Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/479, dated the 2nd December, 2015)

(A) Revenue Land :

Sl. No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

Village

Number

Halka

hectares

Number

Jobga

275

Surajpur

204.300

Part

Pondi

270

Surajpur

397.880

Part

Sapkara

418

Surajpur

108.640

Part

Mani

659

Surajpur

667.780

Part

Getra

138

Lakhanpur

Surguja

366.440

Part

Total: 1745.040 hectares (approximately) or 4311.99 acres (approximately)

(B) Protected Forest Land:

Sl. No. Compartment number

Type of Forest

Area in hectares

Remarks

Part 1728, Part 1729, Part 1759,

Protected Forest

593.110

Part

Part 1760, Part 1761

VVN Part 1843, VVN Part 1844

Protected Forest

389.173

Part

Total: 982.283 hectares (approximately) or 2427.22 acres (approximately)

Grand total (A+B)= 2727.323 hectares (approximately) or 6739.21 acres (approximately)

(i) Objection to the acquisition of the whole or any

part of the land, or of any rights in over such

lands; or

(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of

section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused

or likely to be caused by any action taken under

sub-section (3) of section 4 thereof; or

(iii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of

section 13 of the said Act, in respect of

prospecting license ceasing to have effect or

under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said

Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect, and

deliver all maps, charts and other documents

relating to the aforesaid land to show the

expenditure incurred in respect of items specified

in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section

13 of the said Act,

to the Officer-in-Charge or Head of the Department

(Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,

Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh) within ninety days from

the date of publication of this notification in the Official

Gazette.

746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Boundary Description:

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes through

northern part of village Pondi and Mani, middle

part of village Sapkara and meets at point ‘B’ on

the eastern boundary of village Sapkara.

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes along eastern

boundary of villages Sapkara, Mani and meets at

point ‘C’ on the western bank of Rehar river.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes through

middle part of village Getra, Protected Forest and

meets at point ‘D’.

D-A

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes through

Protected Forest, eastern part of village Jobga

and meets at starting point ‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/3/2016-PRIW-I]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 303-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj

ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV

¹lanHkZ (lhthvkbZVh,) la- 97@2005º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@17@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 303 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award [I.D. Reference

(CGITA) No. 97/2005] of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal Cum-Labour Court, Ahemdabad now as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Department

of Telecommunication and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 09/02/2016.

[No. L-40012/17/2003-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 13th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No.97/2005

1. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs,

Telecom Deptt.,

Deesa (BK) 0385535

The Chief General Manager,

Telecom Deptt., BSNL,

Khanpur,

Ahmedabad

The General Manger, Telecom Distt.,

Telecom Deptt.,

Palanpur Telecom,

Dist. Joravar Palace,

Palanpur (BK)-385001

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Harishankar Bhagat,

Through the Org. Secretary,

The association of Railway &

Post Employees,

15, Shashi Apartment,

Nr. Anjalee Cinema,

Vasna Road, Ahmedabad

...Second Party

For the First Party

Sh. N.K. Trivedi,

Advocate

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/17/2003-

IR(DU) dated 18.10.2005 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Association of Railway

& Post Employees, Ahmedabad for reinstatement of

Shri Harishankar Bhagat, Ext. Casual Labour by the

management of Telecom District Manager, Palanpur/

S. D.O.T. Deesa, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

(Telecom Department) is proper and justified ? If so,

to what relief the concern workman is entitled for

and since when?”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

747

This reference dates back to 18.10.2005. All the

parties were served by the registered post. Sh. N.K. Trivedi

filed vakalatnama on behalf of the first party. Number of

the opportunities was given to the second party for filing

the statement of claim but the statement of claim was not

filed by the second party.

Shri N.K. Trivedi moved an application (Ex.4)

alleging that enough time has been given to the second

party to file the statement of claim, therefore, the case may

be closed in default of the second party. Application

deserves to be allowed.

In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, it appears

that second party is not interested in the proceedings of

the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to

dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 304-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¹lanHkZ

(lhthvkbZVh,) la- 1216@2004º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 09@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@29@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award [I.D. Reference

(CGITA) No. 1216/2004] of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court, Ahemdabad now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 09/02/2016.

[No. L-40011/29/2002-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 6th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1216/2004

Reference: (I.T.C.) No. 7/2003

The General Manager,

Telecom District,

BSNL, Rajkot Division,

Lohanagar Building,

Gondal Road,

Rajkot-1

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Through the President,

Saurastra Employees Union,

‘City Shops’ 3^rd Floor,

Opp. Jagnath Police Chowky,

Dr. Yagnik Road,

Rajkot

...Second Party

For the First Party

Sh. H.R. Raval, Advocate

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 40011/29/

2002-IR(DU) dated 09.01.2003 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom

Dept. (Now BSNL) in imposing the penalty of

stoppage of one increment for 3 years with

cumulative effect on Sh. H.P. Joshi is just, fair and

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

This reference dates back to 09.01.2003. Both the

parties putting their appearance. But second party did not

prefer to submit his statement of claim despite giving

number of opportunities. Moreover, by the Gazette of India,

Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub Section (ii),

Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public

Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personal and

Training), New Delhi dated 31.10.2008, Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited has been kept out the jurisdiction of C.G.I.T..

Thus, the present reference is not maintainable.

Moreover, both the parties are not appeared to be

interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore,

Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in

default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 305-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj

ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV

¹lanHkZ (lhthvkbZVh,) la- 1161@2004º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@201@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award [I.D. Reference (CGITA)

No. 1161/2004] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industiral Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Department of

Telecommunication and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 09/02/2016.

[No. L-40012/201/96-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 8th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1161/2004

Reference: (I.T.C.) No. 15/2000

The Sub Divisional Officer,

Telecom,

Department of Telecom,

Bhuj-370001

The Sub Divisional officer,

Phones D/o. Telecom

Bhuj

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Bindeshwar Bhagat,

Through the General Secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

T.D. 2., -17,

Gurunagar,

Gandhidham

...Second Party

For the First Party

: Smt. P.V. Kharsani, Advocate

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi

by reference adjudication Order No. L- 40012/201/96-

IR(DU) dated 06.11.2000 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot(Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the sub-Division officer,

Telegraphs, Bhuj in terminating the services of

Sh. Bindeshwar Bhagat, Mazdoor under Sub-

Divisional Officer, Telegraphs,, Bhuj w.e.f. 31.08.1988

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

workman is entitled?”

This reference dates back to 06.11.2000. Both the

parties have been absent since last several dates and

second party has also not filed the statement of claim. On

some of the date first party’s counsel appeared. Thus, it

appears that second party is not interested in the

proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no

option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second

party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 306-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fyfeVsM vkSj nwljs ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 46@1987) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 05-02-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&3(20)@86&du- II@Mh-III-chº

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/1987)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

749

M/s. Rajasthan Mines and Mineral Ltd. and Others and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 05-02-2016.

[No. L-3(20)/86-Con.II/D.III.B]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

vuqca/

dsUæh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k] t;iqj

dsl ua- lh-vkbZ-Vh- 46@1987

jsiQjsal % dsUæ ljdkj] Je U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk

vkns'k Ø-

3(20)/86-Con.II/D.III.B Date 17 June, 1987

eSllZ jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M

feujy deZpkjh la?k] mn;iqj A

(jkWd iQkWLisQV [kku ds 137 [email protected])

----izkFkhZx.k

cuke

1- jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj

2- eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst]

mn;iqj] 221] eksrhexjh Ldhe]

ikdZ ds lkeus] mn;iqj

---vizkFkhZx.k

mifLFkr %

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& 'kqHkk esgrk] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls

Jh foØe ¯lg uSu ,oa

Jh ,e- ,iQ- cSx

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh foU;saæ vxzoky

vokMZ

fnukad 22-12-2015

dsUæ ljdkj] Je U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh dh vksj ls vkns'k

3(20)/86-Con.II/D.III.B Date 17 June, 1987 ds ekè;e ls fuEu

fookn bl U;k;kf/dj.k dk vfèkfu.kZ; gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k &

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Eastern Engineering Enterprises, Udaipur,

Contractor, M/s Rajasthan/Mines & Mineral Ltd. (A

Govt. of Rajasthan Undertaking), Udaipur in

retrenching the 137 workmen of their Rock phosphate

Mine is just and lagal? If not, what relief are the

workmen concerned entitled to?”

rRi'pkr~ dsUæ ljdkj] Je U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh dh

vksj ls la'kks/u vkns'k F.No. L-3(20)/86-Con.II/D.III.(B)

(Pt.) New Delhi, dated 21.11.2007 ds ekè;e ls fuEu fookn

bl U;k;kf/dj.k dks vfèkfu.kZ; gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k &

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Eastern Engineering Enterprises, Udaipur,

Contractor, M/s Rajasthan/ Mines & Mineral Ltd.

(A Govt. of Rajasthan Undertaking), Udaipur in

retrenching the 137 workmen w.e.f. 30th July, 1985 is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workmen

concerned are entitled to?”

mDr funsZ'kksa ds lkFk izkIr 137 Jfedksa dh lwph fuEu

izdkj gS &

Øe

uke

inuke

fu;qfDr frfFk

la-

loZ Jh ds- lh-

'kkoy vkWijsVj

24-07-1981

ljdkfj;k

ih-ds- ckyu

12-07-1981

,l-,l- uk;j

19-08-1981

vej ¯lg

01-04-1981

ekS- rLyhe

lhfu;j eSdsfud

20-05-1981

ch-ih- xqIrk

24-05-1981

egsUæ ¯lg

06-08-1981

oh-,e- tks;

23-09--1981

dqUnu yky

Mkstj vkWijsVj

23-05-1981

10-

jktsUæ ¯lg

08-09-1981

11-

cukjlh ¯lg

13-09-1981

12-

jetku csx

vkWVks fiQVj

06-10-1981

13-

lyhe [kka

01-04-1982

14-

,l- 'k'kh/ju

fiQVj

11-06-1981

15-

,e- izdk'ku

11-06-1981

16-

ih-ds- e/qlwnu

01-08-1982

17-

vCnqy ckjh

twfu;j fiQVj

24-05-1981

18-

ekS- ljiQn~}hu

12-07-1981

19-

ds- lqjsUæu

twfu;j fiQVj

12-07-1981

20-

vCnqy vtht

08-09-1981

21-

ekS- guhiQ

18-11-1981

22-

tqxy fd'kksj

dEiz'ksj vkWijsVj

20-05-1981

23-

Hkaoj ¯lg

22-08-1981

24-

dYywjke jkor

05-09-1981

25-

ujsUæ Mkaxh

06-09-1981

750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

26-

jktsUæ vkfgjks

06-09-1981

27-

vkj-ds- xqIrk

08-09-1981

28-

/us'oj vkfgjh

18-09-1981

29-

vkj-ds- feJk

fMªy vkWijsVj

12-07-1981

30-

gfj xksLokeh

12-07-1981

31-

dYyw jke xkSM

04-08-1981

32-

iQdhj ekSgEen

08-09-1981

33-

txnh'k izlkn

20-10-1981

34-

eksgu yky eh.kk

05-09-1981

35-

iUuk csjk

tSd gSej

05-09-1981

36-

ykyw jke

18-09-1981

37-

ukuwjke

29-09-1981

38-

ln:n~}hu [kka

gSYij

24-05-1981

39-

,e- v'kksdu

06-09-1981

40-

gjcUl ¯lg

06-08-1981

41-

ds- lkseu fiYYkkbZ

06-08-1981

42-

oh-ts- Fksel dqV~Vh

07-08-1981

43-

,p-ds- feJk

18-08-1981

44-

fou; ¯lg jktiwr

25-08-1981

45-

'kadj nk;ek

06-08-1981

46-

lksgu yky vksFk

08-09-1981

47-

enuyky vkfgfj

18-09-1981

48-

'k'kh/ju fiYykbZ

20-09-1981

49-

tkstZ dqV~Vh

20-09-1981

50-

iUukyky eh.kk

20-09-1981

51-

Mh- eksgu

20-09-1981

52-

[;kyhyky tks'kh

20-09-1981

53-

'kadjyky dVkjk

20-09-1981

54-

ykywjke eh.kk

20-10-1981

55-

ds-ds- uk;j

25-10-1981

56-

ckfyLVj

01-03-1982

57-

mes'k ¯lg

01-07-1982

58-

xkso/Zu ¯lg

10-08-1983

59-

eksgu jke

08-09-1983

60-

xksiky ¯lg

DydZ

12-11-1983

61-

vthr ¯lg

13-04-1984

62-

egsUæ ¯lg

22-08-1984

63-

dUuq tks'kh

08-10-1984

64-

jksM¯lg iaokj

iQksjesu

20-10-1981

65-

ekaxhyky xqtZj

04-09-1983

66-

dSyk'k /kckbZ

lqijokbZtj

01-03-1984

67-

gfjjke jkor

twfu;j lqijokbZtj

20-10-1983

68-

ekaxhyky Vsyj

23-09-1981

69-

ekaxw ¯lg

etnwj

05-09-1981

70-

nyhpUn

20-09-1981

71-

lkdk

01-07-1982

72-

csjk

01-07-1982

73-

eksrh

01-07-1982

74-

jkew

01-07-1982

75-

psUuk

01-07-1982

76-

'kadj

01-07-1982

77-

rksyk eksrh

03-05-1983

78-

dUuk

03-05-1983

79-

fyEck

03-05-1983

80-

dekZ

03-05-1983

81-

ukFkw

03-05-1983

82-

ds-oh- okUMh

etnwj

03-05-1983

83-

es?kjkt

20-05-1983

84-

ckcwnhu

20-05-1983

85-

fd'kuiky

20-05-1983

86-

lkaojyky

20-05-1983

87-

jktsUæ jkor

21-05-1983

88-

jktsUæ ¯lg

22-05-1983

89-

egsUæ ;kno

26-05-1983

90-

,e-ds- xqIrk

29-09-1983

91-

jathr ¯lg

28-10-1983

92-

ekS- vcjkj

28-10-1983

93-

f'ko cgknqj

06-11-1983

94-

y{e.k ¯lg

95-

eksgu yky

06-04-1984

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

751

96-

es?k ¯lg

01-07-1984

97-

'kadj ¯lg

13-07-1984

98-

ih-ch- lqUæsu

oSYMj

20-09-1981

99-

,l-,e- ukFkkuh

10-10-1982

100- ,l-,l- uk;j

24-01-1984

101- vCnqy jgeku

VuZj

01-06-1983

102- xksiky ¯lg

pkSdhnkj

103- iwjk

104- iky ¯lg

01-11-1984

105- ;'kiky ¯lg

fVªi dkmUVj

21-09-1983

106- pkUn fd'kksj

13-09-1983

107- enu of'k"B

11-10-1983

108- HkwisUæ ¯lg

05-11-1983

109- ih-oh- tsdc

fVªi MªkbZoj

24-05-1981

110- gjsUæ ¯lg

19-06-1981

111- FkUdkpu

08-07-1981

112- f'konklu

12-07-1981

113- rkjds'oj ¯lg

09-08-1981

114- xqykc jkor

18-08-1981

115- toku ¯lg

22-05-1981

116- liQh ekSgEen

25-05-1981

117- fnus'k cktikbZ

04-09-1981

118- ds¯jx yky

15-09-1981

119- uosZ ¯lg

18-09-1981

120- izrki ¯lg

18-09-1981

121- lelq¼hu

18-09-1981

122- vkSedkj ¯lg

20-09-1981

123- euksgj yky jkor

20-09-1981

124- 'kadj yky vkghjh

20-09-1981

125- Mh-Vh- nkl

10-10-1981

126- Hkaoj nkl

20-10-1981

127- mek'kadj

20-01-1981

128- nkSyr ¯lg

01-12-1981

129- lhrkjke lk/w

01-12-1981

130- fd'kunkl

01-12-1981

131- tokn [kka

06-07-1981

132- izHkwyky

20-05-1983

133- mn;yky

20-05-1983

134- eftn csx

09-07-1984

135- jkeyky vkfgjh

Vªd pkyd

10-01-1982

136- jfoUæ izdk'k

24-05-1983

137- eq[kR;kj [kka

vkWVks bysfDVª;u

13-11-1984

mDr funsZ'k ds izkIr gksus ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ eSllZ jktLFkku

LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujYl fy- la?k mn;iqj }kjk LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse

foi{kh Øe 1 eSllZ jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujYl fy- la?k

mn;iqj (vkj,l,e,e) vkSj foi{kh la[;k 2 eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx

,UVjizkbZtst] mn;iqj (bZbZbZ) ds fo#¼ bl vfHkdFku dks izLrqr

fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ deZpkjh la?k ,d iathÑr la?k gS A >kej

dksVMk [knkuksa ij dk;Z djus okys Jfed bl la?k ds lnL; gSa A

foi{kh Øe 1] eSllZ jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujYl fy-

mn;iqj] ,d jktdh; m|ksx gS] tks >kej dksVMk dh [kkuksa ds

eq[; fu;kstd gSA foi{kh Øe 2 eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst]

mn;iqj] ,d lk>snkjh iQeZ gS] vkSj Bsdsnkj gS] ftls foi{kh

Øe 1 us [kkkuksa ls mRikfnr eky gVkus vkSj [kkuksa ds [knku dk

dk;Z Bsds ij ns j[kk gS A foi{kh Øe 2 us foi{kh Øe 1 ds Bsds

fy, x, dk;Z dks lEiUu djus ds fy, lu~ 1981 esa yxHkx 250

Jfedksa dks fu;ksftr fd;k Fkk A Jfedksa dh la[;k ?kVrh c<rh

jgrh Fkh A

izkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd foi{kh Øe 1 us muds

;gka ekU;rkizkIr ;wfu;u jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k ls fnukad

19-05-1981 dks ,d le>kSrk fd;k Fkk] ftlesa ;g r; fd;k x;k

Fkk fd foi{kh Øe 2 dk dk;Z lekIr gks tkus ij muds ;gka dk;Z

djus okys Jfedksa dks foi{kh Øe 1 vius ;gka fu;kstu esa

izkFkfedrk nsaxs A foi{kh Øe 2 us Hkh jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k ls

fnukad 26-05-1981 dks ,d le>kSrk fd;k] ftlesa foi{kh Øe 2

us leku dk;Z] leku osru ds fl¼kUr ds vk/kj ij leku osru nsuk

Lohdkj fd;k A

foi{kh Øe 2 us fnukad 17-05-1985 dks xqIr :i ls Hkkjr

ljdkj ds le{k ,d izkFkZuk i=k izLrqr dj 17 Jfedksa dh fnukad

17-08-85 ls NaVuh djus dh Lohd`fr ekaxh vkSj 'ks"k 120 Jfedksa

dks Hkh mlh izdkj ds fnukad 30-06-1985 dks] fnukad 01-08-1985

ls NaVuh djus ds uksfVl fn, A foi{kh Øe 2 us mDr uksfVlksa esa

Jfedksa dh NaVuh dk dkj.k foi{kh Øe 1 ds Bsds dk dk;Z lekIr

gksuk crk;k A foi{kh Øe 2 }kjk NaVuh dh LohÑfr gsrq izsf"kr i=k

Hkkjr ljdkj ds le{k fopkjk/hu Fks] mlh nkSjku lHkh 137 Jfedksa

752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dh lsok,a voSèk vkSj vuqfpr rjhds ls lekIr djus dk ekxZ

viuk;k x;k A bu Jfedksa dh lsok,a lekIr djus ls iwoZ ekU;rkizkIr

;wfu;u jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k dks fo'okl esa ugha fy;k x;k] vkSj

viuh ethZ ds 5 deZpkfj;ksa ls tks foi{kh Øe 2 ds fo'oklik=k

Fks] fnukad 26-07-1985 dks ,d le>kSrk dj fy;k A ;g le>kSrk

Jfedksa ds fgrksa ds foijhr ,oa cnfu;friw.kZ gS] vkSj vuqfpr Je

O;ogkj (Unfair Labour Practice) dh dk;Zokgh esa vkrk gS] tks

voS/ gS A

izkFkhZ la?k us fnukad 25-07-1985 dks lgk;d Je vk;qDr

vtesj dks rkj nsdj vkS|ksfxd fookn izLrqr dj Jfedksa dh NaVuh

jksdus dh ekax dh] ijUrq lgk;d Je vk;qDr] vtesj us bl ij

dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh vkSj foi{kh Øe 2 us leLr 137 Jfedksa

dh fnukad 30-07-1985 dks] lsok ls NaVuh dj nh A la?k us mDr

fookn dks dsUæh; lgk;d Je vk;qDr] vtesj ds le{k mBk;k]

vkSj mlesa le>kSrk ugha gksus ij dsUæh; ljdkj us ;g fookn bl

U;k;kf/dj.k dks izsf"kr fd;k gSA

izkFkhZ la?k dk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd Jfedksa dh NVuh dk

tks dkj.k crk;k x;k gS] og iw.kZr% xyr vkSj vk/kjghu gS A

tqykbZ] 1985 esa foi{kh Øe 2 dk Bsds dk dk;Z lekIr ugha gqvk

Fkk] vkSj og 100 u, Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr dj pyk;k tk jgk gS A

ikap Jfedksa }kjk fd;k x;k le>kSrk voS/ gS A foi{kh Øe 2 us

le>kSrs ds lHkh dkxt Lo;a rS;kj djokdj] Mjk èkedkdj] mu

ij Jfedksa ds gLrk{kj djok fy, A mDr 5 Jfedksa dks] Jfedksa us

LosPNk ls viuk izfrfuf/ ugha cuk;k vkSj uk gh mUgsa le>kSrs dk

vf/dkj fn;k A bu ikap Jfedksa us Hkh Jfedksa dh lHkk cqykdj

le>kSrs dh LohÑfr ugha yh A okLrfodrk esa foi{kh Øe 2 us mDr

137 Jfedksa dks xzsP;wVh vkfn ds ykHk ls oafpr djus dh cnfu;fr

ls Jfed fojksèkh le>kSrk] vius dBiqryh Jfedksa ds uke ls dj

fy;k] tks cnfu;friw.kZ gS A ;g NaVuh vuqfpr Je O;ogkj esa

vkrh gS] bl dkj.k 137 Jfedksa dh NaVuh dks voS/ vkSj vuqfpr

?kksf"kr fd;k tkos] vkSj lHkh Jfedksa dks iwjs osru o lqfo/kvksa

lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;k tkos A

foi{kh Øe 1 eSllZ jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M

feujYl fy- mn;iqj us izkFkhZ la?k ds LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse dk mÙkj

izLrqr dj fojks/ fd;k A mudk mÙkj esa ;g vfHkdFku gS fd >kej

dksVMk [knkuksa ij dk;Z djus okys Jfedksa dk izkFkhZ la?k ds lnL;

gksuk Lohdkj ugha gS A foi{kh Øe 1 ds laLFkku >kej dksVMk esa]

jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k] ,d ek=k Jfedksa dk laxBu gS vkSj ogh

laLFkku vkSj [knkuksa esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ls lacaf/r gS A eSllZ bZLVuZ

bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst] mn;iqj ds laLFkku esa Hkh izkFkhZ la?k dk

vfLrRo ugha gS] blfy, mls Jfedksa dh vksj ls okn izLrqr djus

dk vf/dkj ugha gSA

foi{kh Øe 1 ds mÙkj esa ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd foi{kh

Øe 1 jkT; ljdkj dk laLFkku gS] vkSj >kej dksVMk dh [kkusa

mUgha ds ikl gSa A foi{kh Øe 2 dks foi{kh Øe 1 us [kkuksa ls

mRikfnr Åijh laLrj (Over burden) dks gVkus dk Bsdk fn;k

gqvk gS A ;g dk;Z ges'kk ugha gksrk gS] dHkh&dHkh] Åijh laLrj

tek gksus ij gh] djok;k tkrk gS vkSj ftruk eky gVkrs gSa] mlh

vuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS A foi{kh Øe 1 dh foi{kh Øe 2 ds

lkFk Jfed miyC/ djokus dh lafonk ugha gS] cfYd foi{kh Øe

2 }kjk fd, x, dk;Z ds vk/kj ij Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS A dk;Z

gsrq e'khusa] etnwj vkSj O;fDr foi{kh Øe 2 }kjk gh yxk, tkrs gSa]

vkSj bldk foi{kh Øe 1 ls laca/ ugha gS A foi{kh Øe 2 ds ikl

dk;Z djus okys deZpkfj;ksa ij foi{kh Øe 1 dk dksbZ fu;a=k.k ugha

gS A foi{kh Øe 2 viuh vko';drk ds vuqlkj Jfed yxkrk gS]

vkSj mudk foi{kh Øe 1 ls laca/ ugha gS A

foi{kh Øe 1 dk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd fnukad

19-05-1981 dks dksbZ le>kSrk foi{kh Øe 1 vkSj ekU;rk izkIr

;wfu;u ds chp ugha gqvk A okLrfodrk esa jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k

vkSj foi{kh Øe 1 ds izcU/dksa ds izfrfuf/;ksa ds eè; fnukad

19-05-1981 dks tks okrkZ gqbZ] mldk fooj.k&dk;Zo`Ùk (Minutes)

bl nLrkost esa fn;k x;k gS] ijUrq bls ckn esa fd, x, fdlh Hkh

le>kSrs dk Hkkx ugha cuk;k x;k gS ,oa bldh dHkh Hkh ikyuk ugha

dh xbZA fnukad 19-05-1981 ;k blls iwoZ foi{kh Øe 2 dks Bsdk

ugha fn;k x;k Fkk] cfYd ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk fd tek o Åijh

laLrj Bsdsnkj ds ekè;e ls nwj djok;k tkosxk vkSj ;wfu;u ds

ncko Mkyus ij dEiuh us fliZQ ;g ekuk Fkk fd Bsdk iw.kZ gksus ds

ckn vxj dksbZ Jfed csjkstxkj gks tkrk gS rks mls izkFkfedrk nh

tkosxh] ysfdu izkFkfedrk dk rkRi;Z fu;qfDr nsus ls ugha gS A

foi{kh Øe 1 ds ;gka fu;qfDr dh fuf'pr izfØ;k gS] mlh ds

vuqlkj HkrhZ dh tkrh gS A fnukad 19-05-1981 ds dk;Zo`Ùk dk

vlj mlh ifjfLFkfr esa gks ldrk Fkk tc Bsdk lekIr gks tkos]

ijUrq Bsdk pkyw gS A

foi{kh Øe 1 us vius mÙkj esa jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k

vkSj foi{kh Øe 2 ds eè; gq, fdlh Hkh izdkj ds le>kSrs dh

tkudkjh gksus ls bUdkj djrs gq, vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd ,sls fdlh

le>kSrs ls foi{kh Øe 1 ckè; ugha gS A mldk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS

fd fnukad 26-07-1985 dk le>kSrk ,d f=ki{kh; le>kSrk Fkk]

vkSj mls Jfedksa ds 5 izfrfuf/;ksa us fd;k Fkk A ;g le>kSrk]

le>kSrk&vf/dkjh ds le{k fookn ds fuiVkjs ds fy, fd;k x;k

Fkk vkSj bldh oS/rk vkSj voS/rk ds ckjs esa dksbZ funsZ'k (jSiQjsal)

U;k;kf/dj.k ds le{k fu.kZ;kFkZ ugha gSa A bl dkj.k bl fcUnq ij

orZeku funsZ'k ds ifjisz{; esa fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk A

foi{kh Øe 1 ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd Jfedksa dh tks NaVuh

crkbZ xbZ gS] mlls lacaf/r i=kkoyh ij izLrqr ys[k i=kksa ls ;g

izdV gksrk gS fd ;g lsok i;kZolku le>kSrs ds vkèkkj ij fd;k

x;k gS vkSj le>kSrs dh ikyuk vkSj mldh lwpuk fu;ekuqlkj nh

xbZ gS A u, Jfedksa dh HkrhZ ds ckjs esa rF; xyr gS A izi=k fnukad

19-05-1981 ds vuqlkj Hkh izkFkfedrk dk iz'u Bsdk lekIr gksus

ij gh mRiUu gksrk gS] vkSj foi{kh Øe 1 dh vxj dksbZ ftEesnkjh

gksrh Hkh gS rks og lafonk lekIr gksus ds ckn Jfedksa ds csjkstxkj

gksus ij] izkFkfedrk nsus rd gh lhfer gS A

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

753

foi{kh Øe 1 dk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd mls izdj.k esa

xyr i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS] n'kkZ, x, O;fDr foi{kh Øe 1 ds

Jfed ugha gSa vkSj og mudk fu;kstd ugha gS_ 137 Jfedksa dks

foi{kh Øe 1 }kjk dk;Z ugha nsus ds laca/ esa dksbZ funsZ'k U;k;kfèkdj.k

ds le{k ugha gS A

mudk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd ;g ekeyk dkWUVsªDV yscj

(jsX;qys'ku ,.M ,ckWfy'ku) ,DV] 1970 ds izko/kuksa ds vUrxZr

vkrk gS A vr% vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e ds vUrxZr bldk

funsZ'k ugha fHktok;k tk ldrk A mudk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd

dkWUVsªDV yscj (jsX;qys'ku ,.M ,ckWfy'ku) ,DV] 1970 ds vfèkfu;e

ds vUrxZr foi{kh Øe 1 iathÑr rFkk foi{kh Øe 2 Bsdsnkj Hkh

ykbZlsal /kjd gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh Øe 1 dh dksbZ ftEesnkjh

foi{kh Øe 2 ds Jfedksa ds fy, ugha gksrh gS A foi{kh Øe 1 dk

;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh ugha crk;k gS fd

fdl&fdl Jfed us fdrus&fdrus fnu dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj bu

rF;ksa ds vHkko esa NaVuh ds laca/ esa leqfpr mÙkj ugha fn;k tk

ldrk A vr% lEiw.kZ fookn ij fopkj dj izkFkhZ dk Dyse fujLr

dj leqfpr ljdkj dks jSiQjsal i=k fHktok;k tkos A

foi{kh Øe 2 us izkFkhZ ds LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse dk tokc

izLrqr dj vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd foi{kh Øe 2 dks foi{kh Øe 1

us [kkuksa ls mRikfnr laLrj dks gVkus dk Bsdk fn;k Fkk] ftldh

vof/ le;≤ ij c<kbZ xbZ A vizkFkhZ Øe 2 ds dk;Z dh

izÑfr dks ns[krs gq, jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k tks foi{kh Øe 1 ds

Jfedksa dh ekU;rk izkIr ;wfu;u Fkh] ds lkFk foi{kh Øe 2 us

fnukad 26-05-1981 dks le>kSrk fd;k A mlds ckn Hkh dbZ le>kSrs

fd, x,] ftlds vuqlkj lafonk vkSj Bsds ds dk;Z fnukad

30-09-1985 rd lekIr gksuk Fkk A foi{kh Øe 2 us jkWd iQkWLisQV

etnwj la?k ds lkFk le>kSrk fnukad 25-02-1985 dks fd;k] ftlesa

;g Li"V fd;k x;k fd Jfedksa dk fu;kstu fuf'pr vof/ ds

fy, gS] tks fd lafonk dh vof/ gS A fnukad 17-05-1985 vkSj

02-07-1985 dks foi{kh Øe 2 us /kjk 25 ,u vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/fu;e ds vUrxZr izkFkZuk i=k fHktok;k Fkk] tks dsUæ ljdkj ds

ikl yfEcr Fkk A blh nkSjku Jfedksa us dqN 'krks± ij LoSfPNd

lsokfuo`fÙk gsrq izkFkZuk i=k fn,] ftl ij vf/dka'k Jfedksa us

gLrk{kj fd, Fks A bl izkFkZuk i=k ds izkIr gksus ij foi{kh Øe 2

dks] iqufoZpkj djus ij] ;g vkHkkl gqvk fd iwoZ esa fn, x, izkFkZuk

i=k fnukad 17-05-1985 vkSj 02-07-1985 dks Persue djus dh

vko';drk ugha gS A izcU/u] mDr Jfedksa ds LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk

ds izkFkZuk i=k esa pkgs x, ykHk nsus ij lger gks x;k vkSj bl

laca/ esa le>kSrk lqyg vf/dkjh] dsUæh; ds le{k fnukad

26-07-1985 dks ,d f=ki{kh; lqyg&le>kSrk gqvk A bl le>kSrs

vkSj fnukad 25-02-1985 ds le>kSrs ds ckn Jfedksa ,oa foi{kh

Øe 2 ds chp fdlh izdkj dk fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk A fnukad

26-07-1985 ds le>kSrs dks ekU;rk izkIr ;wfu;u us vkSj 137

Jfedksa us lg"kZ Lohdkj fd;k vkSj bl le>kSrs ds vUrxZr lHkh us

vk£Fkd ykHk izkIr fd, A le>kSrk fnukad 26-07-1985 ij mu ikap

O;fDr;ksa us gLrk{kj fd,] ftUgsa iwoZ esa o"kZ 1983 esa fo'ks"k fe¯Vx

djds izkf/Ñr izfrfufèk ds :i esa foi{kh Øe 2 ds lkFk okrkZ

vkfn djus ds fy, pquk x;k Fkk A

foi{kh Øe 2 dk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd fnukad

26-07-1985 ds bl le>kSrs ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us fnukad

29-11-1985 dks ,d ekax i=k j[kk] ftl ij foi{kh Øe 1 ,oa

foi{kh Øe 2 dks lgk;d yscj dfe'uj lsUVªy] vtesj }kjk

fVIi.kh gsrq cqyk;k x;k A foi{kh Øe 2 us le>kSrk vf/dkjh ds

le{k foLr`r fVIif.k;ka is'k dh vkSj le>kSrk izfØ;k esa Hkkx fy;kA

bl le>kSrk izfØ;k dh vliQyrk ds izfrosnu ls ;g Li"V gS fd

izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks foi{kh Øe 2 ds fo#¼ ;gh f'kdk;r gS fd

fnukad 26-07-1985 dk le>kSrk dsoy ikap izkf/Ñr izfrfuf/;ksa

}kjk gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k rFkk jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k ds

inkfèkdkfj;ksa }kjk gLrk{kfjr ugha fd;k x;k A ;g vkifÙk lkjghu

gS] D;ksafd mDr le>kSrs dks jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k ds i=k fnukad

06-08-1985 }kjk Lohdkj dj fy;k x;k A fnukad 26-07-1985 ds

le>kSrs ds laca/ esa izkFkhZ ;wfu;u vkSj foi{kh Øe 2 ds eè; dksbZ

fookn ugha gS A

foi{kh Øe 2 dk vfHkdFku gS fd Jfedksa dk fu;kstu

fuf'pr vof/ ds fy, gksus vkSj rRi'pkr~ muds }kjk lqyg&le>kSrs

ds vUrxZr ykHk izkIr djus ds dkj.k lEiw.kZ ekeyk /kjk 2 (oo)

ds (a) o (bb) vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèkfu;e ds vUrxZr vk tkrk

gS A

foi{kh Øe 2 dk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks

ekeyk mBkus dk dksbZ vf/dkj ugha gS A

foi{kh Øe 2 us vius tokc esa foi{kh Øe 1 }kjk [kkuksa ls

mRikfnr eky dks gVkus dk dk;Z Bsds ij fn;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k

gS vkSj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd mUgsa ;g dk;Z fyf[kr lafonk ls

fn;k x;k Fkk A foi{kh Øe 2 us Bsds ij fy, x, dk;Z dks lEiUu

djus ds fy, mlds }kjk Jfedksa dks fu;ksftr fd, tkus ds rF; ls

bUdkj ugha fd;k vkSj jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k ls foi{kh Øe 1 dk

fnukad 19-05-1981 dks fd, tkus okys le>kSrs dks Hkh fookfnr

ugha fd;k A foi{kh Øe 2 us fnukad 26-05-1981 dks foi{kh Øe 2

vkSj jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k ds chp le>kSrs dks Hkh fookfnr ugha

gksuk izdV fd;k gS vkSj ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd o"kZ 1983

esa bl lafonk ds dk;Z ls lacaf/r ikap Jfedksa dks vU; Jfedksa }kjk

okrkZyki djus ds fy, izkf/Ñr izfrfuf/ cuk;k x;k A mDr ikap

O;fDr ekU;rk izkIr ;wfu;u jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k ds Hkh lnL;

Fks A ckn esa fnukad 25-02-1985 dks le>kSrk fy[kk x;k A foi{kh

Øe 2 dk vfHkdFku gS fd mUgksaus dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh Hkkjr ljdkj

ds le{k xqIr rkSj ij ugha dh A Hkkjr ljdkj ds le{k NaVuh dh

LohÑfr ds fy, tks izkFkZuk i=k is'k fd, x, Fks] os vKkurko'k

izLrqr dj fn, x, Fks A

foi{kh Øe 2 us vius mÙkj esa izkFkhZ ds bl vfHkdFku dks

loZFkk xyr crk;k gS fd mUgksaus 137 Jfedksa dks voS/ vkSj

754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqfpr rjhds ls lsok eqDr dj fn;k vkSj fnukad 26-07-1985 dk

le>kSrk cnfu;friwoZd fd;k x;k A mudk vfHkdFku gS fd fnukad

26-07-1985 dk le>kSrk jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k dks fo'okl esa

ysdj fd;k x;k Fkk A muds fo#¼ vU;k;] cnfu;fr vkSj Jfed

fojks/h gksus ds tks vkjksi yxk, x, gSa] os feF;k gSa A mudk

vfHkdFku gS fd foi{kh Øe 2 us 137 Jfedksa dh NaVuh ugha dh]

cfYd lqyg&le>kSrs fnukad 26-07-1985 ds vUrxZr Jfedksa us

LoSfPNd fuo`fÙk ysdj vk£Fkd ykHk izkIr fd, gSa A bu Jfedksa dks

fu;kstu esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ izkFkfedrk fn, tkus dk iz'u gS]

rks og foi{kh Øe 1 ls lacaf/r gS] foi{kh Øe 2 ls lacaf/r ugha

gS A Jfedksa ls fdUgha Hkh dkxtksa ij /edh vkSj ncko nsdj

gLrk{kj ugha djok, x,A izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vfèkdkjh

ugha gSa A

izkFkhZ us foi{kh Øe 1 ds mÙkj dk izfrmÙkj izLrqr djrs gq,

;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd foi{kh us jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k dks

xyr o jktuSfrd vk/kj ij ekU;rk ns j[kh gS_ fnukad

19-05-1981 dk le>kSrk] lsVyesaV dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS A

foi{kh Øe 1 us foi{kh Øe 2 dk Bsdk lekIr ugha fd;k] fiQj Hkh

foi{kh Øe 2 us foi{kh Øe 1 dks bu Jfedksa dks dk;Z ij ysus ds

fy, ckè; ugha fd;k] tcfd foi{kh Øe 1 dks bu Jfedksa dks

le>kSrs ds vuqlkj dk;Z ij ysdj] fu;kstu nsuk pkfg, Fkk A

le>kSrs ds vk/kj ij lsok i;kZolku dh ckr feF;k gS A mDr

fookn lsok&eqfDr dk fookn gS vkSj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e ds

vUrxZr vkrk gSA foi{kh Øe 1 eq[; fu;kstd gS vkSj le>kSrk

fnukad 19-05-1981 ds vk/kj ij mudk Hkh nkf;Ro gS A

izfrmÙkj esa izkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh dFku jgk gS fd fookn ls

lacaf/r 137 Jfedksa us ,d o"kZ ls vf/d dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj ,d

o"kZ dh vof/ esa 240 fnu ls vf/d dk;Z fd;k gSA

izkFkhZ us foi{kh Øe 2 ds mÙkj dk Hkh izfrmÙkj izLrqr fd;k

gS vkSj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd izfrmÙkj foi{kh Øe 2 dk Bsds

dk dk;Z ebZ 1981 ls 1991 rd yxkrkj pyrk jgk gS A mUgksaus

foi{kh Øe 2 vkSj jkWd iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k ds eè; fnukad

26-05-1981 dk le>kSrk gksuk Lohdkj fd;k vkSj vfHkdfFkr fd;k

gS fd foi{kh Øe 2 us Bsds dh vof/ c<+kus ij vius ;gka dk;Zjr

Jfedksa dks fu;kstu nsrs jgus dk dk;Z ugha fd;k vkSj 137 Jfedksa

dks voSèk :i ls lsok eqDr dj fn;k A

izkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd foi{kh Øe 2 vkSj jkWd

iQkWLisQV etnwj la?k ds chp fnukad 25-02-1985 dks tks le>kSrk

gqvk Fkk] mlds eqrkfcd foi{kh Øe 2 dks Bsds dh vof/ rd

Jfedksa dks fu;kstu esa j[kuk pkfg, Fkk A foi{kh Øe 2 dk Bsdk

flrEcj] 1985 esa lekIr ugha gqvk vkSj yxkrkj pyrk jgk A

foi{kh Øe 2 us Jfedksa dks fu;qfDr i=k ugha fn, vkSj mudh

lsok,a fuf'pr vof/ ds fy, gksus dh ckr dguk xyr gS A

izkFkhZ dk vfHkdFku gS fd foi{kh Øe 2 us Bsds dh vof/

lekIr gksus ds uke ij Jfedksa dh NaVuh ds uksfVl fn,] mu ij

ncko Mkyk fd muds }kjk izkFkZuk i=k izLrqr djus ij vf/d iSlk

feysxk_ ,slh fLFkfr R;kx i=k ls NksM+h xbZ lsok,a Hkh NaVuh dh

ifjHkk"kk esa vkrh gSa A le>kSrk fnukad 26-07-1985 dkuwu ds

foijhr gS vkSj izHkkoghu gS A bldh okrkZ djus okys ikap Jfedksa

dk pquko o"kZ 1983 esa fd;k x;k] tcfd orZeku fookn ebZ] 1985

esa mRiUu gqvk gS A ;g le>kSrk foi{kh Øe 2] ikap Jfedksa vkSj

lgk;d yscj dfe'uj dsUæh; dh feyhHkxr dk "kM~;a=k gS A

foi{kh Øe 2 }kjk fudkys x, Jfedksa esa ls vf/dka'k mudh

;wfu;u ds lnL; gSa A o"kZ 1983 esa pqus x, ikap Jfedksa dks dsoy

okrkZ esa Hkkx ysus ds fy, pquk x;k Fkk] mUgsa le>kSrs dk vf/dkj

ugha Fkk A foi{kh Øe 2 us 137 Jfedksa dh NaVuh dh gS vkSj

lsok&eqfDr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrh gS vkSj ;g NaVuh fcuk

vk/kj mRiUu gq, dh xbZ gS] bl dkj.k voS/ gS A

i{kdkjksa dh vksj ls mDr izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse] tokc

vkSj izfrmÙkjksa ds vk/kj ij U;k;kf/dj.k us fHktok, x, funsZ'k dks

fu.khZr djus ds fy, fuEu fookn fcUnq fu/kZfjr fd, gSa &

1- D;k fooknxzLr Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr jktLFkku LVsV

ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj ds ;gka muds vèkhu

,oa fu;a=k.k esa mUgha ds dk;Z ,oa mRiknu ds fy, dh

xbZ Fkh\

2- D;k jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj gh

Jfedksa ds eq[; fu;kstd Fks\

3- D;k fooknxzLr Jfedksa dh lsok eqfDr djus ls iwoZ

ljdkj ls vuqefr yh xbZ rFkk 25 ,iQ vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZ \

4- D;k izkFkhZ la?k bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst ds Jfedksa

dk ,d la?k gS] vkSj mls bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ds Jfedksa

dh vksj ls okn mBkus dk vf/dkj izkIr gS \

5- D;k fnukad 19-05-1981 dks ;wfu;u o foi{kh uEcj 1

ds chp le>kSrk fd;k] vxj ,slk gS rks mldk fookn

ij D;k vlj gS \

6- D;k fnukad 26-05-1981 dk le>kSrk fd;k x;k] vxj

,slk gS rks bldk D;k izHkko gS \

7- D;k foi{kh uEcj 2 us Jfedksa dks fuf'pr le; ds

fy, lsok esa fy;k Fkk] vkSj ;g lsok dh 'krZ Fkh\

8- D;k Jfedksa us LoSfPNd fuo`fÙk yh gS] vkSj mudh dksbZ

NaVuh ugha dh xbZ gS \

9- D;k funsZ'k esa n'kkZ, x, Jfed foi{kh uEcj 1 ds

Jfed gSa] vkSj og fdlh izdkj dh lqfo/k ;k vU;

ikfjrks"k ikus ds vf/dkjh gSa \

10- D;k foi{kh uEcj 1 dh] ;fn Jfed foi{kh uEcj 2

ds ik, tk,a rks dksbZ ftEesnkjh gS \

11- D;k izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks le>kSrs dh oS/rk dks pqukSrh nsus

dk vf/dkj ugha gS \

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

755

12- D;k Bsdsnkj foi{kh uEcj 2 }kjk fu;ksftr Jfedksa ds

laca/ esa fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk

gS o ,slk fookn /kjk 10 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e

ds vUrxZr pyus ;ksX; gS \

izkFkhZ la?k dh vksj ls izdj.k esa loZ Jh egsUæ ¯lg [kesljk]

izkFkhZ la?k ds vè;{k ds lkFk&lkFk Jfed ukFkw] pSuk] jetku csx]

vkSadkj ¯lg] VaxpUn ih-ds-] vCnqy jgeku] eksrh] 'kadj] iQdhj

ekSgEen] cyhLrj] HkSjk] ds¯jx yky] nkSyr ¯lg] nyhpUn] y{e.k

¯lg] 'kDdk] mes'k ¯lg] dkywjke] guhiQ ekSgEen] fyEck]

ekaxhyky] mn;yky] euksgj yky ds 'kiFk i=k is'k fd, x,]

ftuls vizkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ us ftjg dh gS A buds vykok

loZ Jh HkwisUæ ¯lg] rksyk o ykywjke ds 'kiFk i=k Hkh is'k gq, gSa]

ysfdu mDr Jfedx.k ftjg ds fy, mifLFkr ugha gq,] ftuls

vizkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ dks ftjg dk volj ugha feyk A

mDr lk{khx.k ds vfrfjDr 'kiFk i=k Hkh ckn esa izLrqr fd, x,]

ftuds laca/ esa foi{kh Øe 1 dh vkifÙk xzkg~;rk ds laca/ esa gS]

ftl ij bl fu.kZ; esa gh U;k;kf/dj.k dks vkns'k nsuk gS A

foi{kh Øe 1 dh vksj ls izdj.k esa lk{khx.k ds-lh- cksys]

vkj-ds- esgrk] lTtu ¯lg 'kDrkor ,oa ,y-,y- p.Mkfy;k ds

'kiFk i=k is'k gq, A lk{kh ds-lh- cksys ds mifLFkr ugha gksus ds

dkj.k mlls ftjg ugha dh tk ldh A

izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh vksj ls izys[kh; lk{; esa izys[k fnukad

19-05-1981 izn'kZ MCY;w&1 izn£'kr djok;k x;k A foi{kh laLFkku

dh vksj ls nLrkost izn'kZ ,e 1 yxk;r izn'kZ ,e 92 izn£'kr

djok, x,] tks fuEukuqlkj gSa &

Ex. M-1

fu;qfDr vkns'k euksgj yky jkor fnukad 10-09-1981

Ex. M-2/1

euksgj yky jkor }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk

izkFkZuk i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-2/2

izfrfuf/;ksa dk p;u ckcr i=k fnukad 15-03-1983

Ex. M-3

euksgj yky jkor dk ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV

Ex. M-4

euksgj yky jkor ds ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn

Ex. M-5

fu;qfDr vkns'k mes'k ¯lg fnukad 13-06-1982

Ex. M-6

'kiFk i=k mEesn ¯lg

Ex. M-7

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn mes'k ¯lg fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-8

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV mes'k ¯lg

Ex. M-9

mes'k ¯lg }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk

i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-10

mes'k ¯lg dk MsfoV okmpj fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-11

fu;qfDr vkns'k fyEck jkor fnukad 29-04-1983

Ex. M-12

fyEck jkor }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk

i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-13

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV fyEck jkor

Ex. M-14

fyEck jkor dk MsfoV okmpj fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-15

>adkpu dk MsfoV okmpj fnukad 30-07-1985

&'kiFk i=k fyEck

Ex. M-16

fu;qfDr vkns'k jetku csx fnukad 01-10-1981

Ex. M-17

jetku csx }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk

i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. M-18

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV jetku csx

Ex. M-19

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn jetku csx fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-20

jetku csx dk MsfoV okmpj

Ex. M-22

fu;qfDr vkns'k ukFkw nso jkor fnukad 29-04-1983

Ex. M-23

ukFkw nso jkor }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk

i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-24

ukFkw nso jkor dk MsfoV okmpj

Ex. M-25

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn ukFkw nso jkor fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-26

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV ukFkw nso jkor

Ex. M-27

fu;qfDr vkns'k eksrh eh.kk fnukad 20-08-1982

Ex. M-28

eksrh eh.kk }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk

i=k

Ex. M-29

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn eksrh eh.kk fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-30

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV eksrh eh.kk

Ex. M-31

eksrh eh.kk dk MsfoV okmpj

Ex. M-32

fu;qfDr vkns'k 'kadj eh.kk fnukad 20-08-1982

Ex. M-33

'kadj eh.kk }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk

i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-34

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV 'kadj eh.kk

Ex. M-35

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn 'kadj eh.kk fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-36

'kadj eh.kk dk MsfoV okmpj

Ex. M-37

fu;qfDr vkns'k pSuk eh.kk fnukad 20-08-1982

Ex. M-38

pSuk eh.kk }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk

i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-39

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV pSuk eh.kk

Ex. M-40

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn pSuk eh.kk fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-41

pSuk eh.kk dk MsfoV okmpj

Ex. M-42

mn; yky }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk

i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-43

mn; yky dk MsfoV okmpj

Ex. M-44

mn; yky dk 'kiFk i=k

Ex. M-45

fu;qfDr vkns'k dkywjke jkor fnukad 11-08-1981

Ex. M-46

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV dkywjke

Ex. M-47

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn dkywjke jkor fnukad 30-07-1985

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

757

Ex. M-48

dkywjke jkor dk MsfoV okmpj

Ex. M-49

fu;qfDr vkns'k guhiQ ekSgEen fnukad 01-11-1981

Ex. M-50

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn ekSgEen guhiQ miZQ guhiQ ekSgEen fnukad

30-07-1985

Ex. M-51

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV ekSgEen guhiQ

Ex. M-52

ekSgEen guhiQ }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk

izkFkZuk i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-53

ekSgEen guhiQ dk MsfoV okmpj

Ex. M-54

fu;qfDr vkns'k 'kkdk fnukad 13-06-1982

Ex. M-55

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV 'kkdk

Ex. M-56

'kkdk }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk i=k

fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-57

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn 'kkdk fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-58

'kkdk dk MsfoV okmpj

Ex. M-59

LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse

Ex. M-60

fu;qfDr vkns'k ekaxh yky Vsyj fnukad 16-09-1981

Ex. M-61

ekaxh yky Vsyj dk 'kiFk i=k

Ex. M-62

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn ekaxh yky Vsyj fnukad 31-07-1985

Ex. M-63

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV ekaxh yky Vsyj

Ex. M-64

ekaxh yky Vsyj }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk

izkFkZuk i=k fnukad 20-07-1985

Ex. M-65

ekaxh yky Vsyj dk MsfoV okmpj fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-66

fu;qfDr vkns'k vkSadkj ¯lg fnukad 10-09-1981

Ex. M-67

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV vkSadkj ¯lg

Ex. M-68

vkSadkj ¯lg dk MsfoV okmpj fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-70

y{e.k ¯lg dk MsfoV okmpj fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-71

fu;qfDr vkns'k >udk pu

Ex. M-72

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV >udk pu

Ex. M-73

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV vCnqy jgeku

Ex. M-74

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn vCnqy jgeku fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-75

vCnqy jgeku Vsyj dk 'kiFk i=k

Ex. M-76

vCnqy jgeku dk MsfoV okmpj fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-77

fu;qfDr vkns'k vCnqy jgeku fnukad 01-06-1983

758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. M-78

vCnqy jgeku Vsyj }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk

izkFkZuk i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-79

fu;qfDr vkns'k ds¯jx yky fnukad 10-09-1983

Ex. M-80

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV ds¯jx yky

Ex. M-81

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn ds¯jx yky fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-82

ds¯jx yky }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk

i=k fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-83

ds¯jx yky dk MsfoV okmpj fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-84

fu;qfDr vkns'k nyh pUn fnukad 11-09-1981

Ex. M-85

nyh pUn Vsyj dk 'kiFk i=k

Ex. M-86

ih-,iQ- Hkqxrku dh izkfIr jlhn nyh pUn fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-87

ih-,iQ- [kkrs dk lsVyesaV nyh pUn

Ex. M-88

nyh pUn }kjk 'krZ lfgr LosPN;k ls NVuh@lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dk izkFkZuk i=k

fnukad 29-07-1985

Ex. M-89

nyh pUn dk MsfoV okmpj fnukad 30-07-1985

Ex. M-90

lIyhesUVªh ,xzhesaV fnukad 31-01-1985

Ex. M-91

eseksjs.Me vkWiQ lsVyesaV fnukad 26-07-1985

Ex. M-92

,xzhesaV fnukad 14-05-1981

ftjg ds nkSjku foi{khx.k }kjk nLrkostkr izn'kZ MCY;w&5@2

Jfed HkSjk }kjk laLFkku dk fn;k x;k izkFkZuk i=k] izn'kZ MCY;w&5@3

Jfed HkSjk LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk izkFkZuk i=k] izn'kZ MCY;w&5@4

Jfed HkSjk dk MsfcV okmpj] izn'kZ MCY;w&5@5 Jfed HkSjk dh

Hkqxrku jlhn] izn'kZ MCY;w&6@1 Jfed ckfyLVj dk fu;qfDr vkns'k]

izn'kZ MCY;w&6@3 Jfed ckfyLVj dk MsfcV okmpj] izn'kZ MCY;w&7@1

Jfed nkSyr ¯lg dk fu;qfDr vkns'k] izn'kZ MCY;w&7@4 Jfed

nkSyr ¯lg LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk izkFkZuk i=k] izn'kZ MCY;w&7@5

Jfed nkSyr ¯lg }kjk VªLVh dks fn;k x;k izkFkZuk i=k] izn'kZ

MCY;w&7@6 Jfed nkSyr ¯lg dh Hkqxrku jlhn] izn'kZ MCY;w&7@7

Jfed nkSyr ¯lg dk MsfcV okmpj izn£'kr djok, A

eSaus mHk; i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku izfrfuf/x.k ds rdZ lqus rFkk

i=kkoyh dk è;kkuiwoZd vè;;u fd;k A

bl U;k;kf/dj.k dks dsUæ ljdkj }kjk Åij o£.kr funsZ'k

fu.kZ;kFkZ izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS A fof/ dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl¼kUr gS fd

U;k;kf/dj.k dks mDr jSiQjsal dh lhek rd gh viuk fu"d"kZ vkSj

fu.kZ; nsuk gksrk gS A orZeku izdj.k esa tSlk fd Åij mYys[k fd;k

x;k gS fd i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kj ij U;k;kf/dj.k }kjk

fo'ks"k vkns'k ikfjr djds fookn fcUnq fu/kZfjr fd, x, gSa A bu

fookn fcUnqvksa ds fu"d"kks± dks Hkh gesa mDr funsZ'k ds ifjis{; esa gh

ns[kuk gS A

fook|d la[;k 1] 2] 9 vkSj 10 %&

fook|d la[;k 1] 2] 9 vkSj 10 vkil esa lacaf/r gSa] vkSj

buds laca/ esa ,d lkFk foospu fd;k tkuk mfpr gS A mDr lHkh

fook|dksa ds ewy esa ;g gS fd funsZ'k esa mYysf[kr Jfedx.k

foi{kh Øe 1 ds fu;kstu esa Fks vFkok foi{kh Øe 2 ds fu;kstu esa

vkSj os fdl foi{kh ds Jfed Fks A

bl laca/ esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ dk ;g rdZ gS fd

mDr lHkh Jfedksa dk okLrfod fu;kstd jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl

,.M feujYl fy- mn;iqj] foi{kh Øe 1] Fkk A foi{kh Øe 2

eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst rks ek=k Jfed izkIr djus dk

ekè;e Fkk A mudk rdZ gS fd eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst

okLro esa jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujYl fy- mn;iqj ds ,tsUV

ds :i esa dk;Z dj jgk Fkk A eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst

dk ogh dk;Z Fkk] tks jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujYl fy-

mn;iqj dk gS A mudk rdZ gS fd fnukad 14-05-1981 ds bdjkjukek

izn'kZ ,e&92 ds DykWt 6] 29] 33] 36] 45] 46] 50 vkSj 57 ls

Hkh ;g izdV gksrk gS fd mDr Jfed jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

759

feujy fy- mn;iqj ds gh fu;kstu esa Fks A mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd

jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujYl fy- mn;iqj vkSj eSllZ bZLVuZ

bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst nksuksa gh dkUVªsDV yscj ,DV] 1970 ds

vUrxZr Øe'k% iathÑr vkSj ykbZlsal /kjd ugha Fks vkSj bl dkj.k

okLrfodrk esa bl vf/fu;e dh /kjk 7 vkSj /kjk 12 dh ikyuk

ugha gqbZ gS vkSj leLr Jfed eq[; fu;kstd jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl

,.M feujYl fy- mn;iqj ds gh Jfed ekus tkosaxs A

mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{khx.k ds

dFku ls Hkh ;g izekf.kr gS fd os jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M

feujy fy- mn;iqj ds gh fu;kstu esa Fks A

blds foifjr foi{kh Øe 1 ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ dk ;g rdZ

gS fd izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse] tks fd vfHkopu dh

Js.kh esa vkrk gS] esa gh mDr Jfedksa dk foi{kh Øe 2 ds fu;kstu

esa gksuk Li"Vr% Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj ,d ls vf/d LFkkuksa ij

foi{kh Øe 2 dks viuk fu;kstd gksuk vkSj foi{kh Øe 2 }kjk gh

lsok i;kZolku dh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk izdV fd;k gS A mudk ;g

Hkh rdZ gS fd muds }kjk tokc esa bl laca/ esa fd, x, vfHkopuksa

dks Hkh izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izfrmÙkj esa [kf.Mr ugha fd;k x;k gS A

mudk rdZ gS fd bdjkjukek fnukad 14-05-1981 izn'kZ ,e&92 ds

DykWt 57 dks i<us ls ;g Li"Vr% izekf.kr gS fd mDr Jfed

foi{kh Øe 2 ds gh fu;kstu esa Fks vkSj muds gh fu;a=k.k vkSj

funsZ'ku esa dk;Z djrs Fks A mudk rdZ gS fd bl laca/ esa izkFkhZ ds

lk{khx.k ds tks dFku gSa] os xzkg~; ugha gSa] D;ksafd ;s muds }kjk

fd, x, vfHkopuksa ds foifjr gS A mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd ;|fi

lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr gS fd jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy-

mn;iqj vkSj eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst nksuksa gh dkUVsªDV

yscj ,DV 1970 ds vUrxZr iathÑr vkSj ykbZlsal /kjd Fks] ijUrq

fiQj Hkh rdZ dh n`f"V ls ;g ekuk tkos fd bl vfèkfu;e dh /kjk

7 o 12 dh ikyuk ugha gqbZ gS rks Hkh bldk izHkko ;g ugha gksxk fd

mDr Jfedx.k dks jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj

ds deZdkj] ekuk tkos A mDr izko/kuksa ds vikyu dk dsoy

¶nkf.Md¸ izHkko gS A

mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy

fy- o eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst dk dk;Z leku ugha gS A

eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst dk ek=k le;≤ ij

,d=k gksus okys Åijh laLrj dks gVkus dk dk;Z fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj

mDr Bsdk dk;Z djus dk Fkk u fd Jfed miyC/ djokus dk A

eSaus mDr rdks± ij euu fd;k rFkk i=kkoyh dk è;kuiwoZd

vè;;u fd;k A

Jfedx.k us vius LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse ds vuqPNsn Øe 3

o 4 esa ;g Li"V vfHkopu fd;k gS fd foi{kh Øe 1 jktLFkku

LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj us foi{kh Øe 2 eSllZ bZLVuZ

bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst dks [kkuksa ls mRikfnr eky gVkus dk dk;Z

Bsds ij fn;k vkSj Bsds ij fy, dk;Z dks lEiUu djus ds fy,

foi{kh Øe 2 us 250 Jfedksa dks o"kZ 1981 esa fu;ksftr fd;kA bl

izdkj ls Lo;a Jfedx.k dk ;g vfHkopu jgk gS fd foi{kh Øe

2 us foi{kh Øe 1 dk fof'k"V dk;Z djus ds fy, Bsdk fy;k Fkk

vkSj bl dk;Z dks lEikfnr djus ds fy, foi{kh Øe 2 us gh mDr

Jfedksa dks fu;ksftr fd;k Fkk A vkxs Hkh izkFkhZ us vius vfHkopu]

LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse] ds vuqPNsn 7 esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd foi{kh

Øe 2 us gh Jfedksa dh NVuh djus ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj esa izkFkZuk

i=k izLrqr fd;k vkSj vuqPNsn Øe 10 esa ;g dgk gS fd foi{kh

Øe 2 us 137 Jfedksa dh NVuh dj nh A bl izdkj ls Li"V gS fd

vius LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse esa izkFkhZ] mDr Jfedksa dks Lo;a gh foi{kh

Øe 2 ds fu;kstu esa gksuk] Lohdkj djrs gSa vkSj ;g Hkh Lohdkj

djrs gSa fd mudk fu;kstu] Bsds ij fy, x, fof'k"V dk;Z dks

lEikfnr djus ds fy,] fd;k x;k Fkk A ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[k djuk

mfpr gS fd foi{kh Øe 1 us vius mÙkj esa ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k

gS fd foi{kh Øe 2 dks [kkuksa ls mRikfnr Åijh laLrj dks gVkus

dk Bsdk fn;k gqvk Fkk vkSj ftruk eky gVk;k tkrk gS] mlh fglkc

ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS_ foi{kh Øe 1 dh foi{kh Øe 2 ds lkFk

Jfed miyC/ djokus dh lafonk ugha Fkh vkSj foi{kh Øe 1 }kjk

foi{kh Øe 2 dks dke ds vk/kj ij Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk vksj

e'khu] etnwj vkSj vU; O;fDr Hkh foi{kh Øe 2 }kjk gh yxk,

tkrs Fks A foi{kh Øe 1 ds }kjk fd, x, mDr Li"V vfHkopuksa dk

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izfrmÙkj esa dksbZ [k.Mu ugha fd;k x;k gS] cfYd

bu rF;ksa dks izkFkhZ }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g

ugha dgk tk ldrk fd mDr lafonk tks fd foi{kh Øe 1 vkSj

foi{kh Øe 2 ds eè; gqbZ] og Jfed miyC/ djkus dh lafonk

FkhA oSls Hkh fnukad 14-05-1981 ds bdjkjukek izn'kZ ,e&92 ds

laca/ esa Jfedx.k dh ,slh dksbZ vkifÙk ugha jgha gS fd ;g

bdjkjukek Nn~e vkSj fn[kkoVh jgk gks A okLro esa ;g bdjkjukek

rks Jfedx.k dks fu;kstu esa ysus ls iwoZ foi{kh Øe 1 vkSj foi{kh

Øe 2 ds eè; gqvk Fkk A

Jfedx.k dh vksj ls tks Åij o£.kr lk{kh izLrqr gq, gSa]

mUgksaus lHkh us viuh lk{; ds eq[; dFku esa ;g izdV fd;k gS fd

mudh izFke fu;qfDr o"kZ 1981 esa jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M

feujy fy- mn;iqj ds ;gka] muds v/hu] fu;a=k.k esa] mUgha ds

dk;Z vkSj mRiknu ds fy, dh xbZ Fkh_ mUgsa dk;Z ds laca/ esa

vkns'k] funsZ'k jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj ds

inkf/dkfj;ksa }kjk fn, tkrs Fks vkSj dk;Z Hkh jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl

,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj ds fy, fy;k tkrk Fkk_ mUgsa esfMdy dh

lqfo/k jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj }kjk nh tkrh

Fkh vkSj vodk'k Hkh jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy-

mn;iqj }kjk gh fn;k tkrk Fkk A izksfoMsUV iQ.M dh jkf'k jktLFkku

LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj esa tek gksrh Fkh A mUgsa

jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj esa dke djus ds

fy, eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst] mn;iqj ds ekè;e ls

dke ij yxk;k Fkk vkSj og mls fu;qfDr fnykus esa eè;LFk Fkk A

mudh fu;qfDr foi{kh Øe 1 ds fy, dh xbZ Fkh vkSj mUgha ds }kjk

mlls dke fy;k tkrk Fkk A mudh lsok,a lekIr gksus ls igys

foi{kh Øe 1 us Hkkjr ljdkj ls vuqefr izkIr ugha dh A

760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

eSaus mDr lk{khx.k ds Åij o£.kr dFkuksa dk è;kuiwoZd

vè;;u fd;k A vius vfHkopuksa ds loZFkk foijhr mDr lk{khx.k

us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mUgsa jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy

fy- mn;iqj esa o"kZ 1981 esa ;k vU; fdlh frfFk dks fu;qfDr nh xbZ

Fkh tcfd izkFkhZ ds LVsV vkWiQ Dyse esa Li"Vr% ;g dgk x;k gS fd

foi{kh Øe 2 us mUgsa o"kZ 1981 esa fu;ksftr fd;k Fkk A mDr

lk{khx.k us izfrijh{kk esa vius fu;qfDr i=k mes'k ¯lg izn'kZ

,e&5] fyEck izn'kZ ,e&11] euksgj yky izn'kZ ,e&1] jetku

csx izn'kZ ,e&16] eksrh izn'kZ ,e&27] ukFkw izn'kZ ,e&22] pSuk

izn'kZ ,e&37] 'kadj izn'kZ ,e&32] dkywjke izn'kZ ,e&45]

ekS- guhiQ izn'kZ ,e&49] 'kkdk izn'kZ ,e&54] ekaxhyky izn'kZ

,e&60] vkSadkj ¯lg izn'kZ ,e&66] vCnqy jghe izn'kZ ,e&77]

ds¯jx yky izn'kZ ,e&79] nwyhpUn izn'kZ ,e&84 ,oa >udkjke

izn'kZ ,e&71 gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj bu ij vius gLrk{kj gksuk

rFkk bu ij viuk Nk;kfp=k yxk gksuk Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS A bu

leLr fu;qfDr i=kksa dks ns[kus ls Li"V gS fd ;s lHkh fu;qfDr i=k

foi{kh Øe 2 eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;¯jx ,UVjizkbZtst] mn;iqj }kjk

bUgsa tkjh fd, x, gSa A bUgha fu;qfDr i=kksa ds vk/kj ij mDr Jfed

fu;kstu esa vk, gSa A ,slh fLFkfr esa budk ;g dFku fd mUgsa

jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj ds ;gka fu;qfDr nh

xbZ Fkh] loZFkk feF;k gS A mDr lk{khx.k us vius dFku esa vodk'k]

cksul] esfMdy vkfn dh lqfo/k,a jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M

feujy fy- mn;iqj }kjk fn;k tkuk dgk gS] ijUrq Jfed }kjk

LohÑr nLrkost le>kSrk fnukad 26-05-1981 dks ns[kus ls ;g

Li"V gS fd fd;s lHkh lqfo/k,a Jfedx.k dks nsuk foi{kh Øe 2

eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst us Lohdkj fd;k gS A

mDr lk{khx.k us ;g dgk gS fd mUgsa dk;Zdk vkns'k vkSj

funsZ'k jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj ds vfèkdkfj;ksa

}kjk fn;k tkrk Fkk] tcfd bdjkjukek fnukad 14-05-1981 izn'kZ

,e&92 ds vuqNsPn 57 ds vuqlkj Bsdsnkj }kjk gh leLr dk;Z dk

fu;a=k.k] funsZ'ku fd;k tkuk Fkk A ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd

vius LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe vkSj izfrmRrj esa dgha Hkh Jfedksa dk ;g

vfHkopu ugha jgk gS fd mUgsa dk;Z gsrq funsZ'k jkTkLFkku LVsV ekbUl

,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj ds vf/dkfj;ksa }kjk fn, tkrs gksa vkSj u

gh ;g vfHkdFku jgk gS fd mUgsa lqfo/k,a vkSj Hkqxrku jktLFkku

LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj }kjk fn;s tkrs gSa A mDr

lEiw.kZ dFku Hkh Jfedksa ds vius vfHkopuksa ls ckgj ds gSa] vkSj

bl dkj.k ls lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gSa A

foi{kh Øe 1 dh vksj ls lk{kh vkj- ds- esgrk dks ijhf{kr

djok;k x;k gS A bl lk{kh us vius eq[; dFku esa ;g Li"Vr%

dgk gS fd fnukad 14-05-1981 dks foi{kh Øe 1 vkSj foi{kh Øe

2 ds eè; ,d lafonk gqbZ Fkh vkSj foi{kh Øe 2 dks CykWd ch] lh]

Mh] bZ >kWej&dksVMk [knku esa mQijh laLrj gVkus dk Bsdk fn;k x;k

Fkk A ;g bdjkjukek izn'kZ ,e&92 gS A vkWoj cMZu gVkus dk Bsdk

35-8 #i;s izfr D;wfcd ehVj dh nj ls ns; Fkk rFkk ;g dk;Z djus

ls lacaf/r Bsdk Fkk A blesa Jfedksa dks fu;qDr djus dk foi{kh

Øe 1 laLFkku ij dksbZ Hkkj ugha Fkk A bl dk;Z dks iwjk djus ds

fy, vius Lrj ij eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst us Jfedksa

dks HkrhZ fd;k vkSj blds fy, vko';d e'khus pykus] lq/kjus

okyksa vkfn dh O;oLFkk eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst us

vius Lrj ij dh Fkh A eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ds

Jfedksa ij jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj dk

fu;a=k.k vkSj i;Zos{k.k ugha Fkk A eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst

us ftUgsa HkrhZ fd;k vkSj fu;qfDr i=k tkjh fd,] mlls jkTkLFkku LVsV

ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj dk dksbZ laca/ ugha gS A eSllZ

bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ds Jfedksa dks fpfdRlk lgk;rk]

osru HkRrs ;k vU; ykHk laLFkku us ugha fn, vkSj u gh laLFkku dh

,slh ftEesnkjh Fkh A izfrijh{kk esa Hkh bl lk{kh us ;gh dgk gS fd

mDr Jfedksa dks cksul eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst }kjk

fn;k tkrk Fkk] u fd jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy-

mn;iqj }kjk Bsdsnkj dks equkiQs ds vuqlkj cksul nsuk Fkk A izksfoMsUM

iQ.M dh dVkSrh Hkh eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst dEiuh

}kjk dh tkrh Fkh] tks jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy-

mn;iqj ds VªLV esa tek gksrh Fkh A Jfedksa dks izfrekg osru eSllZ

bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst }kjk fn;k tkrk Fkk vkSj jktLFkku

LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj bldh fuxjkuh j[krk Fkk A

Jfedksa dh N¡Vuh o ?kVus&c<+us ls jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M

feujy fy- mn;iqj dk dksbZ laca/ ugha Fkk A bl izdkj ls bl lk{kh

dh izfrijh{kk esa Hkh ,slh dksbZ ckr ugha vkbZ gS] ftlls ;g izdV

gksrk gks fd mDr Jfedksa dks fu;kstu jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M

feujy fy- mn;iqj us fn;k gks] mudk osru vkfn jktLFkku LVsV

ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj }kjk fn;k tkrk gks vFkok muds

dk;Z ij fu;a=k.k jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- dk gks A

blds foijhr lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr gS fd mDr leLr Jfedksa dh

fu;qfDr eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst }kjk dh xbZ gS vkSj

mUgsa osru] HkRrs] cksul vkfn dk Hkqxrku eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax

,UVjizkbZtst }kjk gh fd;k tkrk Fkk vkSj muds dk;Z vkfn dk

fu;a=k.k] funsZ'ku Hkh eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ds gh

deZpkjh djrs Fks A mDr Jfedksa dks lsok i`Fkd djus dk Hkh vf/

dkj eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst dks gh Fkk] tSlk fd

fnukad 14-05-1981 dh lafonk ds vuqPNsn 57 ls Li"V gks jgk gSA

,slh fLFkfr esa tks lk{; i=kkoyh ij vkbZ gS] mlls Hkh fdlh Hkh :i

esa ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd mDr Jfedx.k foi{kh Øe 1

jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj ds fu;kstu esa Fks]

oju ;gh izekf.kr gks jgk gS fd ;s foi{kh Øe 2 eSllZ bZLVuZ

bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ds fu;kstu esa Fks vkSj mlh ds }kjk fu;qDr

fd;k x;k Fkk A

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fofu'p; &

2014 (9) Supreme Court Cases 407

(Balwant Rai Saluja & Another Vs Air India Limited

& Others)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

761

esa ;g vfHkfuf.kZr fd;k gS fd fu;kstd vkSj fu;ksDrk ds

laca/ dks fu/kZfjr djrs le; fuEu dkjdksa dks è;ku esa j[kk tkuk

pkfg, &

Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr fdlds }kjk dh xbZ ?

Jfedksa dks osru vkfn dk Hkqxrku dkSu djrk gS ?

Jfedksa dks c[kkZLr djus dh 'kfDr fdlds ikl gS ?

Jfedksa dks ij ckgjh fu;a=k.k vkSj funsZ'ku fdldk gS

vkfn vkfn ?

tSlkfd mQij of.kZr fd;k x;k gS fd orZeku izdj.k esa Lo;a

izkFkhZ dh Loho`Qfr vkSj mHk; i{kdkjksa dh lk{; ftldk mQij

foospu fd;k x;k gS] ls ;g Li"V izekf.kr gks jgk gS fd mDr

Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr foi{kh Øe 2 }kjk dh xbZ A mUgsa osru Hkh

foi{kh Øe 2 }kjk gh fn;k tkrk Fkk] muds dk;ks± ij fu;a=k.k Hkh

foi{kh Øe 2 dk Fkk vkSj mUgsa c[kkZLr djus dh 'kfDr Hkh foi{kh

Øe 2 ds gh ikl Fkh A ,slh fLFkfr esa lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g iw.kZr%

izekf.kr gS fd mDr Jfed foi{kh Øe 2 ds gh fu;kstu esa Fks vkSj

ogh budk fu;kstd Fkk A

Jfedx.k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ dk ,d rdZ ;g jgk gS fd

foi{kh Øe 2 Bsdsnkj dk ogh dk;Z Fkk] tks foi{kh Øe 1 jktLFkku

LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj dk gS A mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS

fd foi{kh Øe 1 ,oa oi{kh Øe 2 nksuksa gh dksUVªsDV yscj ,DV

1970 ds vUrxZr iathd`r o ykbZlsal /kjd ugha gS tks fd bl

vfèkfu;e dh /kjk 7] 8] 12] ,oa 13] ds vUrxZr vkKkid gS A

,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh Øe 2 eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst

dks foi{kh Øe 1 jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj

dk Bsdsnkj ugha ekuk tk ldrk og rks okLrfodrk esa jktLFkku

LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj dk ,tsUV gS vkSj ,slh fLFkfr

esa mDr lHkh Jfed okLrfodrk esa jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M

feujy fy- mn;iqj ds gh Jfed gSa A vius bl rdZ ds leFkZu esa

fuEu fofu'p; izLrqr fd, &

2000 (1) LLJ (D.B.) 593

(Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih

Colliery of BCCL, Dist. Dhanbad Vs Presiding Officer,

Central Govt., Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad.)

bl fofu'p; esa ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; us ;g fuf.kZr

fd;k gS fd fcuk ykbZlsal izkIr Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;ksftr Jfed eq[;

fu;kstd ds Jfed ?kksf"kr fd, tk,xsa A

2011(2) WLC (S. C.) 590

(Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Vs Vinod Kumar)

bl fofu'p; esa ;g vfHkfu/kZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd tgka

fu;kstd dk ;g dFku Fkk fd deZdkj Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qDr Fks vkSj

bls diViw.kZ ik;k x;k vkSj mUgsa fu;kstd ds deZdkj ekuk x;k]

blesa gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tkuk lgh gS A

1999 (3) SCC 601

(Secretary, HSEB Vs Suresh & Others.)

bl fofu'p; esa Hkh ;g vfHkfu/kZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd tgka

Bsdsnkj ds ikl dkUVªsDV yscj (jsX;qys'ku ,oa ,ckWfy'ku) ,DV

1970 ds vUrxZr ykbZlsal ugha gks vkSj eq[; fu;kstd iathd`r ugha

gks] ogka Bsdsnkj ds deZpkjh eq[; fu;kstd ds gh deZpkjh gksaxs A

blds foijhr foi{kh Øe 1 ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ dk rdZ gS

fd muds lk{khx.k ds dFkuksa ls ;g izekf.kr gS fd foi{kh Øe 1

jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj dkUVªsDV yscj

(jsX;qys'ku ,oa ,ckWfy'ku) ,DV 1970 ds vUrxZr iathd`r Fkk vkSj

foi{kh Øe 2 Bsdsnkj eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst us

ykbZlsal izkIr dj j[kk Fkk A mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd ;fn ;g eku

Hkh fy;k ftkos fd ,slk gksuk izekf.kr ugha gS rks Hkh /kjk 7 vkSj 12

dkUVªsDV yscj (jsX;qys'ku ,oa ,ckWfy'ku) ,DV 1970 dh vikyuk

ds dkj.k mDr Jfed foi{kh Øe 1 ds Jfed ugha gks tkrs gSa A

/kjk 7 o 12 dh ikyuk ugha gksus ds ek=k nkf.Md izHkko gSa] tks

/kjk 23 ds vUrxZr gSa bldk vU; dksbZ izHkko ugha gS A vius bl

rdZ ds leFkZu esa mPpre U;k;ky; dh lafo/ku ihB dk fuEu

fofu'p; is'k fd;k gS &

2001 (7) Supreme Court Cases 1

(Steel Autority of India Ltd. & Others Vs. National

Union Waterfront Workers & Others)

eSaus bl laca/ esa mHk; i{kdkjksa ds rdZ fordZ ij euu

fd;k o izLrqr fofuf'p;ksa dk è;kuiwoZd vè;;u fd;k A

izkFkhZ ds bl laca/ esa dksbZ vfHkopu i=kkoyh ij ugha gSa fd

foi{kh Øe 1 dkUVªsDV yscj (jsX;qys'ku ,oa ,ckWfy'ku) ,DV 1970

ds vUrxZr iathd`r laLFkk ugha gS vkSj foi{kh Øe 1 Bsdsnkj ds

ikl bl vf/fu;e ds vUrxZr ykbZlsal ugha gS A foi{kh Øe 1 us

vius tokc esabl laca/ esa Lo;a dk iatho`Qr gksuk vkSj foi{kh Øe

2 dk ykbZlsal /kjd gksuk vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS ijUrq izkFkhZ us vius

izfr&mRrj esa foi{kh Øe 1 }kjk vfHkdfFkr mDr rF;ksa dks

[kf.Mr ugha fd;k gS vkSj budk fof'k"Vr% izR;k[;ku ugha fd;k gS

vksj bl izdkj ls mlus bu rF;ksa dks Lohdkj dj fy;k gS A

bl laca/ esa izkFkhZ ds mQij of.kZr lk{khx.k us dksbZ dFku gh

ugha fd;k gS A

foi{kh Øe 1 dk lk{kh lTtuflag 'kDrkor U;k;kf/dj.k

esa ijhf{kr gqvk gS A bl lk{kh us vius eq[; dFku ds 'kiFk i=k esa

;g dgk gS fd eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ,d Bsdsnkj

dEiuh Fkh] dkUVsªDV yscj (jsX;qys'ku ,oa ,ckWfy'ku) ,DV 1970

ds rgr vuqKk i=k la[;k 359@81 fnukad 31-05-1981 ys j[kk Fkk

vkSj jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj us Hkh bl

vfèkfu;e ds vUrxZr Bsdsnkj yxkus ds fy, jftLVsª'ku djok j[kk

762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gS A jftLVsª'ku izek.k i=k 40@75 fnukad 19-11-75 gS A bl lk{kh ls

mDr jftLVsª'ku izek.k i=k vkSj ykbZlsal ds laca/ esa izfrijh{kk esa

dksbZ iz'u gh ugha fd;k x;k gS] vkSj ugh ;g dgk x;k gS fd mDr

iath;u uEcj vkSj ykbZlsal la[;k xyr crk, x, gSa ;gh Hkh

mYys[kuh; gS fd i=kkoyh esa Hkkjr ljdkj Je ea=kky; dk i=k

Øekad L.EO.UD/95(1)/89 Dated 30.08.1989 ekStwn gS] ftlesa

;g mYysf[kr gS fd dkUVsªDV yscj ,DV ds vUrxZr foi{kh Øe 2

eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst dk ykbZlsal 359@81 fnukad

30-05-87 rd uohuhd`r gS] blls Li"V gS fd foi{kh Øe 2 eSllZ

bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst mDr vf/fu;e ds vUrxZr ykbZlsl

/kjd gS A oSls Hkh foi{kh Øe 1 vkSj foi{kh Øe 2 dkUVªsDV yscj

(jsX;qys'ku ,oa ,ckWfy'ku) ,DV 1970 vUrxZr iathd`r ,oa

ykbZlsl'kqnk igha gksus dk ;g izHkko ugha gks ldrk fd foi{kh Øe

2 ds deZpkjh foi{kh la[;k 1 ds deZpkjh gks tkosaxs A ;gh fl¼kar

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fofu'p;

2001 (7) Supreme Court Cases 1

(Steel Autority of India Ltd. & Others Vs. National

Union Waterfront Workers & Others) izfrikfnr fd;k gSA

bl fofu'p; esa ekuuh; mPPkre U;k;ky; dh lafo/ku

ihB us ;g fuf.kZr fd;k gS fd /kjk 7 ,oa 12 dkUVªsDV yscj

(jsX;qys'ku ,oa ,ckWfy'ku) ,DV 1970 dh vikyuk dk ifj.kke

vf/fu;e dh gh /kjk 23 vkSj 25 esa fn;k x;k gS vkSj budh

vikyuk dk ;g izHkko ugha gksxk fd mDr Jfed eq[; fu;kstd

ds deZpkjh gks tkosxsa A mDr fofu'p; esa lafo/ku ihB }kjk

izfrikfnr bl fl¼kar ds izdk'k esa djfed izfrfuf/ }kjk izLrqr

fofu'p;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl¼karksa dks drbZ ykxw ugha fd;k tk

ldrk A

mi;qZDr foospu ls ;gh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd mDr Jfedx.k

foi{kh Øe 2 ds gh fu;kstu esa Fks vkSj foi{kh Øe 1 ds fu;kstu

esa ugha Fks A foi{kh Øe 2 us foi{kh Øe 1 ls Bsds ij fy, x, dk;Z

dks djokus gsrq bu Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr dh Fkh_ dsoy foi{kh Øe

1 ds ;gka dk;Z djus ek=k ls mDr Jfed foi{kh Øe 1 ds

deZpkjh ugha gks tkrs A bl izdkj ls mDr leLr fook|dksa ds

laca/ esa ;gh fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS fd fmDr leLr Jfedx.k

foi{kh Øe 2 ds fu;kstu esa Fks] u fd foi{kh Øe 1 ds A bl

fu"d"kZ dk D;k izHkko gksxk] ;g i'pkr~orhZ izØe ij foosfpr

fd;k tkosxk A

fook|d la[;k 6 %&

Jfedx.k us vius LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe ds vuqPNsn Øe 6

esa foi{kh Øe 2 eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ,oa jkWd

iQkWLiQsV etnwj la?k ds eè; fnukad 26-05-1981 dks le>kSrk gksuk

vfHkdfFkr fd;k A foi{kh Øe 2 us vius tokc esa fnukad

26-05-1981 dks mDr le>kSrk jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj la?k ds lkFk

fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k gS A bl izdkj ls fnukad 26-05-1981 dks

le>kSrk foi{kh Øe 2 eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ,oa

jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj la?k ds eè; gksuk ,d Loho`Qr rF; gS A bl

le>kSrs esa foi{kh Øe 2 us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd muds tks

Jfed foi{kh Øe 1 dh >kej&dksVMk [kkuksa ij dk;Z dj jgs gSa]

mUgsa ogh osru HkRrs fn, tkosxsa] tks mlh izd`fr dk dk;Z dj jgs

jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj ds Jfed izkIr dj

jgs gSa A lkFk gh bl ll>kSrs esa Jfedksa dks cksul nsuk] vodk'k

vkfn nsus ds laca/ esa Hkh le>kSrs gq, rFkk bl le>kSrs esa ;g Hkh

lgefr gqbZ fd ubZ HkrhZ djrs le; >kej&dksVMk [kku ij dk;Zjr

jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- ds Jfedksa dks izkFfedrk nh

tkosxh A

mDr le>kSrk fnukad 26-05-1981 izdj.k esa lk{; esa iznf'kZr

ugha gqvk gS] ijUrq ;g foi{kh Øe 2 o izkFkhZ ds eè; Loho`Qr gS

vkSj bls mUgha ds ifjizs{; esa i<+uk mfpr gS A bl le>kSrs ds laca/

esa foi{kh Øe 1 us ;g mRrj fn;k gS fd og ,sls fdlh le>kSrs ls

ikcUn ugha gS A

fof/ dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl¼kUr gS fd dksbZ Hkh le>kSrk

blds i{kdkjksa ij gh ckè;dkjh izHkko j[krk gS A oSls Hkh bl

le>kSrs esa Bsdsnkj eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst us vius

mu deZpkfj;ksa tksfd >kej dksVMk [kkuksa ij dk;Z dj jgs Fks] dks

dqN osru] lqfo/k,a vkfn nsuk Lohdkj fd;k gS A blls foi{kh Øe

1 ij fdlh izdkj dk dkbZ izHkko iM+rk gks vFkok foi{kh Øe 1

blls ckè; gks] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk A tgka rd ubZ HkrhZ esa

izkFkfedrk nsus dk iz'u gS] bl laca/ esa Hkh eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax

,UVjizkbZtst us gh ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og >kej dksVMk [kkuksa

ij dk;Zjr dfeZ;ksa dks lsok esa izkFkfedrk nsxk A jktLFkku LVsV

ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj }kjk fdlh izdkj dh izkFkfedrk

fn;k tkuk bl le>kSrs esa of.kZr ugha gS A

tks funsZ'k bl U;k;kf/dj.k ds le{k fu.kZ; ds fy, vk;k

gS] mlds laca/ esa esjs fopkj ls mDr le>kSrs dk dksbZ izHkko ugha

gS A blh izdkj ;g fook/d fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

fook|d la[;k 7 %&

Jfedx.k dk LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe esa vfHkdFku gS fd

foi{kh Øe 2 us foi{kh Øe 1 ds Bsds ij fy, x, dk;Z dks

lEiUu djus ds fy, 250 Jfedksa dks o"kZ 1981 esa fu;ksftr fd;k

Fkk A

foi{kh Øe 2 us vius mRrj esa ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd

eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ,oa jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj la?k

ds lkFk ,d f}i{kh; le>kSrk fnukad 26-05-1981 dks fd;k A

fnukad 26-05-1981 ds le>kSrs ls ;g Li"Vr% nf'kZr gS fd mlus

Jfedksa dks fuf'pr le; ds fy, fu;ksftr fd;k Fkk A mudk ;g

Hkh vfHkdFku gS fd lafonk }kjk fy;k x;k dk;Z iw.kZ ugha gksus dsd

dkj.k mUgksaus foi{kh Øe 1 ds lkFk lafonk dh le;kof/ ds

foLrkj gsrq ,d lIyhesUVªh ,xzhesaV fd;k vkSj jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

763

la?k ds lkFk fd, x, le>kSrs fnukad 26-05-1981 ds vuqlj.k esa

mDr Jfedksa dks lafonkd`r dk;Z djus ds fy, vius fu;kstu esa

tkjh j[kk] D;ksafd ;g fu;kstu dh 'krZ Fkh A fnukad 25-02-1985

dks foi{kh Øe 2 us jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj la?k ds lkFk ,d f}i{kh;

le>kSrk fd;k] ftlesa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k fd mDr Jfed foi{kh

Øe 2 }kjk fuf'pr le; vFkkZr~ lafonk ds le; rd ds fy, gh

fu;ksftr fd, x, gSa A

Jfed x.k us mDr vfHkopuksa dk izfrmRrj izLrqr djrs gq,

fnukad 26-05-1981 vkSj 25-02-1985 ds le>kSrs gksuk Lohdkj

fd;k vkSj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd Bsds dh dk;Z vof/ c<+kus dk

mís'; foi{kh Øe 2 ds ;gka dk;Zjr Jfedksa dks fu;kstu nsrs jguk

Hkh Fkk A ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd 25-02-1985 ds le>kSrs ds

vuqlkj foi{kh Øe 2 dks Bsds dh vof/ rd Jfedksa dks fu;kstu

esa j[kuk pkfg, Fkk A lkFk gh ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd

foi{kh Øe 2 us Jfedksa dks fu;qfDr i=k ugha fn, bl dkj.k mudh

lsok,a fuf'pr vof/ ds fy, gksuk xyr gS A

mDr vfHkopuksa ls gh] ;g rks Li"Vr% izdV gks jgk gS fd

Jfed Lo;a ;g Lohdkj djrs gSa fd mDr Jfedksa dks Bsds dh

vof/ rd gh fu;kstu esa fy;k x;k Fkk A Jfedx.k dh vksj ls

lk{khx.k eksguflag [kesljk] izkFkhZ la?k ds vè;{k ds lkFk&lkFk

Jfed ukFkw] pSuk] jetku csx] vksadkj flag] VaxpUn ih- ds-] vCnqy

jgeku] eksrh] 'kadj] iQdhj ekSgEen] cyhLrj] esjk] dsfjax yky]

nkSyrflag] nyhpUn Yk{e.k flag esa vk, gSa A mUgksaus fu;qfDr i=k

mes'k flag izn'kZ ,e &5] fyEck izn'kZ ,e&11] euksgj yky izn'kZ

,e &1] jetku csx izn'kZ ,e &16] eksrh izn'kZ ,e &27] ukFkw izn'kZ

,e &22] pSuk izn'kZ ,e &37] 'kadj izn'kZ ,e&32] dkywjke izn'kZ

,e&45] ekS- guhiQ izn'kZ ,e &49] 'kkdk izn'kZ ,e &54] ekaxhyky

izn'kZ ,e &60] vkSadkj flag izn'kZ ,e &66] vCnqy jghe izn'kZ

,e&77] dsfjax yky izn'kZ ,e &79] nwyhpUn izn'kZ ,e&84] ,oa

>udkjke izn'kZ ,e &71 ij vius gLrk{kj gksuk vkSj bu ij vius

Nk;kfp=k gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g dguk fd

fu;qfDr i=k tkjh ugha fd, x,] lgh izrhr ugha gksrk

gS A mDr fu;qfDr i=kksa esa ;g Li"Vr% vafdr gS fd mDr fof'k"V

lafonkRed dk;Z ds fy, gh fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh A le>kSrk fnukad

25-02-1985 tks fd Jfed vkSj foi{kh Øe 2 ds eè; Lohd`r

nLrkost gS] esa Hkh ;g le>kSrk gqvk fd tc Hkh dk;Z lekIr vFkok

de gks tkosxk rks izcU/u ds ikl Jfedksa dh N¡Vuh djus dk

fodYi gksxk A bl 'krZ ls Hkh ;gh nf'kZr gksrk gS fd foi{kh Øe 2

us Jfedksa dks fuf'pr le; ds fy, gh lsok esa fy;k Fkk A vr% ;g

fook|d blh izdkj fu£.kr fd;k tkrk gS A

fook|d la[;k 5 %&

Jfedx.k us vius LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe ds vuqPNsn 5 esa ;g

vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd foi{kh Øe 1 us muds ;gka ekU;rk izkIr

;wfu;u jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj la?k ls fnukad 19-05-1981 dks ,d

le>kSrk fd;k] ftlesa ;g r; fd;k x;k fd foi{kh Øe 2 dk

dk;Z lekIr gks tkus ij muds ;gka dk;Z djus okys Jfedksa dks

foi{kh Øe 1 vius ;gka izkFkfedrk nsxsa A

foi{kh Øe 1 us bldk mRrj izLrqr dj blesa vafdr rF;ksa

dks vLohdkj fd;k vkSj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd fnukad 19-05-

1981 dk dksbZ le>kSrk foi{kh Øe 1 o ekU;rk izkIr ;wfu;u ds

chp ugha gqvk A fnukad 19-05-1981 dk ;g nLrkost le>kSrk ugha

gS A jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj la?k tks fd foi{kh Øe 1 ds ;gka ekU;rk

izkIr laxBu gS] le;≤ ij viuh dfBukbZ;ksa vkSj ekaxi=k nsrk

jgrk gS vkSj buds laca/ esa okrkZ, gksrh gSa] ftldk C;kSjk laLFkku esa

j[kk tkrk gS A bu C;kSjksa dks vfUre le>kSrs ds le; è;ku esa

j[kdj nksuksa i{kdkj yEck le>kSrk djrs gSa A fnukad 19-05-1981

dh okrkZ etnwj la?k }kjk iquoZxhZdj.k (Recatagorization) dh

ekax ds laca/ esa gqbZ Fkh A blesa vkilh fopkj foe'kZ gqvk vkSj

mudk fooj.k dk;Zo`r (Minutes) esa fn;k x;k] ijUrq ;g dk;Zo`r

fdlh Hkh le>kSrs dk Hkkx ugha cuk] tcfd bl dk;Zo`r ds

vfUre vuqPNsn esa ,slk okaNuh; gS A bl dk;Zo`r ds fooknLin

rF;ksa dh dHkh Hkh nksuksa i{kksa }kjk ikyuk ugha dh xbZ A bl laca/ esa

oi{kh Øe 1 dk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku jgk gS fd ;wfu;u }kjk tksj

Mkyus ij fd Bsdk lekIr gksus ds ckn Bsdsnkj ds Jfedksa dks u,

Jfedksa ds eqdkcys izkFkfedrk nh tkos] dEiuh us fliQZ ;g ekuk

Fkk fd Bsdk iwjk gks tkus ds ckn vxj dksbZ Jfed csjkstxkj gks

tkrk gS rks izkFkfedrk nh tkosxh A izkFkfedrk dk vk'k; fu;qfDr

nsuk ugha gS A izkFkhZ ds ;gka fu;qfDr dh fuf'pr izfdz;k gS] vkSj mlh

vuq:i foKkiu nsdj ;ksX;rk ds vk/kj ij p;u lfefr }kjk HkrhZ

dh tkrh gS A Bsdk lekIr ugha gksus ds dkj.k fnukad 19-05-1981

dk;Zo`r dk dksbZ vlj ugha gS A

foi{kh Øe 2 us vius mRrj esa izkFkhZ }kjk fd, x, vfHkopuksa

dks fookfnr ugha gksuk vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS A

izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ dk ;g rdZ gS fd fnukad

19-05-1981 dk foys[k foi{kh Øe 1 rFkk jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj

la?k ds eè; fy[kk x;k gS A ;g dk;Zo`r (Minutes) ds :i esa

fy[kk x;k gS] ijUrq okLrfodrk esa ;g le>kSrs dh rjg gh

izorZuh; gS A mudk rdZ gS fd bl ys[k i=k ds iSjk 3-1 esa

mYysf[kr 'krks± ds vykok lHkh 'krks± dh nksuksa i{kdkjksa }kjk ikyuk

dh tk pqdh gS vkSj ;g Hkh fd bldh 'krs± nksuksa i{kdkjksa dh

leqfpr Kku esa Fkh] vkSj ;s 'krsZa U;k;ksfpr gSa rFkk nksuksa i{kdkjksa esa

ls fdlh us Hkh blls bUdkj ugha fd;k gS A vuqPNsn 2-1 ls 2-4 rd

dh 'krks± dh rks ikyuk gh gks pqdh gS] mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd

nksuksa gh i{kdkj focU/u ds fl¼kar ls ckè; gSa vkSj bl ys[ki=k ls

ihNs ugha gV ldrs A vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu fofu'p;

izLrqr fd;s &

2008(3) ALT 173

(A.P.S.R.T.C. National Mazdoor Union Vs. A.P. State

Road Transport Corporation & Others.)

1988 (1) LLJ 207 AP

(Hindustan Zinc Workers Union & Others Vs.

Management Of Agnigundala Lead)

764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

blds foijhr foi{kh Øe 1 ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ dk rdZ gS

fd fnukad 19-05-1981 dk vfHkys[k foi{kh Øe 1 vkSj jkWd

iQkWLiQsV etnwj la?k ds eè; gqbZ fefVax dk dk;Zo`r ek=k gS A

^dk;Zo`r* le>kSrs dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS vkSj ckè;dkjh

izHkko ugha j[krk gS A fnukad 19-05-1981 ds bl ys[k i=k esa bls

Hkfo"; esa yEcs le>kSrs dk Hkkx cuk;k tkuk vafdr fd;k gS] ijUrq

bls fdlh Hkh le>kSrs dk Hkkx ugha cuk;k x;k gS A vius mDr rdZ

ds leFkZu esa fuEu fofu'p; izLrqr fd, &

2006 (3) Supreme Court Cases 523

(Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Devki Devi

And Others.) 1991 (1) LLR 481

(International Airports Authority of India Workers

Union Vs. International Airports Authority of India &

Others)

eSaus mDr rdZ fordZ ij euu fd;k A fnukad 19-05-1981

dk ys[k i=k izdj.k esa izn'kZ McY;w &1 ds :i esa izn£'kr gS A bls

fy[kk tkuk izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh Øe 1 nksuksa gh Lohdkj djrs gSa A

fookn ;g gS fd bl ys[k i=k dh izd`fr D;k gS vkSj bldk

i{kdkjksa ij D;k ckè;dkjh izHkko gS A

mDr ys[k i=k ftl ij ekU;rk izkIr la?k ds vf/dka'k inkf/

dkfj;ksa ds gLrk{kj Hkh gSa ij Li"Vr% ;g vafdr gS fd ;g ys[k

i=k fnukad 19-05-1981 dks izcU/ &funs'kd ds d{k esa gqbZ fefVax

dk dk;Zo`r gS A bl ys[k i=k ds i`"B la[;k 6 ij ;g Li"V :i

ls vafdr gS fd i{kdkjksa ds chp ;g lgefr gqbZ fd mQij o£.kr

rF;ksa ds Øe esa ,d foLr`r le>kSrk gLrk{kfjr fd;k tk;sxk] tks

fnukad 21-04-1980 ds yk¡x&VeZ le>kSrs (yEcs le>kSrs dk Hkkx

cusxk A ;fn nksuksa i{kdkjksa dh ea'kk bls le>kSrs dk :i nsus dh vkSj

ckè;dkjh djus dh gksrh rks ;g vafdr ugha fd;k tkrk fd mQij

ekeyksa esa lgefr cuh gS] muds laca/ esa foLr`r le>kSrk gLrk{kfjr

fd;k tk;sxk A ,slh fLFkfr esa Li"V gS fd fnukad 19-05-1981 dk

nLrkost izn'kZ McY;w&1 le>kSrk ugha gS] cfYd fefVax dk dk;Zo`r

gS A

mDr dk;Zo`r ckè;dkjh izHkko j[krk gS ;k ugha] bl laca/

esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fofu'p;

2008 (3) ALT 173

(A.P.S.R.T.C. National Mazdoor Union Vs. A.P. State

Road Transport Corporation & Others) izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A

izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ us vf/dj.k dk è;ku bl fu.kZ; ds

vuqPNsn Øe 24 dh vksj vkdf"kZr dj ;g rdZ fn;k fd bl

vuqPNsn esa ,sls dk;Zo`r dks /kjk 2 (P) vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/

fu;e ds vUrxZr le>kSrk ekuk x;k gS A

eSaus bl rdZ ij euu fd;k ,oa izLrqr fofu'p; dk è;ku

iwoZd vè;;u fd;k A

okLrfodrk esa ftl vuqPNsn dh vksj fo}ku izfrfuf/ us

è;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k gS ] og ml ekeys ds vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls

izLrqr rdZ ek=k Fkk vkSj blds vxys gh vuqPNsn esa ekuuh;

vkU/zizns'k mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fo}ku

vf/oDrk }kjk izLrqr fu.kZ;ksa dk è;kuiwoZd voyksdu dj fy;k gS

vkSj os bl er ds gSa fd orZeku izdj.k esa mDr fofu'p; ds

fl¼kUr ykxw ugha gksrs gSa A bl izdkj ls mDr fofu'p; tks izkFkhZ ds

}kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fefuVl dks

^^le>kSrk** ugha ekuk x;k gS A

izkFkhZ }kjk 1988 (1) LLJ 207 AP

(Hindustan Zinc Workers Union & Others Vs.

Management of Agnigundala Lead) fofu'p; izLrqr fd;k

x;k gS A bl fofu'p; esa vkU/zizns'k mPp U;k;ky; us fefuV~l dks

oS/ le>kSrk ekuk] ijUrq mUgksusa ;g Hkh izsf{kr fd;k gS fd ;g oS/

le>kSrk gS] D;ksafd ;g le>kSrk] lqyg&izfdz;k ds nkSjku gqvk gS A

orZeku izdj.k ds rF; blls loZFkk fHkUu gSa A ,slh fLFkfr esa bl

fofu'p; ls Hkh dksbZ ykHk izkFkhZ dks izkIr ugha gks ldrk A

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/ us vius rdZ esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd fnukad

19-05-1981 ds nLrkost dh vU; lHkh 'krks± dh ikyuk i{kdkjksa

}kjk dh tk pqdh gS] ijUrq bl rF; dks izekf.kr djus ds fy,

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; i=kkoyh ij ugha gS] ftlls izdV gksrk

gks fd fnukad 19-05-1981 ds nLrkost dh vU; lHkh 'krks± dh

ikyuk i{kdkjksa ds eè; ckè;dkjh le>kSrs ds :i esa gqbZ gks A

,slh fLFkfr esa esjs fopkj ls ;g izekf.kr ugha gS fd fnukad

19-05-1981 dks foi{kh Øe 1 vkSj jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj la?k ds

chp fy[kk x;k nLrkost izn'kZ McY;w&1 ,d ^^le>kSrk** gS A blh

izdkj ls ;g fook|d fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gS A

fook|d la[;k 3] 8 ,oa 11 %&

mDr rhuksa fook|d Hkh ,d nwljs ls lacaf/r gSa vr% buds

laca/ esa foospu ,d lkFk fd;k tk jgk gS A

izkFkhZ dk vius LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse esa ;g vfHkdFku gS fd

foi{kh Øe 2 us Hkkjr ljdkj ds lePk fnukad 17-05-1985 vkSj

02-07-1985 dks izkFkZuk i=k 137 Jfedksa dh NWVuh gsrq Hksts Fks ]

ftlesa N¡Vuh dk dkj.k Bsds dk dk;Z lekIr gksuk crk;k Fkk A mDr

izkFkZuk i=kksa ds Hkkjr ljdkj ds le{k yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku gh

foi{kh Øe 2 us mudh lsok,a voS/ o vuqfpr rjhds ls lekIr

djus dk ekxZ viuk;k vkSj mDr Jfedksa dh lsok,a lekIr djus dh

dk;Zokgh djus ls iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr ;wfu;u jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj

la?k] dks fo'okl esa ugha fy;k vkSj viuh ethZ ds ikap Jfed] tks

muds dgus esa Fks] ds lkFk fnukad 26-07-1985 dks ,d le>kSrk

dj fy;k A ;g le>kSrk Jfedksa ds fgrksa ds foijhr vkSj vuqfpr

Je O;ogkj esa vkrk gS A foi{kh Øe 2 us leLr 37 Jfedksa dh

N¡Vuh fnukad 30-07-1985 dks dj nh A ;g N¡Vuh voS/ vkSj

cnfu;friw.kZ gS] D;ksafd N¡Vuh dk dkj.k vk/kjghu gS A foi{kh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

765

Øe 2 ds Bsds dk dk;Z lekIr ugha gqvk Fkk vkSj og dk;Z 100 u,

Jfed fu;qDr dj pyk;k tk jgk gS A ikap Jfedksa }kjk fd;k x;k

le>kSrk voS/ gS vkSj Jfedksa ds fgrksa ds foijhr gS A foi{kh Øe

2 us le>kSrs ds dkxt Lo;a rS;kj djds] Jfedksa dks Mjk] èkedkdj

mu ij gLrk{kj djok, gSa A ikap Jfedksa] ftUgksaus le>kSrk fd;k]

dks Jfedksa us viuk izfrfuf/ ugha cuk;k vkSj mUgsa le>kSrs ds

fy, vf/d`r ugha fd;k A foi{kh Øe 2 us vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e dh /kjk 25(H) vkSj xzsP;wVh ds ykHk ls oafpr djus ds

fy, Jfedksa ds tcju gLrk{kj djok, vkSj ;g Jfed fojks/h

le>kSrk djok;k] tks cnfu;friw.kZ gS A vf/dka'k Jfed ikap o"kZ

dh lsok vof/ nks ekg esa iw.kZ djus okys Fks A Jfedksa us LosPNk ls

lsok dk R;kx ugha fd;k] os lsok eqfDr ds ckn csjkstxkj gSa A bl

izdkj ls NWVuh djds foi{kh Øe 2 us mUgsa fnukad 19-05-1981 ds

le>kSrs ds ykHk ls oafpr dj fn;k gS A

mDr vfHkopuksa dk foi{kh Øe 1 us ;g mRrj fn;k gS fd

fnukad 26-07-1985 dk le>kSrk ns[kus ls Li"V gks jgk gS fd ;g

f=ki{kh; le>kSrk gS] ftl ij Jfedksa ds ikap izfrfuf/ deZdkjksa us

gLrk{kj fd, gSa A ;g le>kSrk] lqyg vf/dkjh ds le{k fookn ds

fuiVkjs gsrq fd;k x;k gS] ftldh oS/rk bl funsZ'k esa ugha ns[kh tk

ldrh A ;g Hkh vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd lsok i;kZolku le>kSrs ds

vk/kj ij fd;k x;k gS A fdu Jfedksa dks u;k HkrhZ fd;k] mldk

dksbZ fooj.k izkFkhZ us ugha fn;k gS A izi=k fnukad 19-05-1981 ds

vuqlkj izkFkfedh dk iz'u Bsdk lekIr gksus ij mRiUu gksrk gS A

Bsdk lekIr ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa foi{kh Øe 1 dk dksbZ nkf;Ro

ugha curk gS A fnukad 19-05-1981 ds izi=k ls dksbZ ykHk izkFkhZ izkIr

ugha ik ldrs A

foi{kh Øe 2 us bu vfHkopuksa ds laca/ esa vius tokc esa

;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd mDr Jfedksa ds laca/ esa fnukad

17-05-1985 vkSj 02-07-1985 dks mUgksaus /kjk 25 N vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/fu;e ds vUrxZr izkFkZuk i=k dsUnz ljdkj dks fHktok,

Fks] tks vKkurko'k Hkst fn, Fks A buds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku gh

Jfedksa us dqN 'krks± ij LosfPNd lsokfuo`fr dh dk;Zokgh 'kq:

djh vkSj foi{kh Øe 2 dks vf/dka'k Jfedksa us gLrk{kj dj

izkFkZuk i=k fn, A bl izkFkZuk i=k ds izkIr gksus ij iqufoZpkj ij

mUgksaus ik;k fd /kjk 25 N vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e ds izkFkZuk

i=k dks Persue djus dh vko';drk ugha gS A blds i'pkr~ lqyg

vf/dkjh] dsUnzh; ds le{k dk;Zokgh gqbZ A fnukad 25 tqykbZ] 1985

dks lqyg vf/dkjh us le>kSrk vfHkfyf[kr fd;k A bl lqyg

le>kSrs dks jkWd iQkWLiQsV etnwj la?k us Hkh lg"kZ Lohdkjk vkSj

funsZ'k esa o£.kr 137 Jfedksa us bl le>kSrs ds rgr izkIr gksus okys

vkfFkZd ykHk izkIr dj fy, gSa A okLrfodrk esa /kjk 2 (00) ds

vUrxZr muds }kjk Jfedksa dh lsok,a lekIr ugha dh xbZ gSa oju

Jfedksa us LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fr yh gS A mUgksaus fdlh Hkh etnwj ls

tcju gLrk{kj ugha djok, A

izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls

;g Li"Vr% izekf.kr gS fd fnukad 26-07-1985 dk le>kSrk fcuk

vf/dkj ds fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g Hkh fd Jfedksa ls LoSfPNd

lsokfuo`fr izkFkZuk i=k] Hkqxrku laca/h jlhn vkfn ij Hkqykos esa

j[kdj gLrk{kj djok, x, gSa A mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd mDr

le>kSrs ij gLrk{kj djus okys ikap Jfedksa dk ftl nLrkost ls

vf/d`r gksuk foi{khx.k crk jgs gSa] og o"kZ 1983 dk gS] tcfd

;g fookn gh ml le; mRiUu ugha gqvk Fkk A mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS

fd okLrfodrk esa mDr dk;Zokgh N¡Vuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrh gS

vkSj ;g N¡Vuh bl dkj.k voS/ ,oa euekuh gS] D;ksafd /kjk

25(G)] 25(H)] 25(N) vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e ,oa buds

vUrxZr cus dsUnzh; fu;e 76] 76,] 77] 78 dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZ

vkSj le>kSrk fnukad 19-05-1981] 26-07-1981 vkSj

25-02-1985 dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZz gS A mDr izko/kuksa ds foijhr

dh xbZ ;g lsok eqfDr vuqfpr Je O;ogkj dh Js.kh esa vkrh gS

vius rdks± ds leFkZu esa fuEu fofu'p; izLrqr fd, &

2015 (4) Supreme Court Cases 544

(Mackinnon Mackenzie & Company Limited Vs.

Mackinnnon employees Union)

2015 (5) Supreme Court Cases 786

(Durgapur Casual Workers Union & Others Vs Food

Corporation of India & Others)

blds foijhr foi{kh Øe 1 ds fo}ku izfrfuf/ dk rdZ gS

fd okLrfodrk esa mDr izkFkhZ Jfedx.k }kjk izkf/d`r Jfedx.k

us] le>kSrk vf/dkjh ds le{k le>kSrs dh dk;Zokgh yfEcr Fkh

rc] fnukad 26-07-1985 dks ,d le>kSrk fd;k vkSj le>kSrs dh

ikyuk esaLo;a izkFkZuk i=k izLrqr dj LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fr pkgh vkSj

le>kSrs ds v/hu leLr vk£Fkd ykHk izkIr fd, A tc izkFkhZ

Jfedksa dh N¡Vuh gh ugha gqbZ gS rks /kjk 25(G)] 25(H)]

25(N) vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e ,oa buds vUrxZr cus dsUnzh;

fu;e 76] 76,] 77] 78 dh ikyuk dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gS A

mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd f=ki{kh; le>kSrs fnukad

26-07-1985 dks bl funsZ'k ds vUrxZr pqukSrh ugha nh tk ldrhA

mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{khx.k ds

vfrfjDr 'kiFk i=k esa LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fr izkFkZuk i=k vkSj jlhnksa

vkfn ij Hkqykos esa j[kdj gLrk{kj djus okys dFku lk{; esa xzkg~;

ugha gSa] D;ksafd ,sls dksbZ vfHkopu izkFkhZx.k ds] i=kkoyh ij ugha gSA

eSaus rdZ fordZ ij euu fd;k A

izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lk{khx.k tks izLrqr gq, gSa mUgksaus lHkh us

vius eq[; dFku ds 'kiFk i=k esa ;g dgk gS fd fu;kstd }kjk

izLrqr le>kSrk fnukad 26-07-1985 ckè;dkjh ugha gS] D;ksafd bl

ij ftu ikap Jfedksa ds gLrk{kj fd, gS] mUgsa] mUgksaus ;k muds

lkfFk;ksa us vf/d`r ugha fd;k Fkk A ;g le>kSrk iQthZ] cukoVh vkSj

xSj dkuwuh gS A mUgksaus vkSj muds lkfFk;ksa us dHkh Hkh LosPNk ls ;k

LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fr ugha pkgh vkSj u gh dksbZ R;kx i=k izLrqr

fd;k Fkk A vius vfrfjDr 'kiFk i=k esa bu lk{khx.k us ;g dgk

766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gS fd LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fr ds laca/ esa tks izkFkZuk i=k izLrqr fd,

gSa] os >w¡Bs gSa rFkk mDr izkFkZuk i=k i<+dj ugha lquk, o Hkqykos esa

j[kdj muds gLrk{kj djok, gSa A

bu lk{khx.k dk bl laca/ esa eq[; dFku esa ;g Hkh vfHkdFku

gS fd mudh lsok,a fnukad 30-07-1985 dks lekIr dh xbZ] ijUrq

lsok lekIr djus ls iwoZ mUgsa ,d ekg dk uksfVl] uksfVl osru ,oa

N¡Vuh dk eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k] vkSj /kjk 25(F) vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/fu;e ds ykHk ls oafpr djrs gq, lsok eqfDr dh xbZ gS

A mudh N¡Vuh ls iwoZ Hkkjr ljdkj ls vuqefr izkIr ugha dh xbZ A

bl laca/ esa foi{kh Øe 1 dh vksj ls lk{kh vkj- ds- esgrk]

eq[; izcU/d (dkfeZd o iz'kklu) jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M

feujy fy- mn;iqj us vius eq[; dFku esa ;g izdV fd;k gS fd

fnukad 26 tqykbZ] 1985 dks Jfedksa o Bsdsnkj ds chp ckrphr

pyh vkSj Jfedksa ds uketn izfrfuf/;ksa vkSj eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax

,UVjizkbZtst ds chp le>kSrk gqvk A ;g ,d dUlhys'ku le>kSrk

Fkk] tks izn'kZ ,e&91 gS A bl le>kSrs ds ckn Jfedksa us 'krZ lfgr

LosPNk ls LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fr ds izkFkZuk i=k fn,] tks i=kkoyh ij

gSa A blds ckn Jfedksa us izksfoMsUV iQ.M ds VªLVh gksus ds dkj.k

muds laLFkku dks i=k nsdj Hkfo"; fuf/ dk iSlk ekaxk A laLFkku ds

VªLV ls] lacaf/r Jfedksa dks] ns; jkf'k dk pSd fn;k x;k A

lk{kh ,l- ,l- 'kDrkor us Hkh vius 'kiFk i=k ds eq[;

ijh{k.k esa Hkh ;gh dgk gS fd Jfedksa o Bsdsnkj ds chp ckrphr

gksus ds ckn fnukad 26-07-1985 dks Jfedksa ds uketn izfrfuf/;ksa

vkSj eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ds izcU/dksa ds chp

le>kSrk gqvk A ;g f=ki{kh; le>kSrk Fkk] ftl ij ikap deZpkfj;ksa

ds gLrk{kj gSa] tks Jfedksa ds izfrfuf/ Fks A

lk{kh ,y-,y- p.Mkfy;k us vius eq[; dFku ds 'kiFk i=k

esa izdV fd;k gS fd og jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy-

mn;iqj esa lgk;d ys[kkf/dkjh ds in ij fu;qDr Fks A eSllZ bZLVuZ

bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst vkSj jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy

fy- ds eè; vksoj cMZu gVkus dh lafonk ,e&92 gqbZ Fkh A Jfedksa

dh fu;qfDr Bsdsnkj }kjk dh tkrh Fkh A Hkfo"; fuf/ ,DV] 1952 ds

izko/kuksa ds vuqlkj Bsdsnkj ds ikl dk;Zjr Jfedksa ds osru ls Hkh

Hkfo"; fuf/ dh jkf'k Bsdsnkj }kjk dkV yh tkrh Fkh A eSllZ bZLVuZ

bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ds fuosnu ij muds Jfedksa ds Hkfo";

fuf/ va'knku dh jkf'k vkSj fu;ksDrk Bsdsnkj dk va'knku jktLFkku

LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- ds Hkfo"; fuf/ VªLV esa gj ekg

Bsdsnkj eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst}kjk tek djok nh

tkrh Fkh A

bl lk{kh dk dFku gS fd fnukad 26-07-1985 dks Jfedksa

ds uketn izfrfuf/ vkSj eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjizkbZtst ds

izcU/d ds chp le>kSrk izn'kZ ,e&91 gqvk Fkk A blds i'pkr~

eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjçkbZtst ds Jfedksa ls çkFkZuk i=k çkIr

gq, fd mUgksaus le>kSrs ds vUrxZr eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjçkbZtst

ls LosfPNd lsokfuo`fr ys yh vr% tek Hkfo"; fuf/ dh jkf'k

ykSVkbZ tk;s A bl ij eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjçkbZtst }kjk Hksts

x, i=kksa vkSj çek.khdj.k ds vk/kj ij t:jh vkSipkfjDrk,a iwjh

djds eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjçkbZtst ds mDr Jfedksa dks

Hkfo"; fuf/ dh jkf'k dk ,dkm.V isbZ pSd ls Hkqxrku dj jlhn

çkIr dj yh xbZ Fkh A

eSaus mDr lk{khx.k ds mQij o£.kr dFkuksa dk è;kuiwoZd

vè;;u fd;k A

çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls tks lk{kh çLrqr gq, gSa mu lHkh us vius

eq[; dFku esa fnukad 26&7&1985 dk le>kSrk vfof/iw.kZ gksuk

vkSj vuf/d`r O;fDr;ksa }kjk gLrk{kfjr gksuk dgk gS A çfrijh{kk

esa lk{khx.k us vius eq[; dFku ls foifjr ;g dgk gS fd mUgsa rks

bl ckr dh tkudkjh gh ugha fd fnukad 26&7&85 dks dksbZ

le>kSrk gqvk ;k ugha A bl laca/ esa lk{kh mes'k] fyEck] jetku]

nyhpan] 'kadj y{e.kflag vkfn us viuh çfrijh{kk esa bl nLrkost

dh tkudkjh gh ugha gksuk çdV fd;k gSA lk{kh euksgj us viuh

çfrijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd mls bl le>kSrs dh tkudkjh gS vkSj

;g dgk gS fd bl le>kSrs ds ckn esa iSls fy, Fks A

vf/dka'k Jfedx.k tks fd lk{; esa vk, gSa] mUgksaus bl le>kSrs

dh tkudkjh gksus ls gh bUdkj dj fn;k gS A mDr ijhf{kr lk{khx.k

esa ls dqN us rks vius eq[; dFku ds 'kiFk i=k esa D;k rF; vafdr

gS] bldh tkudkjh gksus ls Hkh bUdkj fd;k gS A

vius eq[; dFku ds 'kiFk i=k esa mDr lHkh lk{khx.k us

fnukad 26-07-1985 ds le>kSrs ds laca/ esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd

;g le>kSrk ftu ikap O;fDr;ksa ds gLrk{kjksa ls fd;k x;k bl gsrq

mlus ;k muds lkfFk;ksa us mUgs vf/Ñr ugha fd;k Fkk A lkFk gh bu

lHkh lk{khx.k us ys[k i=k izn'kZ ,e 2@2 ij vius gLrk{kj gksuk

Lohdkjk gS A izn'kZ ,e&2@2 fnukad 15-03-1983 dk og izi=k gS]

ftlesa mDr le>kSrk djus okys ikap Jfedksa dks] laLFkku esa

fu;qDr Jfedksa us Bsdsnkj ls fookn gksus ij dk;Zokgh dk vf/dkj

fn;k gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa bu lk{khx.k dk dFku fd muds }kjk

fnukad 26-07-1985 ij gLrk{kj djus okys Jfedksa dks vfèkÑr

ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] lgh ugha gS A

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{khx.k ftudk Åij fooj.k fn;k

gqvk gS] us LosfPNd lsokfuo`fr laca/h la;qDr izkFkZuk i=k izn'kZ

,e&2@1 ij vius gLrk{kj gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS A mDr lk{khx.k

us LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fr ds O;fDrxr :i ls fn, x, izkFkZuk i=kksa esa

mes'k flag izn'kZ ,e&7] fyEck izn'kZ ,e&12] euksgj yky izn'kZ

,e&2 nkSyr flag izn'kZ McY;w&7@4] HkSjk izn'kZ MCY;w&5@3] eksrh

izn'kZ ,e&28] ukFkw izn'kZ ,e&23] pSuk izn'kZ ,e&38] 'kadj izn'kZ

,e&33] mnhyky izn'kZ ,e&42] vCnqy jgeku izn'kZ ,e&78]

dsfjax yky izn'kZ ,e&82 ,oa nwyhpan izn'kZ ,e&88 ij Hkh vius

gLrk{kj gksuk Lohdkjk gS A vius vfrfjDr 'kiFk i=k esa mDr

lk{khx.k us ;g dgus dk ç;kl fd;k gS fd muls bu nLrkostksa

ij Hkqykos esa j[kdj gLrk{kj djok fy, x,] ijUrq bl laca/ esa

çkFkhZ Jfedx.k ds vfHkopu gh i=kkoyh ij ugha gSa A oSls Hkh bu

lk{khx.k us mDr LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fr ds çkFkZuk i=kksa ds ckn

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

767

le>kSrs ds vUrxZr vkfFkZd ykHk çkIr djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS A

,slh fLFkfr esa ;g dguk fd os Hkqykos esa jgs] drbZ Lohdkj djus

;ksX; ugha gS A ,d ls vf/d LFkkuksa ij gLrk{kj djds lk{khx.k us

pSrU; :i ls mDr jkf'k dks Lohdkj fd;k gS A lkFk gh bu

lk{khx.k us foi{kh Øe 2 eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjçkbZtst dks

ih-,iQ- dh jkf'k fnyok, tkus ds fy, Hkh çkFkZuk i=k nsdj fuosnu

fd;k A mDr çkFkZuk i=k eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjçkbZtst ds

ekè;e ls bl gsrq foi{kh Øe 1 jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy

fy- mn;iqj ds ih-,iQ- gsrq cus VªLV esa fHktok, x, vkSj ogka ls

çkFkhZ Jfedx.k us ih-,iQ- dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku çkIr fd;k gS A

,slh fLFkfr esa i'pkr~orhZ çØe ij vkdj ;g dg nsuk fd mUgsa

tkudkjh ugha Fkh ;k mUgsa Hkqykos esa j[kdj gLrk{kj djok, x,]

lgh ugha ekuk tk ldrk A

;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd bu lk{khx.k us ys[k i=k

fnukad 15&3&1983 çn'kZ ,e&2@2 ij Hkh vius gLrk{kj dks

Lohdkjk gS A ;g og ys[k i=k gS] ftlds }kjk mDr Jfedx.k us

vius esa ls ikap Jfedksa çrki¯lg] Vhds¯lg] Hkaoj¯lg] txnh'k

,oa toku ¯lg dks çcU/u ls fopkj&foe'kZ dj fu.kZ; ysus gsrq

p;fur dj çkf/d`r fd;k Fkk A bUgh ikap O;fDr;ksa }kjk fnukad

26&7&1985 dk le>kSrk tks le>kSrk vf/dkjh ds le{k gqvk gS]

gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k gS A vkS/ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e ds vUrxZr

cuk, x, fu;eksa ds fu;e 58 (2) ([k) esa ,sls çkf/d`r çfrfufèkx.k

}kjk le>kSrk fd;k tk ldrk gS A

tgka rd Jfedx.k ds fo}ku çfrfuf/ ds bl rdZ dk

laca/ gS fd mDr ys[k i=k o"kZ 1983 dk gS] tcfd le>kSrk fnukad

26&7&1985 dks fd;k x;k gS ;gh dgk tk ldrk gS gS fd mDr

çkf/d`r djus okyk çLrko dHkh okil ys fy;k x;k gks] ,slk

vfHkys[k ls çdV ugha gks jgk gS] u gh Jfedx.k }kjk çekf.kr gh

fd;k x;k gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa çkFkhZx.k dk ;g vfHkdFku fd fnukad

26&7&1985 dk le>kSrk vçkf/d`r O;fDr;ksa }kjk fd, tkus ds

dkj.k voS/ gS] ugha ekuk tk ldrk A

;gka ;g fo'ks"k :i ls mYys[kuh; gS fd fnukad 26&7&1985

dk le>kSrk lqyg vf/dkjh ds le{k fd;k x;k ,d f=ki{kh;

le>kSrk gS vkSj bl le>kSrs dk ,d gLrk{kjdrkZ lgk;d yscj

dfe'uj dsUæh; Hkh gS] tks ,d yksd lsod gS A bl yksd lsod ij

"kM;a=k dj] le>kSrk vfHkfyf[kr djus dk vk{ksi ugha Lohdkjk tk

ldrk gSA oSls Hkh Jfedx.k us ;g ugha crk;k gS fd le>kSrk

vf/dkjh dh D;k nqHkkZouk vFkok LokFkZ bl laca/ esa gks ldrk

Fkk A

mDr le>kSrk fnukad 26&7&1985 le>kSrk lqyg vf/dkjh

ds le{k fd;k x;k ,d f=ki{kh; le>kSrk gS] vkSj bldh oS/rk

dks] vkSj ;g lnHkkoukiwoZd gS ;k ugha dks ,d Lora=k funsZ'k esa gh

fu.khZr fd;k tk ldrk gS tSlk fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us

vius fofu'p; 2005 (8) ,l-lh-lh- ist 49 esa çfrikfnr fd;k

gS A

mi;ZqDr foospu vuqlkj tks lk{; ç=kkoyh ij ekStwn gS]

mlls ;gh çekf.kr gksrk gS fd çkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh NaVuh ugha dh

xbZ oju Jfedksa }kjk LosPN;k lsokfuo`fr yh xbZ gS A tc Jfedksa

dh NaVuh gh ugha dh xbZ gS rks fiQj /kjk 25 vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/fu;e ds fofHkUu çko/kuksa dh ikyuk ugha djus ls lacaf/r

çkFkhZ Jfedx.k ds fo}ku çfrfuf/ ds rdZ lkjghu gks tkrs gSa]

D;kasfd LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk /kjk 2 (oo) ds vUrxZr NaVuh dh

Js.kh esa ugha vkrh gS A

tc çkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh NaVuh fd;k tkuk gh çekf.kr ugha

gS rFkk ;g çekf.kr gS fd muds }kjk LosfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk yh xbZ gS

rks ,slh fLFfr esa /kjk 25 (F) vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e dh

ikyuk vkSj ljdkj dh iwoZ vuqefr ysus dk dksbZ ç'u gh mRiUu

ugha gksrk gS A

tSlk fd mQij foospu fd;k x;k gS fd le>kSrk fnukad

26&7&1985 lqyg vf/dkjh ds le{k fd;k x;k f=ki{kh; le>kSrk

gS] vkSj bldh oS/rk ds laca/ esa dksbZ fookn mBk;k tkuk vkSj

bldh oS/rk ds laca/ esa funsZ'k gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS] ,slh fLFfr

esa çkFkhZ dks le>kSrs dh oS/rk dks pqukSrh nsus dk vf/dkj ugha

gS A bl laca/ esa vf/dj.k }kjk tks foospu fd;k x;k gS] og blh

ifjis{; esa fd;k x;k gS fd çkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh NaVuh dh xbZ

vFkok muds }kjk LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk] yh xbZ blh çdkj ls mDr

fook/dksa dk fu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gS A

fook|d la[;k 4%&

çkFkhZ la?k us vius LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe esa ;g vfHkdfFkr

fd;k gS fd çkFkhZ eSllZ jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy-

mn;iqj la?k gS] ftlds >kej dksVMk [knkuksa ij dk;Z djus okys

Jfed lnL; gSa A blds tokc esa foi{kh Øe 1 us ;g vfHkdfFkr

fd;k gS fd çkFkhZ la?k iathd`r la?k vo'; gS] ijUrq mUgsa ;g

Lohdkj ugha gS dh >kej dksVMk [knkuksa ij dk;Z djus okys Jfed

bl la?k ds lnL; gSa A bl la?k dk eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax

,UVjçkbZtst ds laLFkku esa Hkh dksbZ vfLrRo ugha gS] blfy, bl

la?k dks Jfedksa dh vksj ls ;g okn çLrqr djus dk vf/dkj ugha

gS A Jfedksa us la?k dks dksbZ vf/dkj ugha fn;k vkSj u gh okn

mBkus dk çLrko ikfjr dj vf/d`r fd;k gS A

foi{kh Øe 1 ds mDr vfHkdFkuksa dk mÙkj çkFkhZ Jfedx.k

us çLrqr fd;k vkSj vius çfrmÙkj esa bl laca/ esa vfHkdfFkr fd;k

gS fd foi{kh us jkWd iWQkLiQsV etnwj la?k dks xyr o jktuSfrd

vk/kj ij ekU;rk ns j[kh gS] vkSj eSllZ bLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjçkbZtst

laLFkku esa çkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds vfLrRo ls bUdkj djus dh ckr mUgsa

vLohdkj gS A

foi{kh Øe 2 us Hkh vius mÙkj esa çkFkhZ la?k dk vius

laLFkku esa vfLrRo gksus ls bUdkj fd;k gS vkSj ;gh vkifRr yh gS

fd mUgsa Jfedksa dh vksj ls okn mBkus dk vf/dkj ugha gS A

768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

;g rF; çkFkhZ la?k dks çekf.kr djuk Fkk fd og eSllZ

bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjçkbZtst esa ekU;rk çkIr la?k gS vkSj mDr

137 Jfedx.k dh vksj ls okn mBkus vkSj ykus dk vf/dkj j[krs

gSa A çkFkhZ la?k us ,slk dksbZ ys[ki=k çLrqr ugha fd;k gS] ftlls ;g

çdV gksrk gks fd mUgsa mDr Jfedksa us okn mBkus gsrq çkf/d`r

fd;k gks vFkok os mDr laLFkku esa ekU;rk çkIr Jfed la?k Fks A

çkFkhZ dh vksj ls la?k ds vè;{k egsUæ [kesljk fnukad

13&5&1988 dks mifLFkr gq, gSa] ijUrq mUgksaus vius eq[; c;ku ds

'kiFk i=k esa ;g ugha dgk gS fd bl la?k dks mDr Jfedksa us okn

mBkus ds fy, vf/d`r fd;k Fkk A

çkFkhZ {kfedx.k dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ lk{kh Hkh çLrqr ugha

gqvk gS] ftlus mDr ;wfu;u dks okn mBkus dk vf/dkj fn;k tkuk

dgk gks A lk{kh euksgj yky us bl laca/ esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd

mUgksaus egsUæ [kesljk vè;{k dks fy[kdj fn;k Fkk fd mudk

ekeyk mBk,a] ijUrq ,slk dksbZ ys[k i=k o çLrko çkFkhZ la?k dh

vksj ls lk{; esa çLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS A vU; fdlh lk{kh us

jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy deZpkjh la?k mn;iqj (çkFkhZ

la?k) dks mDr okn mBkus ds fy, çkf/d`r fd;k tkuk çdV ugha

fd;k gS A

,slh fLFkfr esa lk{; ls ;g çekf.kr ugha gS fd çkFkhZ

jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy deZpkjh la?k mn;iqj dks eSllZ

bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjçkbZtst ds Jfedksa dh vksj ls okn mBkus

dk vf/dkj çkIr gks A tc fLFkfr ;g gS rks ;gh ekuk tkosxk fd

;g okn] mifLFkr Jfedx.k }kjk viuh O;fDrxr {kerk esa çLrqr

dj pyk;k x;k gS A blh çdkj ;g fook/d fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

fook|d la[;k 12%&

çkFkhZ Jfedx.k us vius LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe esa ;g vfHkdfFkr

fd;k gS fd foi{kh Øe 2 us mUgsa fu;ksftr fd;k Fkk vkSj mlds

ckn nqHkkZoukiwoZd mudh N¡Vuh dj nh A

bldk foi{kh Øe 2 dh vksj ls ;g mRrj çLrqr fd;k x;k

fd okLrfodrk esa Jfedx.k dh N¡Vuh ugha dh xbZ oju mUgksaus

LosfPNd lsokfuo`fRr çkIr dh gS A

bl laca/ esa fookn dks lqyg vf/dkjh ds le{k mBk;k x;k

vkSj lqyg çfØ;k vliQy gksus ij /kjk 10 vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/fu;e ds çko/kuksa ds vUrxZr leqfpr ljdkj us U;k;kf/dj.k

dks mDr funsZ'k çsf"kr fd;k gS A

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2 (k) esa vkS|ksfxd

fookn ifjHkkf"kr gS A blds vUrxZr fu;kstd vkSj deZdkjksa ds

eè; ,sls fookn tks fd fu;kstu vFkok vfu;kstu ;k fu;kstu ls

lacaf/r 'krks± ds laca/ esa gh vFkok vkS|ksfxd fookn dh Js.kh esa

vkrk gS A bl vf/fu;e dh rhljh vuqlwph esa deZdkjksa dh N¡Vuh

ls lacaf/r çdj.k vkS|ksfxd fookn ds vUrxZr vkuk vkSj buds

laca/ esa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k dks Js=kkf/dkj gksuk vafdr gS A

çkFkhZ Jfedx.k us foi{kh Øe 2 }kjk Lo;a dh N¡Vuh voS/

crkrs gq, fookn mBk;k gS o mlh ds laca/ esa ;g funsZ'k çkIr gqvk

gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa esjs fopkj ls orZeku fookn fu;kstd vkSj

deZdkjksa ds eè; fu;kstu ls lacaf/r gS vkSj vkS|ksfxd fookn dh

Js.kh esa vkrk gS vkSj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 ds

vUrxZr bl vkS|ksfxd fookn dk funsZ'k blh :i esa bl

U;k;kf/dj.k esa pyus ;ksX; gS A blh çdkj ls bl fook|d dk

fu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gS A

vf/dj.k }kjk fu/kZfjr mDr fookn fcUnqvksa ds laca/ esa tks

fu"d"kZ fudkys x, gSa] mUgsa vc bl vf/dj.k dks fd, x, funsZ'k

ds ifjis{; esa ns[kuk gS A

tSlk fd mQij fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd çkFkhZ Jfedx.k dk

foi{kh Øe 2 dk Jfed gksuk çekf.kr gqvk gS vkSj ;g çekf.kr

gqvk gS fd os foi{kh Øe 1 ds Jfed ugha Fks vkSj mudk fu;kstu

foi{kh Øe 2 }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ;g Hkh çekf.kr gqvk gS fd

mDr Jfedx.k dh foi{kh Øe 2 }kjk N¡Vuh ugha dh xbZ gS oju

muds }kjk LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fRr yh xbZ gS A ;g Hkh çekf.kr ik;k

x;k gS fd fnukad 19&05&1981 dk ys[ki=k le>kSrs dh ifjHkk"kk

esa ugha vkrk gS vkSj foi{kh Øe 1 ij fdlh çdkj dk dksbZ mRrj

nkf;Ro blds vUrxZr ugha gS A

,slh fLFkfr esa çkFkhZ Jfedx.k fdlh çdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k

foi{kh Øe 1 ds fo#¼ çkIr djus ds vf/dkjh ugha jgrs gSa A

mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh Øe 2 ls rks fdlh çdkj dk dksbZ

vuqrks"k çkFkhZ Jfedx.k us vc pkgk gh ugha gS A

tSlk fd mQij fuosnu fd;k x;k gS foi{kh Øe&1 dk fdlh

çdkj dk dksbZ nkf;Ro çkFkhZ Jfedx.k dks viuh lsok esa ysus dk

ugha gS vkSj çkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ vf/dkj foi{kh Øe&1 ds fu;kstu

ds fy, tkus dk ugha gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa çkFkhZ Jfedx.k fdlh

çdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k çkIr djus ds vf/dkjh ugha gSa A mudk

LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse fujLruh; gS A

vr% mi;qZDr foospu ds vk/kj ij dsUæ ljdkj ls çkIr

fookn ds funsZ'k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS&

vokMZ

eSllZ bZLVuZ bathfu;fjax ,UVjçkbZtst mn;iqj] Bsdsnkj eSllZ

jktLFkku LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujy fy- mn;iqj (ljdkj dk miØe)

ds çcU/u dk 137 Jfedksa dh fnukad 30&07&1985 ls lsokeqfDr

dk d`R; mfpr ,o fof/iw.kZ gS] vkSj lacaf/r deZdkj bl laca/ esa

dksbZ vuqrks"k çkIr djus vf/dkjh ugha gS A

'kqHkk esgrk] U;k;k/h'k

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

769

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 307-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

eSXuslkbV dkiksZjs'ku ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 89@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&27011@2@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2016

S.O. 307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/

2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Dalmia Magnesite Corporation

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-27011/2/2015-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 20th January, 2016

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 89/2015

[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 Dalmia Magnesite Corporation and

their workman]

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner

Salem Distt. Magnesite

Union

Labour Union, 237,

Tharamangalam Road

Old Suramangalam

Salem-630012

AND

The General Manager

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Dalmia Magnesite Corporation

(Prop: Dalmia Bharat Sugar and

Industries Ltd.)

Vellakkalpatti, Karuppur Post

Salem-636012

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

M/s N. Ajoy Khose, Advocates

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

M/s T. Poornam, Advocates

Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-27011/2/2015-IR (M)

dated 09.06.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s

Dalmia Magnesite Corporation in not extending the

benefit of Section-18(1) settlement to the Petitioner

Union but the settlement was signed by other union

is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the members

of the Union are entitled?

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 89/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance and filed claim and

counter statement respectively.

On completion of steps in the dispute the matter has

been posted for enquiry. In the meanwhile the petitioner

has filed a memo seeking to close the dispute as not

pressed. It is stated in the memo that the dispute has been

settled and the Management had agreed to pay arrears of

wages for the concerned workmen. It is on account of this

settlement the petitioner sought to close the dispute. In

view of the memo, the matter has to be disposed without

any adjudication on merits. In the absence of the petitioner

proceeding with the dispute an award is passed against

the petitioner.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/

None

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Respondent’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 308-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u

vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM vkSj nwljs ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 73@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@16@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2016

S.O. 308.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/

2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. India Oil Corporation Ltd. and

Other and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-30012/16/2014-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 29th January, 2016

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 73/2014

[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 Indian Oil Corporation and Another

and their workman]

BETWEEN :

Sri P. Munusamy

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Plant Manager

2nd Party/1st Respondent

IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant

SIPCOT, Perundurai

Erode

2. The Partner

2nd Party/2nd Respondent

M/s ASK Agencies,

Hotel Srimurugan Building

56, Devi & Co., Lane

Coimbatore -641018

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

M/s V. Ajoy Khose, Advocates

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

1st Respondent

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

Sri R. Shivakumar, Authorized

2nd Respondent

Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-30012/16/2014-IR (M)

dated 02.09.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s ASK

Agencies, Coimbatore, Contractor of Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., Perundurai, Erode District in

terminating the services of Sri P. Munusamy is legal

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

entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 73/2014 and issued notices to both

sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner and the First

Respondent have entered appearance through their

counsel and the Second Respondent through the

Authorized representative and have filed Claim and

Counter Statement respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner are as below:

The LPG Bottling Plant at Sipcot, Perundurai

belonging to the First Respondent was working in two

shifts. Apart from permanent workers, the First Respondent

is employing workmen in the name of contract labourers

through Contractors who are name lenders. The so-called

contract labourers were involved in production alongwith

permanent workers. Originally, one Saveria Pichai was

appointed as Contractor by the First Respondent. After

31.03.2003 the Second respondent was appointed as the

Contractor and is continuing as such. The petitioner had

contested election for the delegates to IOCEU and had

succeeded in the election and was elected as one of the

delegates. This was not liked by the Secretary of the

IOEU. The petitioner had questioned the Second

Respondent as to why the contract labourers who were

actually reporting for work on all working days and carrying

out work were issued with memo as if they failed to report

for work. The petitioner has also questioned the First

Respondent for not providing work to all the workmen.

This was not liked by the Second Respondent. In

November, 2008 as instigated by the Second Respondent,

one Nanda Kumar attacked the petitioner. He was not able

to report for work for a week after this incident. The Second

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

771

Respondent came to the house of the petitioner and forcibly

obtained signature from the petitioner immediately after

the incident of assault and it was written as if the petitioner

has resigned his job. The petitioner did not give any such

letter on his own. Since the incident was known to all the

workers, the petitioner was allowed to join duty and he

continued to report for work as usual. In the meantime the

petitioner had asked for loan from the provident Fund.

The Second Respondent obtained signature of the

petitioner in some forms and blank papers on the pretext

of getting PF loan. On 01.04.2009 the Second Respondent

stopped the petitioner from work without any notice and

without any reason. Even though the petitioner requested

for work the Second Respondent did not give any reply

and did not permit him to work also. The petitioner has put

in more than 7 years of continuous service and has

completed more than 240 days of service in each year

preceding the date of termination on 01.04.2009. The

petitioner has not been paid any compensation as

contemplated under Section-25F of the ID Act also. Others

who joined subsequent to the petitioner are retained in

service so termination of the petitioner from service is in

violation of Section-25G of the ID Act also. New workers

were employed after the petitioner was terminated and

therefore there is violation of Section-25H of the ID Act

also. An order may be passed holding that the action of

the Second Respondent in terminating the service of the

petitioner is illegal and also directing the Respondents to

reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages and other

benefits.

The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The petitioner was admittedly engaged as contract

labourer by the Second Respondent. The First Respondent

has registered itself as a principal employer under the

CLRA Act. The Second Respondent was awarded contract

for attending different types of works. The petitioner is

not entitled to any relief.

The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The contract workers under the Second Respondent

have no involvement in the production process of the

First Respondent. It is carried out by the employees of the

First Respondent. The petitioner was engaged by the

Second Respondent from 01.04.2003 and continued till he

resigned from his job on 01.09.2009. The petitioner has no

locus-standi to file the petition as he was no longer an

employee of the Second Respondent as he left his services

on 01.09.2009. The petitioner used to be absent from work

continuously. A show cause notice was issued to him on

22.01.2008 regarding his absence and he has submitted

his explanation. Though his explanation was not

satisfactory he was permitted to continue in employment

on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner was again served

with Show Cause Notice on 27.09.2008 for absenting for a

total period of 40 days from January 2008 to August 2008.

It is incorrect to state that the signature of the petitioner

was obtained in blank white papers and certain forms.

Though the petitioner remained absent from 01.04.2009 he

resigned from his job on 06.04.2009 only so he was relieved

from 01.04.2009. After resigning from job the petitioner

did not approach the Second Respondent to permit him

to work. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

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

Ext.W12 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M16.

The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the action of the Second Respondent in

terminating the service of the petitioner is justified?

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The petitioner had been working as a contract

labourer for the First Respondent under the Second

Respondent. It is alleged by the petitioner that because of

his union activities and his questioning the malpractices

of the second Respondent he was stopped from work on

01.04.2009, which according to him is without any

justification. It is accordingly he is seeking reinstatement

in the service of the Second Respondent, though, direction

is sought against the First Respondent as well.

The case of the second Respondent is that the

petitioner had resigned from service on 06.04.2009 and

there was no employer-employee relationship between

them thereafter. According to the Second Respondent,

the petitioner is not entitled to any relief since he had

voluntarily resigned from service.

10.

Though the First Respondent, the principal employer

is made a party to the proceedings, there is no case for the

petitioner that he was under the direct employment of the

First Respondent. He has specifically stated during his

cross-examination that he was terminated by the Second

Respondent and he is claiming relief against the Second

Respondent only.

11.

The question to be considered is whether the

petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the

Second Respondent. It is admitted by the second

Respondent that the petitioner was in its service from

01.04.2003 and continued to be in service till 01.04.2009.

However, according to the second Respondent, though

the petitioner continued in service he was never able to

complete more than 240 days of work in any 12 calendar

months. It is the further case of the second Respondent

that the petitioner has resigned from his job on 06.04.2009

which has come to effect from 01.04.2009 from which date

he has been absenting from work.

772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

The Second Respondent has been relying upon

Ext.M11, Exts.M3, Ext.M4 and Ext.M13 to Ext.M16 to

substantiate the case that the petitioner has resigned from

service and it is not a case of termination of the petitioner

from service. Ext.M11 is a resignation letter dated 06.04.2009

said to have been signed by the petitioner. The case of the

petitioner during his examination is that signature

contained in Ext.M11 is not his at all. However, the case in

the Claim Statement is something different. What he has

stated in the Claim Statement is that the Second

Respondent came to his house and forcibly obtained

signature immediately after 11.11.2008 on which date there

was some attack on him by a co-worker and it was written

in the paper in which he was made to sign that he has

resigned his job. He has further stated that he did not give

the said letter on his own. So the case of the petitioner

that Ext.M11 does not contain his signature cannot be

accepted because of the very statement in the Claim

Statement that he was made to sign a letter resigning his

job.

13.

So far as the case that the petitioner was made to

put his signature in the resignation letter by force is

concerned, this is not supported by any acceptable

evidence. There is only the contradictory statements made

by the petitioner in this respect. The Second Respondent

is described as the partner of M/s ASK AGENCIES in the

Claim statement. The petitioner has not stated who is the

partner who reached his house on 11.11.2008 to get his

signature by force. He has not stated how force was exerted

on him on the day. He has also not stated who all

were present when his signature was obtained. Why

should the petitioner put his signature in a resignation

letter if he does not want to and that too from his own

house?

14.

According to the Second Respondent the petitioner

has submitted his application to the Provident Fund

authorities for his Provident Fund dues after he resigned

from his job and the amount has been remitted to his

account also. MW1 has stated that the applications were

forwarded to the Provident Fund authorities from his

office. The petitioner has stated during his cross-

examination that Exts.M3 and Ext.M4 are the claim

submitted by him to the Provident Fund Organization.

Ext.M3 is a claim in Form No. 19 and Ext.M4 is in Form-10C

of the Provident Fund Act. The details of the Ration Card

and Bank account are also required for claiming Provident

Fund dues. The petitioner has stated during his cross-

examination that he had furnished these details to the

Provident Fund authorities. Ext.M13 is the details of the

bank account of the petitioner and Ext.M14 is a copy of

the first page of Ration Card of the petitioner. It is pointed

out on behalf of the Second Respondent that these details

must have been furnished by the petitioner only because

he was aware that he is claiming Provident Fund dues

from the authorities consequent to his resignation from

the Second Respondent establishment. This argument has

force. Unless these were submitted by the petitioner it

would not have been possible for the Second Respondent

to forward the claim. There is no case for the petitioner

that the details were obtained from him by force or fraud.

There is no specific case also that his signatures in Ext.M3

and Ext.M4 were obtained by force. So the case that a

resignation letter was obtained from the petitioner by force

is not substantiated by any evidence. Ext.M11 is to be

accepted as the resignation letter from the petitioner

consequent to which he had applied for his Provident

Fund dues.

15.

There is one more aspect which probabalizes the

case that the petitioner had resigned from his job. The

Provident Fund dues reached the account of the petitioner

on 29.01.2010. If the case of the petitioner that his signature

was obtained by force in the resignation letter is true he

would have known when the Provident Fund dues came

to his account on 29.01.2010 itself that he was cheated by

the Second Respondent. However, the petitioner has not

done anything immediately after 29.01.2010. On the other

hand, he waited till 2013 to raise the dispute. Ext.W5, the

copy of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Asstt

Labour Commissioner, Madurai does not contain any date.

However, Ext.W6 the reply by the Second Respondent

bears the date 18.04.2013. If the petitioner was actually

cheated he would not have slept over his right for such a

long time. The only probability is that the petitioner had

resigned and consequently he had claimed his Provident

Fund dues and collected the dues that was remitted to his

account and was satisfied with the same. The present

dispute seems to be the result of an afterthought.

16.

It is the contention of the Second Respondent that

in any case the petitioner had never completed 240 days

of work in any calendar year and he had not completed

these days immediately preceding the date of his alleged

termination also. Even as seen from the documents

produced by the petitioner he seems to have been

unauthorizedly absenting himself from work. Ext.W1 is

the Show Cause Notice issued by the Second Respondent

to the petitioner in January 2008 and Ext.W2 is the

explanation given by him. As seen from Ext.W1 the

petitioner was absent without prior intimation between

September and December 2007. In Ext.W2 he has stated

that he was out of station for medical facilities and was

not able to attend his duties properly. Ext.M8 is another

Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2008 showing absence of

petuitioenr without intimation for 40 days during the period

from January to August 2008. By Ext.W8 the petitioner

has explained that he has taken leave because of illness.

In his resignation letter what the petitioner has stated is

that he is unable to continue his work because of his

illness. Ext.M16 is the service particulars submitted by the

Second Respondent to the Provident Fund Organization

along with the claim for Provident Fund dues. The days of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

773

absence of the petitioner are given in this. If considered

along with Exts.M8 and Ext.M9 it could be seen that the

particulars furnished as per Ext.M16 must be correct at

least in respect of the year preceding the date of his

termination. Of course there is the fact that the second

Respondent has not produced the muster roll or attendance

petitioner had worked during the period. But the petitioner

did not make a request to have the documents produced.

The petitioner did not adduce any evidence also to show

that he was in continuous service and had worked for

more than 240 days in the 12 months preceding the date of

his termination and also int the previous years and he is

eligible for the benefit under Section-25F of the ID Act.

Ext.M16 and other documents produced on behalf of the

Second Respondents are to be considered in this

background. The available documents would show that

the petitioner has not completed 240 days of work in the

12 months preceding the date of his termination. So even

assuming that the petitioner has been terminated from

service it could not be termed as one in violation of Section-

25F of the Act. For this reason also the petitioner will not

be entitled to any relief.

In view of my discussion above, I find that the

petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The reference is

answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri P. Munusamy

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri S. Kannusamy

Respondent

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

22.01.2008

Show Cause Notice issued by

the II Party to the I Party

Ext.W2

29.01.2008

Explanation given by the I Party

Ext.W3

08.11.2008

Medical Certificate of the I

Party

Ext.W4

11.11.2008

Letter given by the I Party to

the II Party

Ext.W5

2(A) Petition filed by the I Party

before the ALC (C), Madurai

Ext.W6

08.04.2013

Reply of the II Party filed

before the ALC

Ext.W7

22.07.2013

Rejoinder filed by the I Party

Ext.W8

23.09.2013

Reply Statement filed by the II

Party

Ext.W9

31.05.2014

Failure Report

Ext.W10

02.09.2014

Order of Reference

Ext.W11

Wage slip of the I Party

Ext.W12

Identity Card and EPF Account

Slip of the I Party

On the Management’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

31.07.2013

Licence issued by Licensing

Officer – ALC © Madurai to

ASK Agencies – covering the

period from 30.07.2005 and

periodically up to 30.07.2012 (3

sheets)

Ext.M2

06.01.2006

Letter from ALC(C) Chennai

under Reference No. M/46/24/

99-D4/B2 dated 06.01.2006

enclosing copy of the letter

u/r reference No. M/46(24)/99-

I/D4 dated 05.07.1999, copy of

Form-II M.46(24)/99-D4/I under

Registration No. RI/10/99

dated 05.07.1999

Ext.M3

P. Munusamy’s claim in Form

No. 19 submitted to the PF

Organization

Ext.M4

P. Munusamy’s claim in Form

No. 10C submitted to the P.F.

Organization

Ext.M5

Letter of P. Munusamy to the

Respondent II for his

misconduct in his employment

dated 02.05.2008

Ext.M6

Show Cause Notice issued to

P. Munusamy dated 22.01.2008

for

his

absence

from

September to December 2007

Ext.M7

P. Munusamy’s reply to the

above show cause notice

dated 29.01.2008

Ext.M8

Show Cause Notice dated

27.09.2008 issued to P.

Munusamy for his absence

from January to August 2008

Ext.M9

P. Munusamy’s reply dated

30.09.2008 for the above notice

Ext.M10

Show Cause Notice dated

30.12.2008 issued to P.

Munusamy

for

this

misconduct in his work

Ext.M11

P. Munusamy/s resignation

letter dated 06.04.2009

774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M12

Letter of Respondent II to the

Respondent

seeking

permission to replace the

vacancy

caused

Munusamy’s resignation

dated 14.05.2009

Ext.M13

Munusamy’s Bank of Baroda

Account details

Ext.M14

Munusamy’s Ration Card first

page

Ext.M15

Form No. 3-A submitted in

respect of P. Munusamy to the

P. F. Organization by the

Respondent-II for the years

2007-08, 2008-09

Ext.M16

Service particulars submitted

to the P.F. Organization by the

Respondent II from 01.02.2002

to 31.03.2008.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 309-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u

vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM vkSj nwljs ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds

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

ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@21@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2016

S.O. 309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/

2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

and Others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-30012/21/2014-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 29th January, 2016

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 71/2014

([In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

between the Management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

(LPG Bottling Plant) and Another and their workman]

BETWEEN :

Sri T. Duraisamy

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Plant Manager

: 2nd Party/1st Respondent

IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant

SIPCOT, Perundurai,

Erode District

Erode

2. The Partner

: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

M/s ASK Agencies

Hotel Srimurugan

Building, 56 Devi & Co.,

Lane

Coimbatore-641018

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

M/s Ajoy Khose & R.

Petitioner Union

Kathiravan, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

1st Respondent

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

M/s R. Shivakumar,

2nd Respondent

Authorized Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No.L-30012/21/2014-IR (M)

dated 28.08.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s ASK

Agencies, Coimbatore, Contractor of Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., Perundurai, Erode District in

terminating the service of Sri Duraisamy is justified?

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

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 71/2014 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through the counsel

and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The LPG Bottling Plant at Perundurai is owned by

the First Respondent, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Apart from employing direct permanent workers, the First

Respondent has been employing workmen in the name of

contract labours through Contractors who are only name

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

775

lenders. The contract labourers were involved in

production along with permanent workers. The production

work in the bottling plant is a continuous process. The

contract labourers were employed to carry out various

handling work inside the plant and also for loading and

unloading, house-keeping, etc. Originally one Saveria

Pitchai was appointed as the Contractor of the First

Respondent. After 31.03.2003 the Second Respondent was

appointed as the Contractor and is continuing till date.

The petitioner has contested the election for the Joint

Secretary to IOCEU and has succeeded in the election

and was elected as one of the Joint Secretaries. This was

not liked by the Secretary and the other Joint Secretary of

the Union. The petitioner had questioned the manner in

which the work was carried out by the Second Respondent.

So the Second Respondent orally terminated the service

of the petitioner and stopped him from work on 03.07.2008

without issuing any notice and without assigning any

reason. The petitioner had sent letters to the Second

Respondent requesting to reinstate him. The Second

Respondent did not give any reply to the petitioner, nor

was he reinstated. The Second Respondent asked the

petitioner to bring his Card and Identity Card to consider

his request for reinstatement. Thus he went to the Office

of the Second Respondent in Coimbatore. They collected

the punch card and ID Card of the petitioner and asked

him to sign some papers and told him that he would be

given employment only if he signed the papers. The

petitioner put his signatures in the forms and papers put

before him accordingly. The petitioner was told that he

would be informed over phone as to when he had to report

for work. When the petitioner was expecting information

regarding his employment with the Second Respondent

he came to know that the amounts due from Provident

Fund Account were credited to his Savings Bank Account.

The petitioner did not withdraw this amount. Though the

petitioner repeatedly demanded for his reinstatement the

Second Respondent did not give any reply. The case of

the Second Respondent before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner that the petitioner has resigned from his

job is not correct. It is a case of termination and not

resignation. The termination is in violation of Section-25F

of the ID Act. The Second Respondent has also violated

Section-25G and Section-25H of the Act. The petitioner is

entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of

service and other benefits. An award may be passed

accordingly.

The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The petitioner was admittedly engaged as a contract

labourer by the Second Respondent. The First Respondent

has registered itself as the principal employer under the

CLRA Act. It is having certificate of registration. The First

Respondent is not a necessary party to the dispute as the

petitioner was employed by the Second Respondent. The

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The Second Respondent is providing manpower to

Indian Oil Corporation at LPG Bottling Plant at Perundurai

for loading and unloading, handling and house-keeping

works in the plant. Contract workers is not engaged in

production work in the plant. The petitioner was engaged

by the Second Respondent till he resigned from the job on

03.09.2008. He was paid @ Rs. 171/- per day. The Second

Respondent does not know whether the petitioner had

worked with the earlier Contractor. After resigning from

the service of the Second Respondent, the petitioner never

approached the Second Respondent for employment. The

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

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

Ext.W13 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M15.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether termination of the petitioner from the

service of the second Respondent, if any is justified?

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The petitioner had been admittedly working in the

LPG Bottling Plant belonging to the First Respondent at

Perundurai as a contract worker. His case is that he was

terminated from service by the Second Respondent on

03.07.2008 without issuing any notice and also without

any reason. The relief claimed in the Claim statement is

that the action of the Second Respondent in terminating

the service of the petitioner should be held illegal and

unjustified and the Respondent should be directed to

reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits.

Though it is specifically stated in the Claim

Statement itself that the petitioner was employed by the

Second Respondent and was also terminated by the Second

Respondent, the relief of reinstatement is sought against

the First Respondent also in the Claim Statement. However,

if the schedule of reference and the admitted facts are

taken into account, reinstatement if any could be by the

Second Respondent only as terminating from service was

by the Second Respondent. Even though the Claim

statement is vague in this respect, the petitioner has made

clear during his cross-examination that he is not seeking

any relief against the First Respondent but only against

the Second Respondent. Thus it could be seen from the

facts of the case and from the admission of the petitioner

that relief is sought only against the Second Respondent.

The First Respondent might have been put in the party

array only as a necessary party, it being the principal

employer.

10.

The case that is put forth by the petitioner in the

Claim Statement is that the Second Respondent had some

776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

axe to grind against him since he made some demands

representing the contract labourers and he was orally

stopped from work by the Second Respondent. On the

other hand the contention of the Second Respondent is

that the petitioner had resigned from his job and had

received his benefits like PF dues and he has ceased to be

an employee on his resignation and he is not entitled to

any relief. It is further contended by the Second

Respondent that in any case the petitioner has not been

in continuous service as contemplated under Section-25B

of the Industrial Disputes Act as he had worked for only

less than 240 days in the 12 months preceding his alleged

termination.

11.

If the case of the Second Respondent that the

petitioner had not been in continuous service is accepted,

the petitioner will not be entitled to any relief under

Section-25F of the ID Act. It could be seen from Ext.W1,

that Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner for

continuous absence from work. Ext.W2 is the explanation

given by him to the Show Cause Notice. Ext.M4 the letter

by the petitioner states that he was on leave from 06.07.2005

to 20.07.2005 and had rejoined duty. Ext.M5 is another

letter by the petitioner to the Second Respondent stating

that he was absent from 27.07.2006 to 28.08.2006 and he

will be regular in his work in the future. There is also Ext.M7

which states that he was absent from 13.11.2006 to

21.11.2006. In Ext.M8 he has given further details of his

leave in 2008 and has stated that the total working days

are 118. A Show Cause Notice seems to have been issued

to the petitioner on 22.01.2008 for his absence of various

spells for the four months from 01.09.2007 to 31.12.2007

and this is marked as Ext.M9. Ext.M3 is the explanation

given by the petitioner. He has admitted during his cross-

examination that this letter contains his signature. The

above documents are referred to in the background of

service particulars submitted by the Respondent and

marked as Ext.M15. As could be seen from this the

petitioner had not completed 240 days of work in any of

the years from 2001-2002 to 2008-2009. The maximum he

has worked is 222 days in 2008. In all other years the days

worked are much lesser. There is no case for the petitioner

that Ext.M3 to Ext.M9 is false or concocted documents.

When considered along with this, the particulars given in

Ext.M15 must be correct. Even though the Respondent

has produced these documents, the petitioner has not

produced any document of his own and had not taken any

steps to make the Second Respondent produce relevant

document which would show that he had completed 240

days of work in the 12 months preceding the date of his

alleged termination. It is pointed out on behalf of the

Second Respondent that the petitioner had worked only

202 days in the 12 months preceding 03.09.2008 on which

date he had allegedly resigned. If calculation is made from

03.07.2008 which is the date of termination according to

the petitioenr also he could not have completed 240 days

preceding the 12 months if Ext.M1 to Ext.M9 are taken into

account. So the contention that there is violation of

Section-25F of ID Act could not be accepted.

12.

Now the contention that the petitioner had resigned

from service on 03.09.2008 could be considered. The case

of the petitioner is that he was terminated on 03.07.2008,

that he requested orally and sent representations for

reinstatement, that the Second Respondent asked him to

come with the Punching Card and Identity Card to consider

his request for reinstatement, he obliged and on his

reaching the establishment with all these he was made to

sign certain papers and only later when the PF amount

due to him reached his Bank account, he came to know

that he was made to sign papers of resignation, that he

never resigned from the service of the Second Respondent.

13.

The case of the petitioner is belied by his own

admission during his cross-examination and evidence on

the side of the Second Respondent. The petitioner has

admitted during his cross-examination that Ext.M10 and

Ext.M11 contains his signature. These are the forms to be

submitted to the Provident Fund Organization while making

claim for the Provident Fund dues. In this the date of

resignation of the petitioner is shown as 03.09.2008. Of

course, there is the case of the petitioner that he was made

to sign certain forms and papers on the pretext that he will

be taken back in service if those papers are signed.

However, on going through these documents it could be

seen that the petitioner could not have been unaware of

the nature of these documents. The forms to be given to

the Provident Fund Organization are in Tamil as well as in

English. The petitioner has studied up to 8th standard

and is quite capable of reading and understanding Tamil.

So it is not likely that he has put his signature in all the

forms that was put to him when the Management

demanded. The petitioner has not stated who made him

put his signature in the documents by misleading him.

The petitioner as could be seen from the Claim Statement

was a Union Leader and was working for the welfare of

other contract workers. So he could not have been unaware

of the forms to be submitted at the Office of the Provident

Fund Organization. Along with the forms a copy of the

Ration Card of the petitioner also is seen submitted. This

would not have been available with the Second

Respondent if not handed over by the petitioner. So the

case that the petitioner was made to sign papers without

knowing the contents could not be accepted.

14.

There is one more circumstance which probabalizes

the case that the petitioner must have resigned. Even

according to the petitioner he was terminated on

03.07.2008. Though his case is that he had made several

representations to the Management and he had produced

Ext.W6 as a copy of the representation given by him this

is not supported by any acknowledgement. In any case

why should he wait till 06.02.2010 the date of Ext.W6 to

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

777

submit such a representation when he was stopped from

work as early as on 03.07.2008? Again the dispute is raised

much later. He had approached the conciliation forum only

on 06.03.2013 as seen from Ext.W7, the petition filed by

him before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Madurai. Almost 5 years have elapsed before the

application was filed. Even in 2010 when the Provident

Fund amount reached his account he had come to know

that the Management had cheated him. If so, why should

he wait for another three years to raise the dispute? The

only probability is that the petitioner had voluntarily

resigned from his job and had no inclination to work with

the Second Respondent after the date of resignation. This

dispute is raised only as an afterthought. Since he has

resigned voluntarily, the employer-employee relationship

between him and the Second Respondent has come to an

end. For this reason also he is not entitled to any relief.

In view of my discussion above, the reference is

answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/

: WW1, Sri T. Duraisamy

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

: MW1, Sri S. Kannusamy

Respondent

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

22.01.2008

Show Cause Notice issued by

the II Party to the I Party

Ext.W2

25.01.2008

Explanation given by the I Party

Ext.W3

14.02.2008

Paper publication relating to

the murder of the I Party

Father

Ext.W4

17.02.2008

Death Certificate of the I Party

father

Ext.W5

20.01.2009

Letter given by the I Party

Ext.W6

06.02.2010

Representation given by the I

Party to the II Party

Ext.W7

06.03.2013

2(A) Petition filed by the I Party

before the ALC (C) Madurai

Ext.W8

18.04.2013

Reply of the II Party filed

before the ALC

Ext.W9

Rejoinder filed by the I Party

Ext.W10

23.09.2013

Reply statement filed by the I

Party

Ext.W11

31.05.2014

Failure Report

Ext.W12

28.08.2014

Order of reference

Ext.W13

Identity Card of the I Party

On the Management’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

31.07.2013

License issued by Licensing

Officer – ALC (C) Madurai to

A.S.K. Agencies – covering he

period from 30.07.2005 and

periodically upto 30.07.2012

(3 sheets)

Ext.M2

06.01.2006

Letter from ALC (C) Chennai

under Reference No. M/46/24/

99-D4/B2 dated 06.01.2006

enclosing copy of letter u/r

reference No. M/46(24)/99-I/

D4 dated 05.07.1999, copy of

Form-II M.46(24)/99-D4/I under

Registration No. RI/10/99

dated 05.07.1999 – Grant of

amendment certificate of

registration

Ext.M3

Letter of T. Duraisamy dated

23.01.2008 for the above show

cause notice

Ext.M4

Letter of T. Duraisamy to the

Respondent-II for his absence

from 06.07.2005 to 20.07.2005

Ext.M5

Letter of T. Duraisamy to the

Respondent-II

dated

28.08.2006 for his absence from

28.07.2006 to 28.08.2006

Ext.M6

Letter of T. Duraisamy dated

04.11.2006 for his misconduct

in his work

Ext.M7

Letter of T. Duraisamy for his

absence from 13.11.2006 to

21.11.2006

Ext.M8

Letter of T. Duraisamy dated

02.01.2008 for his absence

during April to December 2007

Ext.M9

Show Cause Notice dated

22.01.2008 issued to T.

Duraisamy

Ext.M10

P.F. Claim in Form No. 19

submitted by T. Duraisamy to

the P.F. Organization

Ext.M11

P.F. Claim in Form No. 10-C

submitted by T. Duraisamy to

the P.F. Organization

Ext.M12

T. Duraisamy’s Canara Bank

Account’s details

778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M13

T. Duraisamy’s Ration Card

First Page

Ext.M14

Form No. 3A submitted by the

Respondent II to the P.F.

Organization for the years

2007-08, 2008-09

Ext.M15

Service particulars submitted

by Respondent II to the P.F.

Organization from 01.10.2001 to

03.09.2008

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 310-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 140@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@46@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2016

S.O. 310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-30011/46/2006-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 8th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 140/2006

The Dy. General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project,

Ankleshwar, Bharuch

The Chief Manager (Security),

ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project,

Bharuch

Chief Manager (Reservoir),

ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project,

Bharuch

The Dy. General Manager (Geology),

ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project,

Bharuch

The Central Investigation &

Security Services,

Opp. S.A. Motors,

Old N.H. No. 8, Ankleshwar,

Bharuch

The Industrial Security Services,

Nr. ONGC Workshop,

Opp. Neelkanth Society,

Niharika Apartment, Ground Floor,

ONGC Road, Ankleshwar-393001

Bharuch

M/s. P.D. Patel & Co.,

Sardar Patel Complex,

GIDC Chowkdi,

Ankleshwar,

Bharuch

M/s. Niramal Construction Co.,

Vaishali Society, Ankleshwar,

Bharuch

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen

Through the Chairman,

ONG Mazdoor Sangh,

C/o. ONGC Ltd.

Ankleshwar,

Bharuch

...Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30011/46/

2006-IR (M) dated 19.06.2006 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of ONG Mazdoor Sangh,

Ankleshwar for absorption of S/Sh Karsanbhai

Vasava and 97 others (as per list attached as

Annexure A-1) working as contract labours with the

ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar is legal and justified? If so,

what relief the workers are entitled to and from which

date?”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

779

This reference dates back to 19.06.2006. Second party

has been absent since last several dates and has also not

filed the statement of claim. Thus, it appears that second

party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference.

Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the

reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 311-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1334@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@117@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2016

S.O. 311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1334/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Other and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-30012/117/2000-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 8th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1334/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 54/2000

The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Hazira Project,

P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat, (Gujarat)-394518

The Surat Electricity Co. Ltd.,

Contract Division,

403, 404 Ruchita, Athugar Street,

Nanpura

Surat (Gujarat)-395001

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Nilesh R. Modi,

Nr. Gujararti School, Talav Street,

Bor Bhatha, Taluka Choryasi,

Dist Surat

...Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30012/117/

2000-IR(M) dated 22.08.2000 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the contract between the management of

ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, Surat & contractor. The

Surat Electricity Co. Ltd., Contract Div., Surat in

respect of the contractual workman Sh. Nilesh R.

Modi is sham & bogus contract?”

“Whether the demand of the workman Sh. Nilesh R.

Modi for treating / declaring him as direct and

regular/ permanent employee of ONGC Ltd., Hazira

Project from either the date of his initial engagement

with the Contractor or from the date of Notification

issued by Govt. of India, prohibiting his alleged

employment/work though the contract system is

legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief Sh.

Nilesh R. Modi is directions are necessary in the

matter?”

This reference dates back to 22.08.2000. Second party

filed the statement of claim (Ext.5) and the reply to the

statement of claim first party submitted written statement

(Ext.12) on 03.01.2001. Second party has been absent since

last several dates to lead the evidence. Thus, it appears

that second party is not interested in the proceedings of

the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to

dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 312-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 173@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@55@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2016

S.O. 312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 173/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Gas Authority of India Ltd.

and Others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-30011/55/2006-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 6th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 173/2006

The General Manager,

Gas Authority of India Ltd.,

Manisha Circle,

Old Padra Road,

Vadodara (Gujarat)

M/s Espi Corporation,

8, Basemen Basera Complex,

Opp. Dhara Hospital,

Gotri Road,

Vadodara

M/s. Lashco,

2, Param Park,

Nezampura Telephone

Exchange Road,

Navyad,

Vadodara (Guajarat)

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Through Chemecal Mazdoor Panchayat,

The President,

311, Sarvodaya Commercial Centre,

Salapose Road,

Nr. GPO,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380001

...Second Party

For the First Party

: Sh. B.K. Oza, Advocate

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30011/55/

2006-IR(M) dated 11.09.2006 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the

Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether demand of the union for regularisation

of services of Sh. Tulsibhai Manilal Solanki,

Sh. Dhayabhai B. Solanki & Ratilal K. Harijan in the

establishment of GAIL (India) Ltd. is legal, Proper

and just? If so, to what relief these concerned

workmen are entitled?”

This reference dates back to 11.09.2006. Both the

parties were served. First party filed the Vakalatnama

(Ext.11) but second party did not prefer to file his statement

of claim despite giving number of opportunities. He has

been absent since last several dates. Thus, it appears that

both parties are not interested in the proceedings of the

reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss

the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 313-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1465@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@68@2004&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2016

S.O. 313.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1465/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

781

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-30011/68/2004-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 7th January, 2016

Reference : (CGITA) No. 1465/2004

The Chief Manager, Security,

ONGC Ltd.,

Avani Bhavan,

Chandkheda, Ahmedabad Asset,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

The Managing Director,

Industrial Security Services,

8, Parichay Shopping Centre,

‘D’ Cabin, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380001

The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd.,

Ahmedabad Asset, Avani Bhavan,

5th Floor, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen

Through the General Secretary,

Gujarat Employees Union,

434/36. Gandhivas Naka,

Gujarat Stadium Circle, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

...Second Party

For the First party

Sh. K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second party

C/o. Gujarat Petroleum

Employees Union

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30011/68/

2004-IR(M) dated 24.09.2004 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd. in not regularising the 80 contract labourers (as

mentioned in Annexure Q) engaged by the

Contractors M/s Industrial Security Services is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen

concerned are entitled?”

This reference dates back to 24.09.2004. First party

filed the vakilpatra (Ext.3). Second party was also served

and second party, General Secretary, Gujarat Petroleum

Employees Union, Ahmedabad vide his application (Ext.5)

submitted documents regarding name and particulars of

the employees working as security guard under Security

Services. General Secretary of the aforesaid union vide

application Ext. 6 & 7, 8 sought time to produce documents.

Further, he moved an application (Ext.9) for

withdrawal of the reference with respect to workman Murgu

Satyakumar along with the agreement reached between

the parties. On the said application (Ext.9) the then

Presiding C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad allowed

the Ext.9 and case was fixed on 17.04.2013 for submitting

statement of claim since no statement of claim filed in the

reference.

Since 17.04.2013, number of opportunities were given

to the second party to submit the statement of claim but to

no result. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, it appears

that second party is not interested in the proceedings of

the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to

dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 314-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@1@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2016

S.O. 314.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/

2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in

782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-30011/1/2010-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 26 of 2010

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of BPCL

Territory Office & LPG Plant

A N D

Their workmen

Present :

Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the

Mr. K. Bhattacharya, Ld.

Management

Counsel with Mr. J. Mondal,

Ld. Counsel for BPCL Territory

Office & LPG Plant.

Mr. Bhola Singh, Manager for

Total Security Solutions.

None for Dee Pee Security

Service.

On behalf of the

None

union

State : West Bengal

Industry : Petroleum.

Dated: 19th January, 2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-30011/1/2010-IR(M) dated 07.06.2010

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Total

Security Solutions a contractor of M/s. Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in terminating the

services of S/Shri A.K. Dutta and D.K. Das w.e.f.

10.10.2008 is just and legal? What relief the workmen

concerned are entitled to and from which date?”

When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of the union, though BPCL Territory

Office & LPG Plant and M/s. Total Security Solutions are

represented by their Ld. Counsel and authorized

representative respectively. It appears from the record that

the union is absent for the last two consecutive dates.

Considering the above, it may reasonable be

presumed that the union at whose instance the present

reference has been initiated, is not at all interested to

proceed with the case. So, no fruitful purpose will be

served in keeping the matter pending.

In view of the above, the present reference is

disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 19th January, 2016

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 315-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 25@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

10-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43011@2@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2016

S.O. 315.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/

2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

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

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. India Resources Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-43011/2/2015-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No. 25/2015

Parties :

Employer in relation to the management of

M/s. India Resources Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

783

Appearances :

For the Employers

: Shri D.Mukherjee, Advocate

For the workman

: Shri S.N.Goswami, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Copper Mines

Dated 18/01/ 2016

AWARD

By order No. L-43011/2/2015/ IR (M), dated

01/06/2015, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S India

Resources Ltd, Contractor of M/S Hindustan Copper

Ltd is justified in denying the benefits under the

provision of retrenchment 25 (N) of Chapter V B of

I.D Act 1947? If not, what relief they are entitled

to?”

This case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 25/06/2015, After receipt of the reference , both parties

are noticed. The workman files their written statement on

21/07/2015 , and the management files their written

statement on 28/08/2015.

Short point to be decided in the case is as to whether

the workman who were retrenched from their services,

are entitled to any benefit under the reference,

During the proceeding of this case, settlement arrived

between the management authorities and the both union

ie. Mosaboni Mines employees Union and Jharkhand

copper Mines workers Union of this case and they filed a

settlement. Certain workmen, challenged the settlement

but on scrutiny it is found that the settlement have been

signed by the union executive and the management.

But the workmen claimed termination allowances

during the period, they were retrenched . But it is submitted

by the management. That in the settlement, there was no

clause for payment of retrenchment allowance.

Admittedly all the workmen are now in employment,

therefore the settlement arrived by the parties accepted

and case is closed.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

FORM

Under Rule 58

SETTLEMENT

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT

UNDER RULE 58 (4) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

(CENTRAL) RULES, 1947 BETWEEN THE

MANAGEMENT OF M/S. INDIA RESOURCES

LIMITED, MOSABONI CONCENTRATOR PLANT, P.O.

& P.S. - MOSABONI, EAST SINGBHUM, JHARKHNAD

- 832104, CONTRACTOR OF HINDUSTAN COPPER

LIMITIED/INDIAN COPPER COMPLEX AND THEIR

WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY JHARKHAND COPPER

MINES WORKERS UNION (REGISTERED UNION) ON

14.09.2015

NAME OF THE PARTIES

Representatives of IRL Management

1. Mr. B.N.Shukla

2. Mr Prabhat Kumar Dubey

Union Representatives

1. Mr. Subash Misra

(Asst. General Secreary)

2. Mr. Tapan Panda

(Vice President)

Short recital of the Case

The mining operation of IRL at Surda Mine and

concentrator Plant was stopped by Hindustan Copper Ltd.

(Principal Employer) from “B” shift of 8 Sep 2014 which

was due to non renewal of mining lease by Hindustan

Copper ltd . After stoppage of operation IRL published a

notice for “NO WORK NO PAY”. A dispute was raised

before conciliation officer ALC, Chaibasa under which the

notice of management of IRL “NO WORK NO PAY” was

disputed by both unions. The Mosabani Mines Employees

Union (MMEU) demanded for whole salary of entire

workmen for this suspension period while Jharkhand

Copper Mines workers union (JCMWU) demanded for

retrenchment benefit under Sec 25 N of ID Act . The

Management of IRL signed a settlement (Form-H) with

both union separately on dated 20 Nov 2014 in presence

of DLC, Dhanbad. In this settlement company was to pay

entire wages to its 1310 workmen up to 20th November

2014 from the date of suspension of work notice dated 8th

September 2014.

The company’s has already complied with the terms

of settlement dated 20 Nov 2014. The amount for the month

of Sep and up to Oct 31, 2014 was directly released by

HCL in the workmen’s respective bank accounts ,vide

cheque no. 035281 & 035382 dated 19.11.2014. 1st Nov to

20th Nov 2014 wages has been paid on dated 25.06.2015,

vide SBI cheque no 150314 & Axes cheque no 103106 by

IRL itself.

In the meantime due to uncertainty of renewal of

mining lease management of IRL decided to separate the

entire workmen permanently. Wit a view to it on 8.12.2014,

termination notices were sent to entire workmen and a

copy of the notice were sent to all concern departments

including ALC Chaibasa. ALC, Chaibasa took the

784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

cognizance of the termination suo motu and issued notices

for the joint discussion to resolve the issue amicably. In

the meantime after protracted joint discussions with both

unions and management of IRL the termination of contract

employment of entire workforce was primarily it was kept

in abeyance under instruction of HCL and withdrawn

subsequently on dated 25.12.2015. It was agreed by and

between the parties that entire workforce(1310) will work

on roster basis and it will be restricted to 250 workforce/

day. All the workmen who had worked during this

suspension period have been paid as per their actual

attendance up to resumption of work ie 16.06.2015. It is

significant to note that entire workforce has been resumed

on 16.06.2015. Therefore, continuity of contract

employment is not broken at all and all the workers are

working on the company’s role. Therefore, dispute of

retrenchment benefit may not be raised.

In view of the above facts no dispute is alive for

adjudication before labour Court.

Meeting was called by management of IRl to resolve

the referred dispute (Ref: 25/2015/196 & Order no.l-43011/

2/2015/IR(M) which is pending for adjudication before

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-Additional Labour Court

(No-1) Dhanbad and in which management has been

directed to file written statement and rejoinder to the

dispute on 28.08.2015.

After a prolonged discussions unions were in view

that IRl had no role in the renewal of mining lease and it

was a lapse from the end of HCL and due to uncertainty of

renewal of lease Management taken decision to separate

the employee by way of termination which was ultimately

withdrawn by IRl. Now all the worker have been resumed

their duties and have been paid till 16.06.2015 as per roster

and the settlement dated 20.11.2014 has also been complied

with. Therefore, Unions do no see any ill intension of

management and decided not to proceed further in this

matter. In the’tnterest of entire workmen and smooth

operation of the project, the parties agreed to resolve the

aforesaid referred dispute by signing a memorandum of

settlement on the following terms and condition:

Terms of settlement

lt is agreed by union not to contest the refererence

case pending before the CGIT,NO-1 being referred case

no 25/2015/796. [Order No. L-43011/2/2015(IR(M).]

The management has already allowed all the

concerned workmen to resume duty, so no dispute is

pending for adjudication.

The union will not raise any dispute of wages in

future for this period of suspension of work (From 8th Sep

2014 to 16.06.2015 ).

lt is agreed to file this copy of settlement jointly

before the tribunal with a prayer to pass no dispute ward.

If union representatives fails to file this copy of settlement

before the tribunal at the expected date It shall be presumed

that the terms and conditions of the settlement has been

fully Implemented.

Signature of Management

Signature of Union/workmen

Sd./- Illegible

1. Sd./- Illegible

Sd./- Illegible

2. Sd./- Illegible

Sd./- Illegible

Witness :

Sd./- Illegible

FORM H

Under Rule 58

SETTLEMENT

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT

UNDER RULE 58 (4) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

(CENTRAL) RULES, 1947 BETWEEN THE

MANAGEMENT OF M/S. INDIA ESOIJRCES LIMITED,

MOSABONI CONCENTRATOR PLANT, P.O. & P.S. -

MOSABONI, EAST SINGBHUM, JHARKHNAD - 832104,

CONTRACTOR OF HINDUSTAN COPPER LlMITTED /

INDIAN COPPER COMPLEX AND THEIR WORKMEN

REPRESENTED By MOSABONI MINES EMPLOYEES

UNION (RECOGNISED) ON 14.09.2015

NAME OF THE PARTIES

Representatives of IRL Management

1. Mr. B.N.Shukla

2. Mr Prabhat Kumar Dubey

3. Mr. Rajan S. Iyer

Union Representatives

1. Mr. Rajendra Pratap Singh

2. S. K. Husain

Short recital of the Case

The mining operation of IRL at Surda Mine and

concentrator Plant was stopped by Hindustan Copper Ltd.

(Principal Employer) from “B” shift of 8 Sep 2014 which

was due to non-renewal of mining lease by Hindustan

Copper Ltd . After stoppage of operation IRL published a

notice for “NO WORK NO PAY”. A dispute was raised

before conciliation officer ALC, Chaibasa under which the

notice of management of IRL “NO WORK NO PAY” was

disputed by both unions. The Mosabani Mines Empioyees

Union (MMEU) demanded for whole salary of entire

workmen for this suspension period while Jharkhand

Copper Mines workers union (JCMWU) demanded for

retrenchment benefit under Sec. 25 N of ID Act. The

Management of IRL signed a settlement (Form-H) with

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

785

both union separately on dated 20 Nov 2014 in presence

of DLC, Dhanbad. In this settlement company was to pay

entire wages to its 1310 workmen up to 20th November

2014 from the date of suspension of work notice dated

8th September 2014.

The company’s has already complied with the terms

of settlement dated 20 Nov 2014. The amount for the month

of Sep and up to Oct 31, 2014 was directly released by

HCL in the workmen’s respective bank accounts, vide

cheque no. 035281 &035382 dated 19.11.2014. 1st Nov

to 20th” Nov 2014 wages has been paid on dated

25.06.2015, vide SBI cheque no. 150314 & Axes cheque

no. 103106 by IRL itself.

In the meantime due to uncertainty of renewal of

mining lease management of IRL decided to separate the

entire workmen permanently. With view to it on

8.12.2014, termination notices were sent to entire

workmen and a copy of the notice were sent to all

concern departments including ALC Chalbasa. ALC,

Chaibasa took the cognizance of the termination suo motu

and issued notices for the joint discussion to resolve the

issue amicably. In the meantime after protracted joint

discussions with both unions and management of IRL the

termination of contract employment of entire workforce

was primarily it was kept in abeyance under instruction

of HCL and withdrawn subsequently on dated 25.12.2015.

It was agreed by and between the parties that entire

workforce (1310) will work on roster basis and it will

be restricted to 250 workforce/day. All the workmen who

had worked during this suspension period have been paid

as per their actual attendance up to resumption of work

i.e. 16.06.2015. It is significant to note that entire

workforce has been resumed on 16.06.2015. Therefore,

continuity of contract employmemnt is not broken at all

and all the workers are working on the company’s roll.

Therefore, dispute of retrenchment benefit may not be

raised.

In view of the above facts no dispute is alive for

adjudication before labour Court.

Meeting called by management of IRl to resolve

the referred dispute (Ref: 25/2015/796 & Order no.

L-43011/2/2015/IR(M) which is pending for

adjudication before Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-

Additional Labour Court (No.1) Dhanbad and in which

management has been directed to file written statement

and rejoinder to the dispute on 28.08.2015.

After a prolonged discussions unions were in view

that IRL had no role in the renewal of mining lease and it

was a lapse from the end of HCL and due to uncertainty of

renewal of lease Management taken decision to separate

the employee by way of termination which was ultimately

withdrawn by IRL Now all the worker have been resumed

their duties and have been paid till 16.06.2015 as per

roster and the settlement dated 20.11.2014 has also been

complied with. Therefore, Unions do no see any ill

intension of management and decided not to proceed

further in this matter. In the interest of entire workmen and

smooth operation of the project, the parties agreed to

resolve the aforesaid referred dispute by signing a

memorandum of settlement on the following terms and

condition :

Terms of settlement

It is agreed by union not to contest the refererence

case pending before the CGIT, No. l being referred case

no. 25/2015/796. [Order No. l-43011/2/2015-IR(M).]

The management has already allowed all the

concerned workmen to resume duty, so no dispute is

pending for adjudication.

The union will not raise any dispute of wages in

future for this period of suspension of work (From 8th Sep

2014 to 16.06.2015 ).

lt is agreed to file this copy of settlement jointly

before the tribunal with a prayer to pass no dispute award.

If union representatives fails to file this copy of settlement

before the tribunal at the expected date it shall be presumed

that the terms and conditions of the settalement has been

fully implemented.

Signature of Management

Signature of Union/workmen

Sd./- Illegible

1. Sd./- Illegible

Sd./- Illegible

2. Sd./- Illegible

Sd./- Illegible

Witness :

Sd./- Illegible

ubZ fnYyh] 11 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 316-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM vkSj nwljs ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

,jukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@48@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2016

S.O. 316.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Ltd. and Others and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-30011/48/2010-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present:

Shri. K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Friday the 29th day of January, 2016/9th Magha, 1937)

ID 28/2011

Unions

1. The General Secretary,

Petroleum Employees Union,

C/o BPCL No.1,

Ranganathan Garden,

Anna Nagar(W),

Chennai – 600040

2. The General Secretary,

Petroleum Employees Association

(CITU), C/o BPCL, Irimpanam,

Kochi (Kerala) – 682309

By Adv. Shri John Vipin

Management :

The Chief Manager (HRS) South,

M/s Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.,

No.1, Ranganathan Garden,

Anna Nagar(W), Post Bag No.1212

& 1213, Off 11th Main Rd.,

Chennai – 600040

By M/s.Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 22.01.2016

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 29.01.2016 passed

the following:

AWARD

This is a reference under clause (d) of sub-section

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

Disputes Act, 1947.

The dispute referred for adjudication before this

tribunal is as follows:

“(1) Whether the action of the management in

declaring 8 workers as surplus and their subsequent

transfer from Trivandrum Plant to Cochin Plant

without discussing and obtaining consent of the

unions is justified? (2) Whether the action of the

management in reducing the strength of workmen in

the plant and transferring these employees without

proper notice is in violation of Section 9A of the

Industrial Disputes Act? (3) Whether the action of

the management in respect of transfer of these

employees amounts to unfair labour practice as

defined under Section 2(ra) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947? If so, what relief these workmen are

entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference order No.L-30011/48/

2010-IR(M) dated 30.09.2011, issued by the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, notice was issued to the

parties to appear and answer all the material questions

relating to the dispute and to produce documents to

substantiate their respective contentions. The unions as

well as the management entered appearance through

counsels. Subsequently the management produced copy

of the stay order in WP(C) No.34287/2011(I) dated

21.12.2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala,

Ernakulam. As per that order the Hon’ble High Court of

Kerala stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the order

of reference above. The stay order was in force till the

disposal of the Writ Petition. The Hon’ble High Court of

Kerala disposed WP(C) No.34287/2011 on 25.03.2014 and

the stay was vacated.

The judgment dated 25.03.2014, passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.34287/2011

reads as follows:

“The learned counsel for the petitioner as also the

party respondents being respondents 3 and 4 submit

that the matter has been settled as per an agreement

dated 09.01.2014. Hence the Writ Petition stands

closed. The interim stay granted on 21.12.2011 will

stand vacated on the Writ Petition being closed.

The parties shall be at liberty to file a settlement

before the Industrial Tribunal”.

After the disposal of the Writ Petition by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala, Union Nos.1 and 2 remained absent

and there was no representation on their behalf. Hence

they were called absent and set ex-parte.

The learned counsel for the management produced

copy of the Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) on wages

and other matters dated 09.01.2014, entered into between

the management and the unions. The said document is

marked as Ext.M1. Page No.8 of Ext.M1 document

reveals that the parties agreed to withdraw as settled, all

proceedings pertaining to the items covered under the

MOS or any other past agreements/settlements pending

either in any conciliation or before any Court of Law by

unions. The matters covered under Ext.M1 Memorandum

of Settlement(MOS) produced by the management include

the matter referred for adjudication as per the reference

above. In view of the Memorandum of Settlement which

is marked as Ext.M1, it is evident that there is no subsisting

industrial dispute to be adjudicated as per the reference

above since the parties have settled the dispute amicably.

In the result an award is passed holding that there is

no subsisting industrial dispute to be adjudicated as per

the reference.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

787

The Award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the unions

NIL

Witness for the management

NIL

Exhibit for the unions

NIL

Exhibit for the management

Copy of the Memorandum Of Settlement (MOS)

on wages & other matters dated 09.01.2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 317-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ 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 75@2005) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@384@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 317.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-22012/384/2004-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER 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. 75 of 2005

Employer in relation to the mgt. of Food

Corporation of India, Patna

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri A.K.Sinha, Advocate

For the workman

Shri V.Kumar, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Food

Dated : 21/01/ 2016

AWARD

By Order No. L-22012/384/2004-IR (CM-II), dated

22/08/2005, 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 Food

Corporation of India in terminating the services of

Shri Bhopal Tiwary instead of regularising the

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

the workman is entitled?”

This Case is received from the Ministry of Labour &

Employment on 12.09.2005. After receipt of reference,

an award was passed by this Tribunal on 18.07.2014 in

which termination of workman from service declared not

legal and unjustified and allow to take back the workman

in service at once.

The case of the workman that the workmen/

sponsoring union filed written statement stating therein

that the concerned workmen was employed by the

management of Food Corporation of India at FSD Jamui

under District Manager FCI Bhagalpur during the month

of June 1980 as casual worker to perform the job of

casual employee and he was working as casual employee

for sweeping, collecting food grains, filling loose grains in

bags and use to keep watch over the stock in transit, in

railway station beside other ancillary work i.e. to attend

post office, to hand over dak to District Office, to fetch

water to the officials of FCI and all other works as assigned

by the superiors. His work was identical to regular category

IV workmen but he was paid less wages than regular

workman and was also not getting other benefits.

It is also submitted by the workman that, he was

stopped from attending his office from the month of

Oct’1985 in utter violation of Sec.25 of ID Act, 1947 and

that too after completion of much more than 240 days

of service within 12 calendar months. Against his

retrenchment, dispute was raised by union and his case

was referred by the Govt. of India to this Tribunal for

adjudication about validity of his retrenchment.

One Written statement was filed by the workman in

Ref. 251/90 before this Tribunal and management also filed

a Written statement and admitted the case of the concerned

workman and shown eagerness to employ him again as a

casual employee marked as Ext. W-3, and accordingly an

788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

award was passed by this Tribunal, marked as exhibit-W-

4 & W-5, and in accordance with the award the concerned

workman was reinstated /taken back in job as per order of

this Tribunal marked as exhibit- W-6/1 in which an office

order issued vide letter no. IR/DEP/IP/B.Tiwari/89-90/555

dated 04/05.06.96.

It is further stated that in the Award of Ref. 251/90,

marked as exhibit W-5 there was instruction for his

regularisation in accordance with the provision of FCI but

his regularisation was not considered by FCI in accordance

with circular dated 6.5.87 exhibit W-2. As per this circular a

casual worker who has completed 90 days service as on

2.5.86 is entitled to be regularised against category III &

IV post according to their qualification but the case of the

concerned workmen was not considered despite fulfilling

all the conditions of the said circular and he was again

retrenched during Feb’2003 over which the instant case

was referred by the Govt. of India for adjudication as per

schedule mentioned in para 1.

It is also submitted by the workman, that the

management has adopted pick & choose method to

regularise the service of the casual employee working with

the concerned workman. Several junior casual worker who

are employed after employment of the concerned workman

are regularised against Cat-IV post long ago but

management has discriminated the concerned workman

by adopting unfair labour practice as such it is prayed

that the action of the management in not regularising the

service against Cat-IV watchman as has been done in case

of other is quite illegal & unjustified and he is entitled to

get the same benefits along with back wages as has been

given to other similarly situated workman.

On the other hand, the case of the management that

the concerned workman is not workman under sec. 2(s) of

the I.D. Act and there is no employer and employee

relationship. It is also submited that the concerned workman

has worked under the contractor at FSD Jamui and

Sahebganj and he was not on the roll of FCI.

It is also stated that there have been never any notified

vacancy for the alleged any sanction for such vacancy or

post nor any invitation of application for filling up any

such vacancy or post, nor did the workman ever undergo

any prescribed test or interview nor any committee ever

took any test or interview for regularisation of the workman

nor any office order been issued for employment of the

workman nor has his name been routed through any

employment exchange. Without such prerequisites the

question of employment of the said workman is completely

ruled out and the allegations to the contrary are distorted,

and suppression of the fact that he was at all material times

a casual employee working under a contractor and as such

he could never be called an employee of FCI. Hence the

question of his termination of service is totally imaginary

and motivated.

10.

It is also submitted by the management that his name

was not sponsored by any employment exchange. It is

further stated that the workmen is claiming that he worked

from 1980 to 1985 and 1996 to 2003 and has completed

240 days service within 12 calendar month but he did not

produce anything to prove that he worked for more than

240 days within 12 calendar months and it is claimed by

the management that he has not worked for a day in FCI.

On this ground it is prayed by the management that the

claim of the concerned workmen is fit to be rejected.

11.

By way of rejoinder to the written statement of the

workmen, the contentions of the sponsoring union in the

written statement filed on behalf of the workman have

been denied specifically and para-wise and same is said to

be incorrect and without any merit and it was denied. It is

finally said that award be passed accordingly rejecting the

claim of the workman.

12.

It is further stated that the workmen is claiming that

he worked from 1980 to 1985 and 1996 to 2003 and has

completed 240 days service within 12 calendar month

but he did not produce anything to prove that he worked

for more than 240 days within 12 calendar months and it

is claimed by the management that he has not worked for

a day in FCI. On this ground it is prayed by the management

that the claim of the concerned workmen is fit to be

rejected.

13.

The FCI Management was not attending the

proceeding after filing its Written statement & rejoinder.

FCI management was given series of adjournment so that

they may produce witness but they were fail to avail the

opportunity and lastly the award was passed on

18.07.2014 which was challenged by FCI management

by filing writ petition no. 2735 of 2015 before the

Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court and vide order dated

11.09.15 the case was remitted back to this Tribunal to

provide an opportunity to FCI management who adduce

one witness namely Sri Ravi Ranjan and also to cross-

examine the concerned workman, and accordingly the said

opportunity was given to the management of FCI thereafter

the management adduce his witness Sri Ravi Ranjan as

MW-1 and the case on behalf of the management was

closed and the same is fixed for argument with the consent

of both the parties.

14.

The present reference is as to whether the workman

is to be regularised as workman under FCI management or

not. The workman’s case is that he was rendering services

to the FCI and he was illegally terminated for which he

raised a dispute and this Tribunal in Ref. Case No. 251/

1990 , directed the management to take the workman as

casual employee and also directed to regularise the

workman in due course. The workman filed document of

management that they complied the award of the Tribunal,

and subsequently allowed him to sit for which the present

reference arose.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

789

15.

In this reference, the management stated that he is

speaking on the basis of official record and further says

that the concerned workman was working in FCI as

contractual worker but unable to tell the name of the

contractor. Therefore it is clear that the the workman was

working in the organisation and to support it he filed the

photocopy of Attendance register, with stamp and

signature of FCI Official.

16.

Exhibit W1 is a copy of attendance register

monthwise duly signed by the depot incharge Sahebganj

and on perusal of the same it is clear that the concerned

workman has worked for 23 to 26 days in a month regularly

except Sunday & holidays w.e.f. 1996 to 2003 i.e till his

retrenchment and as per exhibit W3 i.e W-5 of the

management it is clearly Admitted by FCI in para 8 that the

concerned workmen was working at FSD Jamui from 80 to

1985 under the FCI. Exhibit W-6 is the statement of

attendance w.e.f 1980 to March 1983 duly signed by Asstt.

Depot Superintendent FSD Jamui and on perusal of the

same it is crystal clear that workmen has worked for 121

days from Jan. 80 to Dec 80, 233 days during Jan 81 to Dec

81, 202 days.

17.

The Management witness has not denied the

photocopy of Attendance register nor the counsel of FCI

suggested the workman that the photocopy of document

were ingenuine. “He has also stating in cross-examination

that I have no personal knowledge regarding this case

and I am deposing on the basis of record of management

I did not see the w/s of FCI filed in Ref. 251/90. He also

says that I can not tell the name of the contractor”.

18.

The circular of FCI speaks, a person who worked for

90 days as on 2.05.1968 in FCI in a calendar year will be

regularised but unfortunately that circular is not obeyed

by the FCI management. However the management has

not denied the policy decision dated 6.5.87 regarding

regularisation of casual employee/ worker and availability

of vacancy of Cat-IV post.

19.

On perusal of the Ext W-6/1, in which it is mention

that “ for implementation of Hon’ble CGIT award in ID No.

251/90 Shri Bhopal Tiwari is hereby posted to FSD

Sahibgunj as a casual Labour.” It is also mentioned in Ext.

W-6/1 that, the date of appointment will be treated as per

his date of joining.

20.

On the basis of this circular and recently division

bench of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has given a

judgement on 3.9.14 in PLPA No. 516 & 518 of 2004 in case

of their workmen vrs employers in relation to the

management of FCI which has already been upheld by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 7314-7315 of 2015 vide

order dated 14.8.15. The relevant portion given in para 18

and 20 are reproduced herein below:-

“18. This aspect of the matter has also not been

properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It

appears that several decisions including the decision

in Uma Devi (Supra) was relied upon by the learned

Single Judge. But, we like to observe here that the

ratio decided in these cases does not apply to the

present case. Nonetheless, said ratio should be read

in the context of facts of the present case. No judge

can lost site of the facts. The fabric of the facts is to

be viewed in its proper perspective. When there is

already a policy decision of the Food Corporation

of India for regularisation and when the concerned

workmen are fulfilling all the criteria, including the

length of service on or before a particular cut of

date (in the present case there is a condition of three

months service as on 2nd May 1986) said policy

decision is to be followed by the management

uniformly in all cases. The Management cannot

adopt pick and choose method in regularisation.

Applying the policy decision in few cases while not

doing so with respect to others tantamount not

only to discrimination but also to arbitrariness on

the part of the respondent management and

whenever there is arbitrariness there is always a

breach of right of equality. Arbitrariness and

equality are sworn enemies. When arbitrariness is

present equality is always absent and vice versa.

Thus, there was already a policy decision issued

by the respondent Food Corporation of India, under

which, if any casual worker or daily wages worker

on or before 2nd May, 1986 has completed three

months of service, he should be regularised and as

per the said policy decision similarly situated co-

workers have been regularised. The Present workmen

Jamuna Das was also fulfilling the criteria of the

completion of three months service on 2nd May,

1986 as required under the said policy decision. In

these circumstances, no error has been committed

by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I,

Dhanbad in passing the award dated 6th May,1997

in Reference No. 122 of 1996. This aspect of the

matter has also not been properly appreciated by

the learned single Judge while allowing the writ

petition.

“20. In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was also

pertaining to Food Corporation of India workers and

which also discussed the same policy decision dated

6th May, 1987 that when there is a policy decision of

the Management to regularise the services of daily

rated workers / casual workers and when it is applied

in case of some workers, it should also be followed

with respect to other similarly situated co-workers

who are otherwise fulfilling the criteria prescribed in

the policy decision. In the present case this criteria

790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is completion of three months services as on 2nd

May, 1986.

21.

After going through the case record and evidence

on behalf of the parties and considering the exhibits and

points of arguments put forward on their behalf, I find

much force in the plead taken by the workmen that he is

being exploited severely by the management for so many

years. I do not find any merit in the stand of management

that he was contractual or part time worker.

22.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold the action of the management of Food Corporation

of India in terminating the services of Shri Bhopal Tiwary

instead of regularising the service is not legal and justified,

Hence the management is directed to regularise the

workman immediately w.e.f. receipt of the reference with

continuity of service since, the direction of this Tribunal

as per Ref. No. 251/1990, give him full back wages within

30 days from the publication of the award.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 318-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,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;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2008) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@5@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/

2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

ECL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-22012/5/2008-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. 11 OF 2008

PARTIES:

The management of 1&2 Incline,

Jhanjra Area, M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Sriram Bhar

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

Shri P. K. Goswami,

Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman)

None

Industry : Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated: 07.01.2016

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-22012/5/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 11.03.2008 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 Sriram Bhar w.e.f. 22.02.2007

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

workman entitled?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/5/2008-

IR(CM-II) dated 11.03.2008 of the above said reference

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

adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 11 of

2008 was registered on 17/26.03.2008 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing

them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file

their written statements along with the relevant documents

and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In

pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post

were sent to the parties concerned.

Case called out. Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Adv for the

management is present but none appears on behalf of the

workman/union.

On perusal of the case record I find that neither the

reference case was registered on 17.03.2008 / 26.03.2008.

Thereafter notices were issued to the parties on 10.04.2008,

24.05.2012, 15.10.2014 and 30.03.2015. The management

filed their written statement on 31.07.2013. But the union

never appeared before the Tribunal even for a single day.

41 days have been granted to the union so far but all are in

vain. It seems that the union/workman is now not at all

interested to proceed with the case further. As such the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

791

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] 10 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 319-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,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;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49@2006) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@280@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. ECL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-22012/280/2005-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 49 OF 2006

PARTIES:

The management of Ratibati (R) Colliery under

Satgram Area, M/s.. ECL

Vs.

Sri Chand Majhi

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

Shri P. K. Goswami,

Ld. Advocate, ECL

For the union (Workman)

Sri S. K. Pandey, General

Secretary, CMC

Industry : Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated: 11.01.2016

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/

280/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 17.08.2006 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Ratibati

Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s.. ECL in

dismissing Sri Chand Majhi from services w.e.f.

19.04.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/280/

2005–IR(CM-II) dated 17.08.2006 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference

case No. 49 of 2006 was registered on 18.09.2006.

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.

Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their

representative.

The delinquent workman Sri Chand Majhi has filed

written statement through his Union representative. He

has stated in his written statement that he was in

employment in the company as Loader having Man No.

110426 at Ratibati (R) Colliery under Satgram Area of

M/s.. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He was absent from

his duty with effect from 05.02.2001 to 30.07.2001, for

which he was charge sheeted vide Charge Sheet No. RB/

CS/PERS/MGR/2001/213/2675 dated 30.07.2001. He

was absent due to sickness which was beyond his control.

Being declared fit, the workman reported to management

for resumption of his duty, but he was not allowed. The

workman replied to the charge sheet and appeared before

the Enquiry Officer. He also submitted his sick certificate

for perusal of the Enquiry Officer. The workman was

dismissed from service of the company vide dismissal

order No. RB/AGT/PERS/05/649 dated 19.04.2005 by

the Agent, Ratibati (R) Colliery under Satgram Area of

M/s.. Eastern Coalfields Limited who was not empowered

at all to dismiss any workman as per Certified Standing

Order of the Company. It is surprising that Enquiry

792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Officer though submitted his report on 30.01.2003. But the

workman was not allowed to resume his duty and was

ultimately dismissed on 19.04.2005 i.e. after lapse of

more than two years. The workman is sitting idle without

any job for more than three years. His whole family is

on the verge of starvation. The dismissal order of Sri

Chand Majhi from service of the company is illegal

unjustified and disproportionate punishment for the

alleged misconduct. The workman has prayed that

Management of Ratibati (R) Colliery under Satgram Area

of M/s.. Eastern Coalfields Limited be directed to

reinstate the workman with payment of full back wages

with all consequential benefits.

Management never filed written statement. The

Tribunal had no option except to proceed ex-parte against

M/s.. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The learned

predecessor of this Tribunal passed an order to proceed

ex-parte on 20.11.2012 against Ratibati (R) Colliery

under Satgram Area of M/s.. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

No document has been filed by either side. The

delinquent workman has examined himself as witness.

He has not been cross-examined by the management.

Ratibati (R) Colliery of M/s.. Eastern Coalfields Limited

has not filed any oral evidence.

Sri P. K. Goswami, the learned Advocate has filed

authorization of M/s.. Eastern Coalfields Limited. I have

heard the argument of Sri P. K. Goswami, the Learned

Advocate on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

and Sri S. K. Pandey, the Learned Union representative on

behalf of workman.

Sri S.K. Pandey has argued that due to sickness

under compelling circumstances the workman Chand Majhi

was absent from his duty from 05.02.2001 to 30.07.2001.

He filed his medical papers regarding his sickness. He

was not afforded to cross-examine the management

witness nor he was allowed to adduce his defence

evidence. Copy of enquiry report was not issued to him.

Neither his explanation was called for after completion

of enquiry. Even after submission of enquiry report on

30.01.2003 he was dismissed after two years and three

months on 19.04.2005. He was dismissed by the Agent

of the colliery who was not empowered to pass such

dismissal order. On the other hand, Sri P. K. Goswami,

the Learned Advocate of the Management has argued that

it is the duty of a workman to prove his innocence. The

workman is not entitled for any back wages. Back wages

cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The allegation of workman is that he submitted sick

certificate, but it was not considered by the Enquiry Officer.

The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report on

30.01.2003, but after lapse of two years and three months

he was dismissed on 19.04.2005. The Agent of the Colliery

is not empowered to dismiss him. All the enquiry

proceedings were held in utter violation of principle of

natural justice. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not

filed any documents regarding domestic enquiry. The

Notice of Enquiry, copy of Charge Sheet, copy of Enquiry

Proceeding, copy of Enquiry Report, copy of Explanation

of Delinquent, etc. have not been filed by the M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited. These documents are in custody of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and it ought to have

been submitted by M/s.. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Due

to non production of these vital documents, the Tribunal

is bound to draw adverse presumption under section

114(G) of Evidence Act against M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited that either Domestic Enquiry was unlawful being

an utter violation of Principle of Natural Justice or there

was no Domestic Enquiry at all against the delinquent

workman.

The domestic enquiry commences with the service

of the charge sheet. Before proceeding with the domestic

enquiry against an offending workman, he must be

informed clearly, precisely and accurately of the charges

leveled against him. It is the duty of the employer to

indicate the delinquent employee not only the precise

nature of the charges, but also the documents, if any, upon

which the charges are based. The charge Sheet should

specifically set out all charges, which the workman is called

upon to show cause and should also state all relevant

particulars, without which he cannot defend himself. The

delinquent workman must know what he is charged with

and have the amplest opportunity to meet the charges

and to defend himself by giving a proper explanation.

After knowing the nature of the guilt, with which he is

charged, otherwise it will amount to his being condemned

unearthed. Any amount of evidence laid in the enquiry is

no substitute for a charge sheet clearly setting forth

allegation with sufficient precision and particulars, so as

to enable the employee to defend himself which is the

very purpose of a charge sheet. In a number of cases, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an enquiry is not an

empty formality, but an essential condition to the legality

of the disciplinary order. Before the delinquent workman

can be punished for misconduct, the employer should

hold a fair and regular enquiry into the misconduct and

dismissal without holding a regular enquiry would be an

illegality. It is well settled that disciplinary enquiry as to

be quasi-judicial enquiry, held according to the principle

of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has a duty to

act judicially, because the charges of misconduct, being

proved, will result not only depriving of livelihood of the

workman but also will attach stigma to his character. The

Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P and another v/s C.S.

Sharma reported in A.I.R 1968, S.C. 158 has held that if no

opportunity is given to delinquent to lead evidence, it

was sufficient to vitiate the whole proceeding. Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Rishal Singh v/s State of Haryana &

Others. Reported in 2014, LAB-I.C., page-3482 has held

that disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense

with the disciplinary enquiry. Order terminating a member

of police force from service without enquiry because he

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

793

was involved in corruption is illegal and Hon’ble Supreme

Court set-a-side the Dismissal Order without enquiry.

Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Ratan Bhattacharya

v/s Union of India & Others reported in 2013, LAB-I.C.,

page-638 has held that even for minor penalty

departmental enquiry is essential when charge has been

denied by the workman.

In view of the law propounded by the Hon’ble Apex

Court and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court even for minor

punishment the departmental enquiry is must. Since no

document has been filed by M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited, it appears that delinquent has been dismissed

from service without holding any enquiry, which is illegal

and unjustified.

Natural justice is an inbuilt and inseparable

ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. Stick adherence

to the principle is required, whenever civil consequence

follow up, as a result of order passed. Natural justice is

universal justice. In certain factual circumstance even non

observance of the rule will itself result in prejudice. Thus

this principle is of supreme importance.

When the charge is proved the disciplinary authority

with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind of

punishment is to be imposed. But without holding any

enquiry, the punishment of dismissal for alleged absence

from duty of near about six months is quite shocking and

disproportionate and it ought to be set aside. Since the

workman has himself admitted in his written statement that

he was absent due to sickness for near about six months,

he ought to be punished under Certified Standing Order

because unauthorized absent for more than Ten days is

punishable. He ought to be punished with minor

punishment. It is settled law that when dismissal is set

aside being contrary to law, reinstatement is natural

consequence.

Paramount question required consideration

regarding payment of back wages where a workman whose

termination is found to be illegal and unjustified, what

amount of back wages he should be awarded.

As per section 106 of Evidence Act, it is the burden

of workman to plead that he was unemployed during the

period of dismissal. If he pleads that he was in gainfully

employed during the period of dismissal, the burden shifts

on the employer to prove that workman was gainfully

employed during the period of dismissal. If employer

succeeds in proving that workman was gainfully employed

elsewhere during the period of dismissal, the employee

concerned will not be entitled for back wages. But if

employee pleads that he was not employed during the

period of dismissal, but if it has not been disproved by

the employer the delinquent employee will be entitled

for back wages. The workman has pleaded in Para - 8 of

his Written Statement that he was idle and without any job.

His whole family is on the verge of starvation. Even M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited authority has not rebutted this

allegation by filing written statement. Sri Chand Majhi has

proved this fact in his Affidavit. While awarding back

wages several factors should be considered viz; the length

of service and age of the concerned employee, the

possibility of getting alternate employment elsewhere.

Length of service of the delinquent has not been pleaded

in his written statement, but as per affidavit his age is 39

years. At this stage it cannot be expected that delinquent

will be able to get job elsewhere. Therefore in this

circumstance the concerned employee Chand Majhi will

be entitled for full back wages from the date of dismissal.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s.

Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Others

reported in 2013 LA.B. 4249 has held that where employer

has acted in gross violation of principle of natural justice

then concerned Tribunal will be fully justified in directing

payment of full back wages. The Courts must keep in view

that in all cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service,

the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the

employee / workman. There is no justification to give

premium to the employer of his wrongdoing by relieving

him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his

dues in the form of full back wages.

Considering the whole facts and circumstances of

the reference, discussed above, I come to the conclusion

that the action of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

authority in dismissing Sri Chand Majhi from service is

illegal and unjustified. I set-a-side the Order of Dismissal

dated 19.04.2005 of Sri Chand Majhi. M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited is directed to re-instate Sri Chand

Majhi with the continuity of service. I think it appropriate

that the concerned workman be imposed a punishment of

stoppage of 2 (Two) increment with cumulative effect. It

is further directed that M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

shall pay full back wages to Sri Chand Majhi from the

date of Order of Dismissal i.e. from 19.04.2005 till his

reinstatement. The order will be enforced within Two

months after publication under section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

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] 10 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 320-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,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@

794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 99@2007) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@295@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/

2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

ECL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-22012/295/2007-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. 99 OF 2007

PARTIES:

The management of MIC-Jhanjra Project,

Jhanjra Area of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Hari Bouri

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

None

For the union (Workman) :

Sri. S. K. Pandey, General

Secy., CMC

Industry : Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated : 13.01.2016

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/

295/2007–IR(CM-II) dated 26.11.2007 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 Sri Hari Bouri w.e.f. 12.01.2007 is legal

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

entitled?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/295/2007–

IR(CM-II) dated 26.11.2007 of the above said reference

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

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 99 of 2007

was registered on 06.12.2007. 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. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal,

through their representative.

In brief, the workman has stated in his written

statement that he was in employment of the company as

General Mazdoor at MIC-Jhanjra Project, Jhanjra Area of

M/s.. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Workman Sri Hari Bouri

fell sick from 15.06.2006. He did not attend his duty. He

informed the management about his sickness. When the

workman reported for his duty, he was not allowed, rather

he was dismissed from service without serving Charge

Sheet copy, Dismissal Letter, etc. The workman was not

served with Notice of Enquiry or Charge Sheet. Enquiry

proceeding proceeded ex-parte. The workman was not

afforded an opportunity to prove his innocence. Second

Show Cause notice was not issued to him before awarding

punishment. All the enquiry proceedings and orders were

in violation of principle of Natural Justice. The punishment

of dismissal is very harsh. He is sitting idle without any

employment anywhere. The management’s representative

appeared as a witness against the workman, which are all

false. The dismissal of Sri Hari Bouri, workman is illegal

and unjustified. He belongs to downtrodden community

of the Society. He is without job, his whole family is dying

without meal. The workman has prayed that the order of

dismissal be set-a-side and management of MIC-Jhanjra

Project, Jhanjra Area of M/s.. Eastern Coalfields Limited be

directed to re-instate the workman with payment of full

back wages with all consequential benefits.

The management on the other hand, has stated briefly

in his written statement that concerned workman Sri Hari

Bouri was absent from duty from 15.06.2006 without any

reason or information. He did not pray for any leave. His

absence was unauthorized. He was issued charge sheet

No. ACT/JNR/MIC/P/06/1364 dated 30.7.2006 under Clause

26.23 and 26.29 of Standing Order seeking clarification of

his absence from 15.06.2006. The concerned workman did

not give response to the charge sheet. The management

ordered an enquiry. The concerned workman did not attend

the enquiry. Therefore the enquiry proceeded ex-parte and

the charges levelled against him was established beyond

all reasonable doubt. Sri Hari Bouri was present on duty

for 172 days in 2003, 166 days in 2004 and 34 days in 2005.

He was punished one time in 2002 and two times in 2005.

Keeping in view the findings of enquiry report, last three

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

795

years physical attendance, management issued him second

show cause notice as to why action should not be taken

against him along with the proceedings and findings of

enquiry report asking clarification from him. But Sri Hari

Bouri did not send reply to the second show cause notice.

The management has no alternative as there were no

favourable circumstances, but to terminate the service of

Sri Hari Bouri. Accordingly Sri Hari Bouri was terminated

from his service vide letter No. GM/JNR/PER/08/2007/2504

dated 13.01.2007. The reference is bad in law. The Eastern

Coalfield Limited has prayed that the action of management

is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled for any

relief.

The workman has filed two documents, copy of

Enquiry Proceedings and copy of Charge Sheet dated

30.07.2006. The Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed

any documents.

The workman has filed affidavit in his oral evidence.

He has been cross-examined by the management. The

management of Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed

any oral evidence.

I have heard the argument of Sri S. K. Pandey, union

representative, on behalf of workman. The management of

Eastern Coalfields Limited has not authorized any Advocate

to represent his case. Neither any Officer appeared on behalf

of Management to represent his case. The reference is of

the year 2007. After service of notice, the management of

Eastern Coalfields Limited has not taken care to file

Vokalatnama or Authorization of his Advocate to represent

the Eastern Coalfield Limited authority. Therefore advocate

of M/s. Eastern Coalfield Limited was unable to argue the

case. But reference is being decided on merit, rather than

ex-parte.

Sri S. K Pandey, the learned Union representative

has argued that workman Sri Hari Bouri was absent only

for one and half months. He was never issued any notice

of enquiry. The departmental enquiry proceeded ex-parte.

He was never given any opportunity to cross-examine the

management’s witness. There is clear violation of natural

justice. None can be dismissed without proper and valid

enquiry.

It is admitted fact that Sri Hari Bouri, the delinquent

workman was in employment at MIC-Jhanjra Project, Jhanjra

Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is also admitted

fact that delinquent Sri Hari Bouri was absent from duty

since 15.06.2006. None of the party to the reference has

pleaded in their written statement that how many days the

delinquent workman was absent. As per the documents

filed by the workman, it appears that the workman was

issued charge sheet on 30.07.2006. Till issuance of charge

sheet he was absent for about one and half months. Though

management of MIC-Jhanjra Project, Jhanjra Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited has pleaded in his written

statement that workman did not reply to charge sheet,

whereas the delinquent workman has denied on oath in his

affidavit that notice was not issued to him. If notices were

issued by MIC-Jhanjra Project, Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited to concerned workman, then copy of

postal receipt regarding service of notice ought to have

been submitted by the M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

authority. There is no documentary or oral evidence on

behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited regarding sending

of notice of enquiry. In absence of such notice it cannot be

assumed that the notice of enquiry was sent to workman.

Even M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not pleaded in

his written statement on which date notice was sent to

workman and on which date it was served on delinquent.

Domestic enquiry cannot be held without service of notice.

As per requirement of natural justice: (1) Enquiry

must be held by a person who is not biased in favour or

against either of the parties or (2) Delinquent employee

should be given a fair opportunity to adequately

representing his case by hearing the evidence in support

of the party and to cross-examine the witness produced

against him and also be allowed to rebut the evidence laid

against him by examining the witnesses including himself

if he so wishes on any relevant matter.

Order regarding appointment of Enquiry Officer has

not been filed by the M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited which

is essential to conform the domestic enquiry. On perusal of

copy of proceedings filed by the delinquent workman, it

appears that due to absence of delinquent, enquiry was

adjourned on 29.08.2006, 14.09.2006 and 04.10.2006. Finally

enquiry was conducted ex-parte on 26.10.15. Due to absence

of workman enquiry proceeded ex-parte. Even if enquiry

proceeded ex-parte, still then Enquiry Officer ought to have

fixed a date for defence evidence of workman. An

opportunity to put defence to workman must have been

provided, but it appears from Enquiry proceeding that

opportunity for putting the defence was not provided to

delinquent workman. It is clear violation of principle of

natural justice. No person can be condemned unearthed.

There is absence of enquiry report, explanation of

delinquent after enquiry and dismissal order. The enquiry

report and dismissal order are the natural documents of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and it ought to have been

provided by the M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited to file of

reference. For non filing of these vital documents compels

the tribunal to draw adverse presumption against the

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited under section 114(G) of

the Evidence Act.

If copy of enquiry report has not been filed on the

file of reference of Tribunal then it will be presumed that

without enquiry report, the workman was dismissed by the

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The workman was not

provided opportunity to represent his case after completion

of enquiry, which is essential ingredients of principle of

natural justice. While a right to represent against finding in

the report is part of the reasonable opportunity available

796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

during the first stage of enquiry viz. before the disciplinary

authority taken into consideration the finding in the report.

When the Enquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority,

the delinquent employee has right to receive copy of the

Enquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority

arrived at its conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence

of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against

him. A denial of Enquiry Officer’s report to delinquent

employee before the disciplinary authority takes its decision

on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the

employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the

principle of natural justice.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL,

Hyderabad v/s B. Karunakar (AIR 1994 SC 1074) has held

“when the Enquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority,

the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of

the Enquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority

arrives at its conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence

of the employee with regard to the charges leveled

against him. That right is a part of the employee’s right

to defend himself against the charges levelled against him.

A denial of the enquiry officer’s report before the

disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is

a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove

his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural

justice.”

When the charge is proved, the disciplinary authority

with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind of

punishment is to be imposed. Of course, this discretion

has to be examined objectively keeping in mind the nature

and gravity of the charge. The disciplinary authority is to

decide a particular penalty as specified in the Model

Standing Order. Host of factors go into the decision making

while exercising such discretion which include gravity of

misconduct. The tribunal while on perusal of case would

obviously examine as to whether the punishment imposed

by the disciplinary authority is reasonable or not. If

Tribunal finds that punishment is shockingly

disproportionate in comparison to the gravity of

misconduct, it can reduce punishment. Without holding

domestic enquiry is violation of principle of natural justice,

the punishment of dismissal for mere absence of one and

half months is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged

misconduct. Though on perusal of charge sheet it is clear

that delinquent workman has been previously absent also

for which he has been adequately punished, but on mere

consideration of post conduct for which delinquent has

been already punished without holding valid and lawful

domestic enquiry. The punishment of dismissal is

shockingly disproportionate and is liable to be set-a-side,

though the delinquent workman should not remain

unpunished.

A question is still remains to be considered whether

a workman whose termination is found to be illegal, what

amount of back wages he should be awarded. It is settled

law that if dismissal is set-a-side the relief of reinstatement

is natural consequence so far as back wages is concerned.

A workman whose service was terminated and who is

desirous of getting back wages is required either to plead

before the court that he was not gainfully employed or on

employment of lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid

payment of full back wages then he has to plead and to

lead evidence that the workman was gainfully employed

and was getting wages. This is so because it is settled law

that the burden of proof of existence of a particular fact lies

on the person who is making positive averment about its

existence. Therefore once the employee shows that he was

not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically

plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed

or getting the same or substantially the smaller emolument.

It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a

negative fact. The workman has pleaded in para-8 and

para-13 of his Written Statement that he was without any

employment. In the affidavit the workman has stated that

he does not have any source of income. These fact and

evidence have not been rebutted in the written statement

by the M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited or by adducing

evidence. Therefore, the delinquent workman Sri Hari Bouri

is entitled for full back wages from the date of his

termination. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuvnesh Kumar

Dwivedi v/s M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd reported in

2014 LAB I.C. 2643 has held that in case of illegal

retrenchment, the workman is entitled to full back wages

from the date of termination of his service till date of his

reinstatement. In view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme

Court, the workman is entitled to full back wages from the

date of his termination till his reinstatement.

Considering the whole facts and circumstances of

the reference as discussed above, I come to the conclusion

that the action of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in

dismissing Sri Hari Bouri from service is illegal and

unjustified. I set-a-side the Order of Dismissal dated

12.01.2007 of Sri Hari Bouri. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

is directed to reinstate Sri Hari Bouri with the continuity of

service. I think it appropriate that the delinquent workman

be imposed a punishment of stoppage of 5(five) increments

with cumulative effect. It is further directed that the

concerned workman will get full back wages from the date

of Order of Dismissal i.e. from 12.01.2007 till his

reinstatement. The order will be enforced within two months

after publication under section 17 of Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

797

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 321.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

bZlh,y ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 52@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&22012/503/1999 &vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/2000) of

the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Eastern Coolfields Limited, and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2016.

[No. L-22012/503/1999-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 2000

PARTIES: The management of Khas Kajora Colliery, M/s.

ECL.

Vs.

Sri Mangal Paswan

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

: Shri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate,

ECL

For the union (Workman) : Shri

Rakesh

Kumar,

President, KMC

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated: 15.01.2016

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/

503/1999-IR(CM-II) dated 28.06.2000 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Khas

Kajora Colliery of M/s. ECL in not accepting the mid

point of age of Sh. Mangal Paswan, assessed by the

Apex Medical Board is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled? ’’

Having received the Order No. L-22012/503/1999-

IR(CM-II) dated 28.06.2000 of the above said reference

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

adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 52 of

2000 was registered on 17.08.2000 and accordingly an order

to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of

witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

Case called out. Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of the

Union (KMC) appears on behalf of the workman/union but

none appears on behalf of the management.

The case is fixed for ex-parte evidence of the workman.

But, even after so many dates workman is unable to file

evidence even he never appears in the court. The reference

is of the year 2005. Even after lapse of 15 years, the workman

has not filed evidence. It appears that the workman is not

interested in contesting the reference. 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] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 322.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

bZlh,y ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 91@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&22012/111/2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e& II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 91/2007) of

the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Bankola Area, M/s. ECL, and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

10/02/2016.

[No. L-22012/111/2006-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. 91 OF 2007

PARTIES:

The management of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery, ECL

Vs.

Sri Bishwanath Shaw

REPRESENTATIVES: For the management:

Shri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman) : Sri Bishwanath Shaw

(workman)

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated: 19.01.2016

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/

111/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 24.10.2007 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 not correcting the date of birth of Shri Bishwanath

Shaw and consequent retirement on superannuation

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

workman entitled?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/111/2006-

IR(CM-II) dated 24.10.2007 of the above said reference from

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

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 91 of 2007

was registered on 20.11.2007 and accordingly an order to

that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of

witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

Case called out. Sri P. K. Goswami, Learned Advocate

is present on behalf of the management and files his

authorization but none present on behalf of the union/

workman.

On perusal of the case record I find that neither the

workman nor his authorized advocate is appearing before

the tribunal after 01.06.2010. Since then 28 dates were

granted but to no effect. Registered notice was issued to

the workman on 03.01.2012 and 10.09.2014. The last notice

was sent to the workman on 10.09.2014 but the same has

returned back with the remarks that the workman is ‘dead’.

Since the workman is supposed to be dead and his

representative also not appearing before the court I think it

proper and just to close this case. As such the case is

closed and a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed

accordingly.

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] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 323.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

MCY;wlh,y ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2002½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&22012/23/2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2002)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Western Coolfields Limited,

Pench Area, and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 10/02/2016.

[No. L-22012/23/2001 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

799

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/12/2002

Chief General Secretary,

MPKKMP (HMS), PO Junnardeo,

Distt.Chhindwara (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area, PO Parasia,

Distt.Chhindwara (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18^th day of December, 2015

1. As per letter dated 27-12-01by 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/

23/2001-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Manager, Vishnupuri

Mine No.1 of WCL, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in

transferring Shri Naresh and 8 other tub loaders from

Vishnupuri Mine No.1 to Vishnupuri U/G Mine No.2 of

WCL w.e.f. 7-1-97 and converting them from Piece rated to

time rated without protecting their basic pay is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled

to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

through General Secretary, HMS at 4/1 to 4/4. Case of Ist

party Union is that dispute is raised claiming protection of

wages as per rules in respect of 9 Ist party workmen working

as piece rated tub labour Grade V/A.\Iconverted to time

rated since 31-10-95. That the management was aware about

workman. There is no ambiguity in terms of reference. Those

workmen were appointed as tub loader on piece rated. They

were posted at Vishnupuri Mine No.1, they were transferred

to Mine No.2. after their transfer from Vishnupuri No.1 to

Mine No.2, they were converted from piece rated to time

rated workmen. They were designated as cableman instead

of tub loader. They were doing similar nature of work. The

workers related to dispute were paid salary prior to their

transfer on administrative ground Rs.104.0\93 per day. After

their transfer, they were paid salary basic wages Rs.68.90

per day. Said action of the management amounts to unfair

labour practice. As per order dated 27-1-97, management

fixed their basic pay at Rs.68.90 on the ground that workers

had given consent to work on time rate. The action of

management is in colourable exercise of powers converting

workman from piece rate to time rate. It also amounts to

victimization of workers.

3. It is further submitted that on 8-1-97, Mines

Manager Vishnupuri Mine No.2 displayed notice inviting

applications from piece rated tub loaders who were

interested to work on time rated. Signatures of workers

were obtained on proforma concerned for work allotted to

them. The workers never given consent to accept lower

wages. Such exercise of management not assist to evade

legal liabilities of pay protection converting workers from

piece rate to time rate categories. Workers on their transfer

from Mine No.1 to Mine No.2 were placed in cadre of

cableman at time rate basis and while fixing their pay, it is

not proper. It is reiterated that the workers have not given

consent to pay them salary without protection of pay. The

total pay packet for workman should not be less than their

pay before conversion from piece rate to time rate. On

such ground, Ist party workman are praying conversion of

workman from piece rated to time rated without protection

of pay is illegal.

4. 2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 3/1 to 3/6

opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party submits that reference

is vague. The terms of refer about Naresh and other tub

loaders, their service particulars, names of the claimants

are not shown in the reference order. In absence of the

names and particulars of beneficiaries, adjudication of

reference is not possible. The reference is incapable for

adjudication.

5. That WCL is company registered under

Company’s Act. WCL has several areas headed by Chief

General Manager etc. Pench Area has collieries known as

Nehria, Tisgora, Mathni, Vishnupuri No.1, II, Shivpuri Open

Caste, Rawanwara Khas, Ganpathi, Bhagipani Open Caste,

Iklehra and Gajando. All those colliery are situated within

the radius of 50 kms. The service conditions of workers in

the mine are covered by NCWA. Transfer order from one

to another unit is service condition of employees, transfer

is being made in administrative interest, request of

employees. Agreement was arrived between Union and

management on 21-10-95 in connection of pay fixation of

employees working as piece rated converted to time rated

monthly rated employees. The fixation of employees working

as piece rated, time rated was done as per the agreement.

Vishnupuri Mine No.2 is mechanized mine. The workers

designated as tub loader were not required there, hence

the management displayed notice dated 8-1-97 inviting

applications from willing workers designated as tub loader

at Vishnupuri Underground Mine No.2 to work in different

time rated jobs in another collieries of Pench area. Such

notice clearly mentioned that such labours who will apply

for time rated job will be paid basic pay commensurate to

category. In response to said notification, tub loaders

800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

including claimants under reference submitted their option

to work in time rated job and accepted wages of time rated

category.

6. It is further submitted on basis of consent given

by claimants/ tubloaders in pursuance of notice dated

8-1-97 they were deployed in different time rated jobs as

per settlement dated 31-10-95. The details of those

employees are given in Para-10 of the Written Statement. It

is reiterated that as per Clause I of Agreement dated

31-10-95, claimants are not entitled for protection of basic

pay of piece rated loader. It is denied that those workmen

were transferred to time rated job on administrative ground

of the management. The office order dated 7-1-97 transfers

were made on the option tendered by workmen in the light

of order dated 7-1-97, management issued order dated

27-1-97. On such ground, 2^nd party submits that dispute

under reference has no merit and deserves to be answered

in favour of management.

7. 2^nd party filed additional Written Statement at

Page 5/1 to 5/4 reiterating its contentions in original Written

Statement. It is contented that work of tub loader is

hazardous. The emoluments being paid to workers as tub

loader piece rated depend upon output given by workman

whereas job of cableman is monthly rated and they can

prescribed for the said cadre. It is denied that transfers of

workmen were made on administrative ground from

Vishnupuri Mine No.1 to 2. While performing job of

cableman, the workman cannot claim wages of tub loaders.

The conversion took place as per option given by workmen.

As workmen not interested to work as cableman, they

should have represented to go back to their original job.

Pay fixation is done as per settlement dated 21-10-95. The

wages of workmen were rightly fixed at the basic pay of

their respective categories in which they were deployed. If

pay protection is given to such workmen, it will create

industrial unrest. Piece rated employee will apply for time

rate if pay protection is given to workman. No one is

interested to do hazardous job. Workmen were aware of

wages of piece rated tub loader and wages of monthly

rated cableman. They have submitted option with their

eyes open. Workmen were performing job of cableman.

They were paid wages for said post.

8. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

Manager, Vishnupuri Mine No.1

of WCL, PO Parasia, Distt.

Chhindwara (MP) in transferring

ShriNaresh and 8 other tub

loaders from Vishnupuri Mine

No.1 to Vishnupuri U/G Mine

No.2 of WCL w.e.f. 7-1-97 and

converting them from Piece rated

to time rated without protecting

their basic pay is legal and

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman Workmen are not

is entitled to?”

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

9. The Union has raised present dispute challenging

denial of pay protection to all those 9 workmen. Identical

affidavit of evidence of workmen Shri Shankarlal, Naresh,

Enullah, Ayub Khan, Ashok Kumar Dehariya, Riyaz

Hussain are filed. In cross-examination, Shankarlal says

he was appointed as piece rated tub loader in January 1994.

He claims ignorance of settlement dated 31-10-95. He was

member of Union. The settlement by Union applies to him.

He did not complaint about forcibly obtaining his consent

for his conversion from piece rated to time rated. Shri

Naresh in his cross-examination says he had not submitted

any application for transfer to Shivpuri Mine No.2. he

admitted his signature on Exhibit M-1. He claims ignorance

about the settlement between management and Union

about fixation of pay. He also claims ignorance how the

pay of tub loader time rated is fixed. He was working as tub

loader in the mine. The work of tub loader is not available

in said mine. Management had displayed notice that as

work of tub loader was not available in mine, the workers

desiring to work as time rated in other mines may submit

option. That he had not submitted application as per said

notice. He had no grievance till 1997 to 2002 till the dispute

was raised.

10. Shri Enullah in his cross-examination says he was

working as tub loader, pay slip Exhibit W-1, W-2 are

produced. He would retire in the year 2021. His age shown

in affidavit of evidence is correct. He was unable to tell

about merger of HMS Union. While he was working as tub

loader, he was receiving wages of said post. The work of

tub loader is in underground mines. He denies that work of

time rated is at mine surface. He admits that work of tub

loader is difficult than work of time rated. The time rated

tub loader is paid wages of said category. The piece rated

tub loader works more. He gets more wages. He had not

received order to work as time rated. He had not submitted

option for time rated category. However he admitted his

signature on Article A-1. As per notice dated 8-1-97,

management had called option for time rated workers. He

admits that post of tub loader was not vacant in the mine.

He claims ignorance about the settlement between

management and Union.

11. Shri Ayub Khan in his cross-examination says

that his transfer from Vishnupuri Mine No.1 to II was on

administrative ground. Work of tub loader was continuing

in Vishnupuri Mine No.1. After his transfer in 1997 in Mine

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

801

No.2, he was working as cableman on time rated basis.

Written order was not received by him for working as

cableman. That he had not complained about forcibly

obtaining his consent by management.

12. Shri Ashok Kumar Dehariya in his cross-

examination says he was working on piece rated basis.

Exhibit W-3,4 are the pay slips. He claims ignorance about

merger of Union. He was working as tub loader in

Vishnupuri Mine No.1. he was getting wages as tub loader,

piece rated. He was getting more wages when work was

more. In time rated category, similar pay is paid. The work

of tub loader is different. He admits his signature on Exhibit

M-2 and explained that he signed on it on say of Shri Gupta.

He claims ignorance about the settlement between

management and Union. He had complained about his

conversion to time rated category on 7-1-97. He claims

ignorance what action was taken on his complaint. The

evidence in cross examination of Shri Riyaz is also similar

to all those workers.

13. Management has filed affidavit of evidence of

Shri P.Subramani. management’s witness devoted his

affidavit about settlement between management and Union

dated 21-10-95 in connection of pay fixation of employees

working as piece rated converted to time rated, monthly

rated. That as per notice dated 8-1-97, applications were

invited from willing workers, tub loaders in Vishnupuri

Underground Mine No.2. the claimants had given their

option. They were deployed as cableman-III, Shivdayal

had not joined as tub loader. He was deployed as cableman

III. After deployment, basic wages were fixed Rs.82.38.

Clause I of the agreement dated 1-10-95 is reproduced in

his affidavit. Management’s witness in his cross admits

that any notification issued by office bears the date and

number. Exhibit M-3 does not bear such number. The

document shown to him is relieving order of employees

marked Exhibit M-4. Document M-6 is admitted. It is circular

dated 3-3-99 issued by Area Office of WCL. In pay slip

Exhibit W-1 to W-4, the wages of tub loader on piece rated

basis are shown Rs.104.93 of Shri Ashok Kumar, Faliram,

Ayub Khan. Documents Exhibit M-3 is notice dated 8-1-97

inviting options from tub loader for time rated work. Said

notice finds clear reference that time rated category workers

would be entitled to get wages of the category. Exhibit M-1

is option given by Shri Naresh. Exhibit M-5 is order of

transfer rinds clear reference that the transfer is being

affected on administrative ground. Employees are entitled

for transfer benefits such as TA/DA and joining time. Similar

reference is found in Exhibit M-4 relieving order. The order

dated 27-1-97 produced on record. Claimants were posted

as cableman Cat-III. It is clearly mentioned in said order

that the workmen would be entitled to initial wages Rs.68.90

per day. Since workmen were relieved and working in time

rated category from 27-1-97, they had not complained about

their options were forcibly obtained by the management.

All the workers received wages of time rated category till

the dispute was raised in 2002. The evidence clearly shows

that workmen had aquised to work as time rated and wages

prescribed for the category as per order dated 27-1-97. The

dispute is raised by Union in 2002 and the workmen tried to

claim that they had not given option appears afterthought.

14. Copy of settlement dated 31-10-97 is produced at

Exhibit M-1. Clause 11 of said settlement provides- in case

of monthly rated and excavation where rates are higher

than piece rated, the mid point fixation will not be applicable.

As per order dated 27-1-97, claimants were posted as

cableman III, they were not doing work of tub loader. Their

claim for protection of pay as piece rated tub loader cannot

be upheld. The evidence is clear that work of piece rated is

difficult than work of time rated. For the reasons discussed

above, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

15. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the Manager, Vishnupuri Mine No.1

of WCL, POParasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in

transferring ShriNaresh and 8 other tub loaders

from Vishnupuri Mine No.1 to Vishnupuri U/G

Mine No.,2 of WCL w.e.f. 7-1-97 and converting

them from Piece rated to time rated without

protecting their basic pay is proper and legal.

(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 324.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,lbZlh,y ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

344@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

10@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&22012/245/1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 344/

1999) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of South Eastern Coolfields

Limited, and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 10/02/2016.

[No. L-22012/245/1999 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/344/99

General Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (BMS),

PO Haldibadi,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Workmen/Union

Versus

Chairman cum Managing Director,

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,

Seepat Road, Bilaspur (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14^th day of December, 2015

1. As per letter dated 22-11-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

245/99/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the Chairman cum Managing

Director, SECL, Seepat road, Bilaspur (MP) in not

promoting some security personnel from Sr. Security

Guard/Arm guard T&S Grade “F” to Head Security

guard/ Hawaldar T&S Grade “E” due to wrongly

maintained seniority list is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief is the concerned workmen entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Secretary of BMS Union filed statement of claim

at Page 9/2 to 9/6. Case of Ist party Union is that dispute

pertains to 11 workmen denied promotion by management.

That management formed provisional seniority list on

5-5-97 of security guards, Armed Guard, T&S GradeI. The

provisional list was not shown to the workmen. They could

not raise objection about incorrect placement in seniority

list. Without giving any opportunity, the provisional list

was made final Seniority list on 8-10-97. Final seniority list

was also not shown to the workmen. They could not submit

any representations regarding their incorrect place in the

seniority list. That the promotion order was issued on

20-11-97. Junior to Ist party workmen were promoted.

Workmen submitted representation after the order of

promotion. The promotions were given as per seniority list

dated 8-10-97. That date of initial appointment of Laxman

Singh was mentioned 4-1-91. Date of appointment was

treated 30-4-83. The date of appointment of Shri M.Tiwari

has mentioned in seniority list 11-7-78. His date of

appointment was treated as 14-5-90. The bifurcation of date

of birth was difficult to be understood. The seniority is

always from date of appointment when workman start their

duty on particular posts. The adaptation is unique criteria

for preparation of seniority list to place blue eyed boy by

the management at the top of the list of seniority list. Inspite

of the objections, seniority list was made final. The

promotions to juniors were given. Management adopted

baseless and arbitrary criteria of seniority. On such ground,

Union prays for setting aside order of promotion dated

20-11-97 and promotions be made after preparing fresh

seniority list.

3. 2^nd party filed Written statement on 4-8-2010

opposing claim of Union. Preliminary objection is raised

by 2^nd party that order of reference is vague as the particulars

of juniors to the Security Personnel claimed for promotion

is not disclosed. The vague reference is not tenable. The

terms of reference is highly prejudicial to the management

as appropriate Government has come to the conclusion

that seniority list has been wrongly maintained. The dispute

raised is highly belated. Seniority cannot be challenged

after long lapse of time. The particulars of beneficiaries are

not given. Reference is not tenable. Union filed statement

of claim referring to the documents. However any of the

documents are not supplied to management as per the ID

Rules 1957. The application for better particulars was filed

by the management. Union refused to supply those

particulars. In Para 5 of the statement of claim, it is alleged

that juniors are given promotion as Security Guard,

Hawaldar in Basic Pay Rs.1826-2666. Since Junior persons

are not impleaded as party, the promotions are covered by

cadre scheme for security guard, Arm Guards on

recommendation of DPC. The DPC considered final seniority

list. The promotions are recommended on merit and

seniority list. The cut out or datum lies was not discussed

by the management with Union Representative prior to the

DPC taking decision. It is managerial function. The

promotions to eligible persons were given on

recommendations of DPC. 2^nd party denies that seniority

list was prepared without considering objections of the

workers. It also denies that claimants raised any objection

to the seniority list when the objections were called. It is

reiterated that any objections were not submitted to the

provisional seniority list of final seniority list. The

promotions of security guard were given on

recommendation of DPC. All adverse contentions of Union

are denied.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

Chairman cum Managing

Director, SECL, Seepat road,

Bilaspur (MP) in not promoting

some security personnel from

Sr. Security Guard/Arm guard

T&S Grade “F” to Head Security

guard/ Hawaldar T&S Grade “E”

due to wrongly maintained

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

803

seniority list is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workmen are not

workmen is entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

5. Union has raised present dispute. The terms of

reference pertains to denial of promotion to some security

personnel from Sr. Security Guard/Arm guard T&S Grade

“F” to Head Security guard/ Hawaldar T&S Grade “E” due

to wrongly maintained seniority list. The order of promotion

is produced at Exhibit W-2. Said document is admitted by

2^nd party. Ist party Union not adduced any evidence. The

evidence of Ist party Union was closed on 5-2-2015.

6. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri

Sanjiv Kumar Jha supporting contentions of 2^nd party

management in the Written Statement. The documents

Exhibit M-1 to M-7 are admitted in evidence from witness

of the management. Ist party remained absent and failed to

cross-examine management’s witness. Management’s

witness has reiterated that provisional seniority list was

displayed at notice board. The final seniority list was also

displayed. Promotions were given on recommendation of

DPC considering the seniority list. Said evidence remained

unchallenged. Cadre Scheme is produced at Exhibit M-1.

Provisional seniority list is produced at Exhibit M-2. Order

of promotion is produced at Exhibit M-4 shows that

promotions were given to the employees on

recommendation of DPC. Exhibit M-5 is office order issued.

As Ist party Union has failed to participate in reference

and adduce evidence in support of the claim under

reference, action of management cannot be said illegal. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2)Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 325.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,QlhvkbZ ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV

okn la[;k 3@2015 ¼lanHkZ la[;k 138@97½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk

Fkk A

[la- ,y&22012/170/1996 &vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II ½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 325.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Complaint No. 3/

2015 (Arising out of Ref. 138/97) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of FCI, and their workman, received by the

Central Government on 10/02/2016.

[No. L-22012/170/1996 - IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a Complaint u/s 33(a)

of I.D. Act, 1947

COMPLAINT NO. 3/2015

(Arising out of Ref.No.138/97)

Ministry Order No. 22012/170/96-IR(C-II)

Vijayendra Kumar, Ex-Manager (D)

Food Corporation of India

Area Office, Exhibition Road Patna, Presently

Residing at House No. 4, Road No.5

Srikrishna Nagar, Patna –1

—Complainant

Vrs

Executive Director, East Zone

Food Corporation of India

10-A, Middleton Row

Kolkata - 71

—Opposite party

Present :-Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For complainant

: Sri Vijayendra Kumar

For opposite party

: Sri D K Sethi, AGM, RO, FCI,

Bhubneshwar

Industry :- Food Dated. 22/01/ 2016

AWARD

2. This case is filed by the complainant under section

33A of the I. D. Act against his penalty of reduction of rank

from Manager (D) to AG I (D) on initial pay scale by the

Opp. Party. During pendency of Complaint case no. 2/14

as well as Ref no 138 of 1997 was pending before this

Tribunal and the complainants concerned was connected

to the said dispute as such it was mandatory on the part of

the Opp. Party to take prior permission from this Tribunal

804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as per Sec 33(1) of the ID Act 1947 before changing the

condition of service but the Opp. party has not taken prior

permission, therefore, the order of penalty is illegal &

unjustified.

3. It is submitted by the applicant that, beside the

above it was also submitted that a charge sheet was issued

on 30.01.2014 and an enquiry officer was appointed but the

complainant was not given opportunity to examine defence

witnesses and was also denied to file defence documents

and the disciplinary authority after receipt of the inquiry

report passed the order of penalty of reduction to the post

of AG I (D) in the initial scale of pay even without providing

copy of the IO report and thus the complainant was not

given any opportunity to represent over the finding of IO

and principle of natural justice was grossly violated.

4. It is further submitted that the order of the penalty

has been given retrospective effect, which is also illegal.

The fairness of enquiry was also challenged by the

complainant and the Opp. party was directed to adduce

evidence to justify the fairness & propriety of the domestic

enquiry. Accordingly the Opp. party with a view to justify

the fairness of the enquiry has examined inquiry officer

who has admitted that the complainant was not allowed to

examine defence witness and his prayer for production of

defence document was also refused. He has further said

that the regular enquiry was fixed on 9.01.2015 and the

same was concluded on the same day. After hearing both

the parties, the enquiry was held unfair & improper and

again Opp. party was given an opportunity to lead

additional evidence to justify the charges against the

complainant. Three witnesses were again examined by the

Opp. party but they were of a formal nature and failed to

support the charges and said nothing about the subject

matter of charges, enquiry & punishment.

5. It is also submitted by the applicant that, on the

other hand four DWs were examined on behalf of the

complainant in support of his case and they have said

specifically and consistently that the complainant was not

actually relieved from Bihar Sharif to Bhubneshwar on

25.08.2012 and the charges against him is not correct. DW

has further said that the complainant was paid salary for

the month of Sep’12 from Patna as such question of his

relieving on 25.08.2012 does not arise. He has further said

that the name of the complainant was available in the payroll

of Patna up to 31.01.2014 till the date of his retirement and

his name was transferred to Orissa region only on 31.01.2014

at 18.42.00 PM i.e. after retirement of the complainant as

such allegation about wilful disobedience & non joining at

Bhubaneshwar is not correct rather it is false. DW has

further said that complainant was not under the control of

GM Odisha and as such the charge sheet dated 30.01.2014

is illegal and any inquiry on the basis of it is also illegal.

They have further said that the in case of complainant the

provision laid down in chapter 16 of FCI Storage Manual

was not complied as such he was not relived from DO

Patna mere on the ground of service of transfer order. There

is no cross examination by the Opp.Party on these points.

6. It is further submitted by the applicant , that Exhibit-

W- 1 to W- 14 are filed by the complainant in support of his

case and exhibited with the consent of the Opp. Party. The

Opp. Party has not denied any of the statement made in the

complaint petition of the complainant. Opp. Party has not

filed any WS or any rejoinder to WS of the complaint. The

sole defence of the Opp. Party is that the order of transfer

was served to the complainant on 27.08.2012, therefore, he

stood relieved but the same is against the provision of FCI

storage manual as no substitute was posted to take charge

from him which is evident from the transfer order itself.

This fact is also admitted that the complainant was a depot

in charge of FCI at Bihar Sharif and was holding charge of

food grains of several cores beside records.

7. From the pleading, documents & evidence it is

crystal clear that the complainant was not relieved from his

place of posting at Bihar Sharif to Odisha on 25.08.2012 as

no substitute was posted there to take charge from him

and he was continuing there till the date of his retirement

as per payroll Ext- w-11, therefore, the charges levelled

against the complainant about wilful disobedience of

transfer order is base less & false and he was punished

with a view to victimize him for his trade union activities.

8. The Opp. Party has failed to prove the charges

either on the basis of evidence or documents. The charges

are falsified from the fact that he was paid his salary for the

month of Sep’12 from Patna and his name was continuing

in the pay roll of Patna till the date of his retirement i.e.

31.01.2014 vide Ext- w-10 series & w-11 and his place of

posting is also shown at Patna in zonal office agenda dated

07.01.2014, therefore, he shall be paid his salary and

allowances till his retirement along with post-retirement

benefits from Patna office of FCI as his pay till retirement

has already been drawn at Patna.

9. The domestic enquiry was also an eye wash and

the IO has conducted the enquiry as per dictate of the

Opp. Party and the Opp.Party was predetermined to any

how punish the complainant even in violation of statutory

provision & rules of the enquiry. As per regulation 60 A(1)

of FCI Staff Regulation 1971" Any disciplinary proceeding

of retired employee has to be concluded by the authority

who has initiated the proceeding. In this case the

proceeding was initiated by GM Bhubneshwar and IO was

appointed by him and he was the authority to finalize the

proceeding as per regulation 60 A (1) of FCI staff regulation

1971 if the same is validly initiated. But surprisingly the IO

has submitted the report to the Opp. Party who was not

competent to decide the same and this goes to show that

how Opp. Party was deeply interested and how the IO has

acted in gross violation of statutory rule of inquiry and

acted as per dictate of the Opp. party and submitted report

which is against the evidence & documents on record. The

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

805

conduct of the inquiry officer is highly deplorable and his

entire action was unjust & improper.

10. The complainant has referred a judgement of

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 page 1969,

State Bank of Patiala and Others Vrs S.K. Sharma. The

relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced herein

under:- “Complaint of violation of procedural provision

should be examined from the point of view of prejudice,

viz. whether such violation has prejudice of delinquent

officer/employee in defending himself properly and

effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced,

appropriate order have to made to repair and remedy the

prejudicate, including setting aside the inquiry or order of

punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted

there from, it is obvious no interference is called for. In this

connection it may be remembered that there may be certain

procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character

whose violation by itself proof of prejudice. The Court

may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases. As

explained in the body of judgement, take a case where

there is a provision expressly providing that after the

evidence of the employer is over the employee shall be

given an opportunity to lead defence in his evidence, and

in a given case the enquiry officer does not give that

opportunity in spite of the delinquent officer/employee

asking for it. The prejudice is self-evident. No proof of

prejudice as such need be call for in such a case.

11. In another judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High

Court reported in BLJR 1981 page 309 has also held in para

7 which is reproduced as under:-

“ The position of delinquent staff being a kin to that

of accused in a criminal trial, it is incumbent on the

department concerned to allow an opportunity to

the delinquent officer or staff to adduce evidence

after the prosecution witness is over. If no such

opportunity is allowed it will clearly be an infraction

of the rule of natural justice causing serious prejudice

to the delinquent staff. Rules of natural justice

demanded that a clear opportunity should have been

provided to the delinquent to adduce evidence by

defence if desired. In the fact and the circumstance

of this case the denial of such opportunity to the

petitioner was an action in utter violation in the rules

of natural justice introducing serious infirmity in the

impugned order rendering illegal”

12. As per Apex court judgement the copy of inquiry

report has to be given to the delinquent before order of

penalty and delinquent has right to make representation

over the IO report but copy of the inquiry report was not

given and thus the complainant was denied this opportunity

which is in violation of principle of natural justice. However

the copy of the IO report was made available as per order

of this Tribunal during hearing of this case but the findings

mentioned in the report of the IO is against the evidence

given by him and also against the documents on record

and is perverse.

13.The serious prejudice was caused to the workman

by not providing the report of the IO. Ext. w-7 is the order

of punishment passed by the Opp. Party on 29.01.2015

where under penalty of reduction to the lower grade in

minimum pay scale was awarded against the complainant

but the order was given retrospective effect w.e.f 31.01.2014

i.e. the date of retirement of the complainant which itself is

illegal and unjustified and is not sustainable in the eye of

law as any order affecting the right and privileges of an

employee shall not be given retrospective effect. Therefore,

the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and

malafide. Beside the above in view of the Hon’ble Apex

Court judgement reported in AIR 2002 SC page 643 (1) it

was mandatory for the Opp. Party to take prior permission

from this Tribunal before passing the order of penalty dated

29.1.2015 but the Opp. Party has failed to do so therefore,

the order of penalty becomes ineffective from the date it

was issued on this ground alone.

14. In this case vide order dated 09.06.2015 the inquiry

has already been held unfair & improper and Opp. Party

has completely failed to lead any evidence to justify the

charges against the complainant and the complainant has

successfully disown the charges by documents and

evidence. Therefore, entire enquiry as well as punishment

dated 29.01.2015 is held illegal & unjustified and he is

restored to his original post & pay. Further the complainant

is entitle to get his salary and allowances from October

2012 to 31.01.2014 alongwith all pecuniary benefits of

promotion and post retirement benefit of Manager. If the

award is not implemented within two months from the date

of publication of the award in the official Gazette of India,

the amount will carry simple interest of 6% P.A.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 326.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

uo;qok bathfu;fjax daiuh ,aM vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] iVuk ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ Case No. 01 (C) of 2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09/02/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025/03/2016&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2016

S.O. 326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Case No. 01

806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the M/s

Navyuva Engineering company and others and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 09/02/2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016 - IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL, PATNA

I.D. Case No.:- 01 (C) of 2015

Between The management of (1) Project Manager, M/S

Navyuva Engineering Company Act working as petty/

construction contractor in the project of N.T.P.C, Barh

(Patna), (2) N.T.P.C through its General Manager, Barh, (3)

H.R. Manager, N.T.P.C, Barh and their workmen (1) Sri Sanjay

Kumar Pandey, S/O- Sri Ramchandra Pandey, resident of

Kajmunni Chak, Baillypur (Ward No.- 20), P.O & P.S- Barh,

Dist.- Patna, (2) Binod Sah, (3) Ravi mandel, (4) Sanjeev

Kumar Paswan, (5) Anil Kumar @ Anil Ram, (6) Rajesh

Kuamr @ Rajesh Sah, (7) Ravi Kumar, (8) Niranjan Kumar,

(9) Prabhakar Singh.

For the management

: Sri Ritesh Kumar, Advocate

(O.P No.-1)

: Sri Prahalad Prasad, Deputy

Manager (HR), NTPC, (O.P.

No.- 2 & 3 )

For the workman

: Sri

Nivas

Madhuvan,

Advocate.

: Sri Himanshu Kumar,

Advocate.

Present

: Bipin Dutta Pathak, Presiding

Officer, Industrial Tribunal,

Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dated the 29^th January, 2016

1. The present case has been filed on behalf of the

workmen with a prayer for direct the concerned respondents

to pay all the statute dues prayed for in paragraph no.-1 of

the application.

2. In para-1 reply claimed has been stated for a

direction to reinstate the services of applicants at their

respective work as usual with full back wages and other

consequential benefits. Other claim also been made.

3. Matter was raised before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Maurya Lok Patna. Lastly on

21.01.2015 Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) sent

letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment,

Govt. of India, New Delhi regarding failure of conciliation.

4. N.T.P.C ( O.P No.- 2 & 3 ) appeared in this case

through Sri Prahalad Prasad, Dy. Manager, HR, and

respondent, Navyuva Engineering Company Ltd. appeared

through Mr. S.S. Roy-Manager Liaison.

5. On 10^th August, 2015 time petition has been filed

on behalf of the respondent no.-1 stating that in this matter

Reference Case No.- 14, 15 of 2015 and other analogus

cases are pending for adjudication before the tribunal at

Dhanbad.

6. A petition has been filed on behalf of the

respondent no.-2 & 3 on 05.11.2015 that NTPC was have

no role neither in engagement or termination by M/S

Navyuva Engineering Company Ltd. NTPC is only proforma

respondent to the dispute and has no role whatsoever in

this matter.

7. Management ( O.P No.-1 ) has filed preliminary

objection stating therein that in respect of applicant no.-5

Anil Kumar, the appropriate government is the State

Government and not the Central Government. Other

statement has also been made and prayer has been made

to decide preliminary objection.

8. A photo stat of the reference sent to Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.-2,

Dhanbad has also been filed from which it appears that

Reference Case has been sent to Dhanbad to adjudicate

“Whether the action of the management of M/S Navayuga

Engineering Co. Ltd to terminate the service of the workman

Shri Binod Sah without his outstanding dues of wages,

Leave Encashment and terminal benefits was correct? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled for?” Other

notification in respect of other workmen has also been

filed. On 05.11.2015 a petition has been filed, duly signed

by nine (9) workman, who has filed case in this tribunal and

in the same matter case of eight (8) workmen is pending

before CGIT No.-2, Dhanbad. Prayer has been made to

close this case and all the eight (8) workmen are withdrawing

there case.

9. All the nine applicants appeared in this tribunal

for there evidence. All the workman stated that the case

which has been filed here, in the same matter, case is

pending before CGIT No.-2 Dhanbad and all the eight (8)

workmen are withdrawing their case and wanting to

withdraw the case. Though all the nine workmen who are

petitioner here in, have stated that all the eight workmen

are withdrawing there case. W.W-3 Anil Kumar has stated

that he will separately raise his claim before Govt. of Bihar

and he does not want to contest this case. He will file

separate case so he wants to withdraw the case. Cross-

examination of all the witnesses has been declined by the

management.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

807

10. Heard all the parties and perused the record.

11. Claim has been made only against the M/S

Navyuva Engineering Company Ltd. who is petty/

constractor in the project of NTPC Barh. As such NTPC,

Barh is only a proforma respondent. Since all the workmen

have not raised there claim in there respective evidences

and all the workmen wants to withdraw there case. No

dispute has been raised in the evidences of the workmen.

AWARD

12. Since there is no claim and evidence in respect of

the claim made by the petitioners. So award is hereby

passed as “No Dispute Award”. No dispute award is

passed accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK , Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 327.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj bf.M;k

fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] ,.kkZdwye ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 38@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

10@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&11012/09/2014 &vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ernakulam (Ref. No. 38 of 2014) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Air India Ltd. and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

10.02.2016.

[No. L-11012/09/2014-IR(CM-I)]

M.K.SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Friday the 29^th day of January, 2016/9^th Magha, 1937)

ID 38/2014

Union :

The General Secretary, Airlines Casual Employees

Association,II/696, Near Pynadath Building,Kariyad,

Angamaly,COCHIN - 683589

By Adv. Shri T.C. Krishna

Managements :

1. The General Manager, Air India Ltd., Airlines House,

Meenamakkam, CHENNAI -

By M/s. Menon & Pai

2. The Station Master, Air India,

Cochin International Airport, Cochin.

This case coming up for final hearing on 28.01.2016

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 29.01.2016 passed

the following:

A W A R D

This is a matter referred by the Central Government

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

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

2. The dispute referred for adjudication before this

tribunal is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Air India

in not increasing the wages of the casual labourers

in Cochin International Airport as demanded by the

Union is justified? To what relief the concerned

workmen/Union is entitled to?”

3. After the receipt of the reference Order No.L-

11012/09/2014-IR(CM-I) dated 15.05.2014 issued by the

Ministry of Labour, Government of India, summons was

issued to the union and management Nos.1 and 2 to appear

and produce all documents and submit pleadings in

support of their respective contentions. On receipt of the

summons the union and the 1^st management entered

appearance through counsels. Management No.2 remained

absent. Hence management No.2 was called absent and

set ex-parte.

4. The matter was posted for claim statement by the

union. On 27.01.2016, the union filed a memo which reads

as follows:

“1. The issue referred for adjudication in the above

industrial dispute is with regard to the justifiability

of the action of the management of Air India in not

increasing the wages of the casual labourers in

Cochin International Airport as demanded by the

Union.

2. Union had on 10/6/2004, submitted a charter of

demand before the management in which the issue

with regard to the increase of wages of the casual

were also included. As the management refused to

accept the demands of the Union, the issue was

referred to this Honourable Court. By an award

808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 4/12/2008 in ID No.69/2006 this Honourable

Court rejected all the main claims in the charter of

demands submitted by the Union. Union challenged

the said award before the Honourable High Court

of Kerala in WP(C) No.12008/09. By judgment dated

9/10/2014 the award was set aside and the matter

has been remanded for fresh consideration. A copy

of the judgment is yet to be received.

3. The issue with regard to the increase of wages of

the casual workers of Air India is one of the issues

in ID 69/2006. In the circumstance, the above

industrial dispute may be closed reserving the right

of the Union to agitate the issues referred in ID 69/

2006".

5. Notice of this memo was given to the counsel for

management No.1. Heard both sides.

6. From the memo dated 27.01.2016 filed by the union

it is seen that the dispute to be decided as per this reference

is the same along with other issues to be decided in ID

No.69/2006. The union has stated that as per the decision

in WP(C) No.12008/2009 dated 09.10.2014 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam ID 69/2006 is

remanded to this tribunal for adjudication afresh. Hence

the union has requested to close this reference reserving

their right to agitate the issues in ID 69/2006.

7. In view of the request made by the union as per

the memo dated 27.01.2016, this ID is closed reserving the

right of the parties to agitate the dispute referred in ID 69/

2006, in accordance with the decision in WP(C) No.12008/

2009 dated 09.10.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala, Ernakulam.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the

29^th day of January, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 328.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua0 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 03/2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10/02/2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/53/2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 328.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 03 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

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

was received by the Central Government on 10.02.2016.

[No. L-20012/53/2011-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 03 OF 2012

PARTIES :

The Jt. General Secretary,

Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Bengal Hotel, 2, Md. Hussain Street (PiperGali)

PO: Asansol, Distt: Burdwan, (W.B.)

Vs.

The General Manager,

E.J. Area of M/s BCCL, PO: Bhowra,

Distt: Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/53/2011-IR(CM-I) dt.20.12.2011

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the : Mr.N.M.Kumar, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the : Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28^th Dec. 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

53/2011-IR(CM-I) dt. 20.12.2011.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

809

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Bhowra

(S) Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Raj Kumr Bhuia

from the services of the Company vide order dated

28.09.2004 is justified? To what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to ?

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/53/2011-IR

(CM-I) dt.20.12.2011 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 03 of 2012 was registered on

04.01,2012 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.

Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

2. The substituted applicant is the widow of the

deceased, dismissed workman Late Raj Kumar Bhuia. Since

the deceased workman died, his widow has no claim got.

But taking her condition, it is ordered to give her one time-

compensation of Rs.40, 000/- , since she is the widow of

the deceased ex-workman.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 329.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua0 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 04/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10/02/2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/126/2012 &vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 04 of 2013) 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 10.02.2016.

[No. L-20012/126/2012-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO 04 OF 2013

PARTIES :

The Joint Secretary, (C)

Rastriya Mazdoor Union,

Head Office: Chiragora, Dhanbad.

Vs.

The General Manager

Kustore Area of BCCL

P.O. Kustore, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/126/2012-IR(CM-I) dt.27.12.2012

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the : Mr.M.N.Rewani , Ld Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the : Mr.D.K.Verma , Ld.Advocate

Management

State: Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21^st Dec., 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/

126/2012-IR (CM-I) dt. 27.12.2012.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the Management of

Simlabahal Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri

Raj Kumar Paswan, Ex-P/R, M/Loader from the

services of the Company vide order dated 28.09.2001

is legal and justified? To what relief is the concerned

workman entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/126/2012-IR

(CM-I) dt. 27.12.2012 of the above mentioned reference

from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 04 of 2013 was registered on

15.01.2013 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.

Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

2. The workman concerned Sri Raj Kumar Paswan a

permanent employee in Simlabahal Colliery of M/s BCCL.

This case also relates to dismissal of the workman on the

ground of absentism. Nothing adverse report is registered

against the workman and there is nothing unusual on the

part of the workman to resort to prolonged leave on

compelling situation in maximum cases in vague or not in

explicit manner just because to evade work in the Coal

Mine, that is often hazardous and sometimes proved risky.

Therefore in the interest of natural justice, it is felt that the

workman be provided to prove his worthiness. Therefore

the workman concerned be taken as a fresh employee in

the lowest Grade but without back wages whatsoever, and

he be kept under probation for two years treating as fresher.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 330.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua0 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 34/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10/02/2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/103/2012 &vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 34 of 2013) 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 10.02.2016.

[No. L-20012/103/2012-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 34 OF 2013

PARTIES :

The Gen. Secretary,

Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat,

Chhatabad No.5, PO: Katras,

Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

Vs.

The General Manager

Govindpur Area of BCCL,

P.O. Sonardih, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/103/2012-IR(CM-I) dt. 08.02.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr.B.B.Pandey, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. D. K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st Dec., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

103/2012-IR (CM-I) dt. 08.02.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of New

Akash Kinari Colliery under Govindpur Area of M/s

BCCL in dismissing Sri Chaita Kisku, Ex-General

Mazdoor from the services of the Company from

09.06,1998 is fair and justified? To what relief is the

concerned workman entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/103/2012-IR

(CM-I) dt. 08.02.2013 of the above mentioned reference

from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 34 of 2013 was registered on

01.03.2013 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.

Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

2. The Reference case is related to the workman

named Sri Chaita Kisku, Ex. Gen. Mazdoor, whose service

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

811

was dismissed of the Colliery absentism behind his

dismissal as ground. During the period of leave, the

departmental enquiry was constituted but the same was

remained inconclusive just because copy of the

proceedings was not provided to the workman individually,

as alleged by the workman. Allegations and counter

allegations by both the parties exist in forms of written

statement and W.S. cum rejoinder respectively.

Coal Mines jobs are undeniably tougher and arduous

in nature particularly in the underground. And the general

conception has always negative as long span of working

at a stretch will definitely tell upon the health and the

workmen are always apprehensive of the safety mechanism,

so they left no stone unturned in efforts to proceed on

leave on the pretext of ground or other. So in the interest of

the natural justice and to make it more reasonable, there

will not be unfair and unjust if the workman is offered one

more opportunity to reform himself by reinstating him in

the service as a fresher in the lowest grade but without

back wages whatsoever, for a probation for two years

treating from the date, he joins. Accordingly the workman

be provided one more opportunity to join the duty as a

fresher in the lowest Grade but without back wages with

probation rolling up to two years.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 331.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua0 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 41/2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10/02/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012/30/2015 &vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 41 of 2015) 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 10.02.2016.

[No. L-20012/30/2015-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 41 OF 2015

PARTIES :

The Central Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

PO: Dugda Coal Washery, Bokaro

Vs.

The General Manager

Western Jharia Area of M/s BCCL

P.O. Moonidih, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/30/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 09.06.2015

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the : Mr.D.Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the : Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st December, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

30/2015-IR (CM-I) dt. 09.06.2015.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Bhatdih

Colliery under WJA Moonidih of M/s BCCL in

dismissing Sri Shiv Lal Mahato, M/Loader from the

services vide office order dated 27/29.10.0004 is fair

and justified? To what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to ?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/30/2015-IR

(CM-I) dt. 09.06.2015. of the above mentioned reference

from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 41 of 2015 was registered on

29.06.2015 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.

Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

2. The workman concerned Sri Shiv Lal Mahato, an

permanent employee as M/Loader in Bhatdih Colliery with

unblemished track record of service, but. due to illness and

suffering from it, he started absenting, and the

Management dismissed him from his service after

completing necessary formalities .The working conditions

particularly in the Coal Mines exist to some extant hazardous

and in underground Mines, sometimes, proved fatal

despite proper safety mechanism in place and their

improvement from time to time. Mostly workmen, recruited

much earlier are mostly illiterate and do not keep themselves

abreast of the rules and regulations, agreements, bye-laws

of the Coal Mines. The punishment imposed as dismissal

citing the absentism ground does not match proportionate

to misconduct, the workman committed and that will

definitely put the workman in trouble. Therefore in the

interest of natural justice, it is of the view that one more

chance could rekindle hopes to the workman to prove his

worthiness .Therefore The workman concerned be taken

as a fresh employee in the lowest grade but without back

wages whatsoever; and he be kept under probation for

two years treating as fresher.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 332.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 100@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10&02&2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/134/2012 &vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 100 of 2013) 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 10.02.2016.

[No. L-20012/134/2012-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 100 OF 2013

PARTIES :

The Jt. General Secretary,

Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat,

Chhatabad No.5, P.O. Katras, Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

Govindpur Area of M/s BCCL.

PO: Sonardih, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/134/2012-IR(CM-I) dt.01.03.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the : Mr. B.B.Pandey, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the : Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand Industry

: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28^th December, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/134/2012-IR(CM-I) dt.01.03.2013

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the Management of New

Akash Kinari Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing

Sri Amrit Beldar, PR Trammer from the services of

the company vide order letter dated 05.04.2005 is

fair and justified? To what relief is the concerned

workman entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/134/2012-IR

(CM-I) dt.01.03.2013 of the above mentioned reference

from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 100 of 2013 was registered on

09.04.2013 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

813

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said

order, notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the

parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.

Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

2. Short point to be decided in this reference is,

whether the workman, who has been dismissed on the

ground of absentism, is to be reinstated along with other

ancillary reliefs. Documents of the Management, have been

marked as exhibits. The enquiry held fair and proper. No

oral evidence adduced from either side. It is submitted by

the workman that while he was under treatment, the

Management dismissed the workman on the ground of

absentism. But the Management justified its action of

dismissal. But it is seen, that the workman was treated in

BCCL Hospital during his absence on duty.

Therefore it is ordered to take the workman as fresh

employee, in the category where he was working. It is

submitted that the workman was previously working as

Cat. IV wokman.If the workman was in Cat. IV, he be allowed

to work in the same Category as fresh employee.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 333.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 119/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10/02/2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/17/2013 &vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016

S.O. 333.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 119 of 2013) 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

10.02.2016.

[No. L-20012/17/2013-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 119 OF 2013

PARTIES :

The Secretary,

Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchyat,

Post Box No. 59, PO: Jharia, Dhanbad.

Vs.

The General Manager

Kustore Area of BCCL

P.O. Jharia, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/17/2013-IR(CM-I) dt. 20.05.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: : Mr.S.C.Gaur, Ld.Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr.U.N.Lal Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st December, 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/

17/2013-IR (CM-I) dt. 20.05.2013.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of

Hyrrilladih Colliery of BCCL in dismissing Sri Rajesh

Kumar, Ex-M/Loader from the services of the

Company vide order dated 1/4.08.2007 is fair and

justified? To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/17/2013-IR

(CM-I) dt. 20.05.2013 of the above mentioned reference

from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 119 of 2013 was registered on

12.06.2013 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.

Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

2. This is the Reference Case of dismissal of the

workman of Shri Rajesh Kumar as a Piece Rated M/Loader

of M/s BCCL, sponsored by the Union, Koyla Ispat

Mazdoor Panchyat. So long as adverse report, the workman

had been all along unblemished service track record and

was hard working and honest and devoted to his duty, as

stated in W.S. The workman incidentally went on long

leave probably one and half month or so, and the

Management of Hyrrilladih Colliery, as alleged, without

going into the bottom of the fact inflicted harsher and major

penalty of dismissal from the service. However. it cannot

be ruled out of the fact about the workman turning habitual

absentee in latter stage. During hearing the Tribunal tried

to go to bottom of the fact that this is not the new case of

the nature as being explained here, there are countless

instances of such cases arisen out of little knowledge of

workmen about rules, agreements, and by laws, and of

their service conditions, that too are being regulated and

governed. Though the Management in a very calculative

move and cautiously went ahead in dismissing the workman

under the framework of the rules /agreement etc.

However allegations and counter allegations by both

the parties exist in form of written statement and W.S. cum

rejoinder respectively. General perception amongst the

workers always tends to proceed on leave in view of nature

of the job which calls for more physical labour and to work

in unhygienic atmosphere not at all conducive for health.

The punishment of major penalty in form of dismissal in no

way stands logic and proportionate to the misconduct

charge committed by the workman , reported to have been

proved .So in the interest of the natural justice and to take

it for more pragmatic approach towards the issue ,there will

not be unfair and unjust if the workman is offered one more

opportunity to reform himself by reinstating him in the

service as a fresher in the lowest grade but without back

wages whatsoever, for a probation for two years treating

from the date ,he joins. Accordingly it is being ordered that

the workman be provided one more opportunity to join the

duty as a fresher in the lowest grade without back wages

with probation extending up to two years.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 334.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj rsy ,oa

izkÑfrd xSl fuxe- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 640/2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16/02/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20040/50/1995 &vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2016

S.O. 334.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad (Ref. No. 640 of 2004) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 16.02.2016.

[No. L-20040/50/1995-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^th December, 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No-640/2004

Reference: (ITC) No-12/1996

The Officer on Special Duty (Projects),

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,

Ankleshwar Gandhar Project,

Ankleshwar

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Smt. Rafatbanu G. Shaikh,

C/o. Andur Rauf G. Kapadia,

Mullawad,

Ankleshwar

...Second Party

For the First Party

: C.S. Naidu, Associates

For the Second Party

: Sh. Mohd. Irfan

A. Sujniwala, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-20040/50/95-

IR(Coal-I) dated 23.08.1996 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

815

SCHEDULE

“Whether the contention of Smt. Rafatbanu G. Shaikh

that she was an employee of ONGC (Now ONGC Ltd.)

Ankleshwar and her services were illegally terminated by

the management w.e.f. 01.05.1991 is justified? If so, to what

relief is Smt. Rafatbanu G. Shaikh entitled?”

2. This reference dates back to 23.08.1996. Second

party filed his statement of claim(Ext.4) and first party also

filed written statement (Ext.20). Thereafter the reference

was fixed for evidence for the second party but despite

giving dozens of opportunities to the second party to lead

evidence but second party did not lead evidence which

indicates that second party has no inclination or

willingness to lead in the reference. First party has also not

responding. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss

the reference in default of the workman (second party).

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 335.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj

bf.M;k fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 570/2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16/02/2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&11012/05/2002 &vkbZ vkj ¼lh-I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2016

S.O. 335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad (Ref. No. 570 of 2004) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Air India Ltd. & Others and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 16.02.2016.

[No. L-11012/05/2002-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 10^th December, 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No-570/2004

Reference:(ITC) No. 44/2003

The Director,

Air India, Ahmedabad

Airport, Ahmedabad

M/s Philipson Corporation,

303/220, Shiv Shakti Nagar,

Ahmedabad

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen,

Through The working President,

Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat,

“Shram Shakti”, P.B. No. 77,

Mirzapur Road, Opp. Prabhat Press,

Ahmedabad

...Second Party

For the First Party

: Sh. K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-11012/5/2002-

IR(C-I) dated 19.08.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the termination of service of Shri Prakash

Vaghela, Shri Vijaybhai Goklani, Shri Pankajbhai

Chauhan and Shri Bharat Solanki by the management

of Air India and/ or M/s. Philipson Corporation is

legal and justified? If so, to what, relief are the

concerned workman entitled?”

2. This reference dates back to 19.08.2003 and was

registered on 19.09.2003. Second party filed the Statement

of claim (Ext.4) and first party filed the written statement

(Ext 7) on 30.03.2005. Since then neither of the parties have

been appearing to lead the evidence.

3. Thus, in the circumstances of the case when

neither of the parties have been appearing in such an old

reference. Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the

reference in default of the parties.

Reference is dismissed in default of the parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 336.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsaUnzh;

fo|ky; laxBu] xka/khuxj ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lhthvkbZVh, la- 996/2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17/02/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012/199/94&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2016

S.O. 336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Reference

(CGITA)No.996/2004) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sangathan, Gandhinagar and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

17/02/2016.

[No. L-42012/199/94-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-996/2004

Reference: (ITC) No – 9/1996

The Asst. Commissioner,

Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan,

Sector No. 30,

Gandhinagar

The Principal,

Kendriya Vidhyalaya (ONGC),

Mehsana-385002

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. B.M. Manilal,

Amtol Darwaja, Bhagiwas,

Vadnagar, Post Kerala, Pin-384355

Dist Mehsana (N.G.)- 384355

...Second Party

For the First Party

: Sh. Mukeshbhai R. Prajapati,

Advocate

For the Second Party:

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour , New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 42012/199/94-

IR(DU) dated 27.12.1995 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of Assistant Commissioner,

Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan, Gandhinagar and

the Principal, Kendriya Vidhyalaya, Mehsana (NG)

in terminating the services of Shri Manilal M. Bhangi,

Sweeper is justified? If not, to that relief the workman

is entitled?”

2. This reference dates back to 27.12.1995. Second

party submitted his statement of claim on 12.08.1996 and

first party submitted written statement on 29.09.1997 since

then the second party has not been leading evidence. The

advocate Sh. Mukeshbhai R. Prajapati has been

representing first party but second party is absent. Thus,

it appears that second party is not interested in the

proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no

option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second

party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2016

dk- vk- 337.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM] tks/kiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj

muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 15/2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 28/01/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011/01/2015&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2016

S.O. 337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I. D No.15/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour

Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jodhpur

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 28/01/2016.

[No. L-40011/01/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

817

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 15/2015

Reference No.L-40011/01/2015-IR(DU)

dated: 16.2.2015

Shri Pukhraj Sain

S/o Shri Mohan Kishan Sain

C/o Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra

Pradhan Karyalaya-Surat Singh Ji Ki Kothi,

Sojti Gate ke bahar

Jodhpur-342008.

V/s

The Divisional Engineer (Admin)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Deptt. Of Telecom, GMTD Office,

Subhash Nagar, Pal Road,

Jodhpur -342008.

The Assistant General Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Deptt. of Telecom

Subhashnagar, Pal Road,

Jodhpur -342008.

AWARD

17.12.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub section 1 and 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

ÞD;k izca/ku lgk;d egkizca/kd] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

fyfeVsM+] lqHkk"kuxj] iky jksM+] tks/kiqj ¼jkt0½ o 2&

laHkkxh; vfHk;ark ¼iz'kklfud½] th,eVhMh dk;kZy;] Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM+] lqHkk"kuxj] iky jksM+]

tks/kiqj ¼jkt0½ 3& eq[; egkizca/kd] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

fyfeVsM+] eq[;ky;] t;iqj }kjk deZdkj Jh iq[kjkt

lSu iq= Jh eksgu fd'ku lSu dks fu;fer djus dh

dk;Zokgh cS|kfud ,oa U;k; laxr gS] ;fn ugh rks izkFkhZ

fdl jkgr dk vkSj dc ls ikus dk gdnkj gSa\Þ

2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order,

registered notices were issued to the parties as per the

order of the tribunal dated 2.3.2015 fixing 24.6.2015 for filing

statement of claim. On 24.6.2015 applicant appeared in

person & stated that he has not appointed his counsel,

hence, case be adjourned for filing statement of claim &

appointment of counsel. Sh. Altaph Hussain Rahi, Sub-

Divisional Engineer (HRD) appeared on behalf of opposite

party BSNL. 7.9.2015 was next date fixed for filing statement

of claim.

3. On 7.9.2015 applicant appeared in person but

statement of claim was not filed. Authority of Sh. A.N. Jain

on behalf of opposite party was filed who appeared on

behalf of opposite party. Sh. Altaph Hussain Rahi, Sub-

Divisional Engineer (HRD) also appeared from opposite

party. Case was adjourned for filing statement of claim on

30.11.2015 as requested by applicant. Applicant appeared

in person. None appeared on behalf of opposite party. An

application was moved by applicant for withdrawal of the

case. As the applicant was not identified by his

representative on the application because he had not

appointed his representative case was adjourned on the

request of applicant. Applicant alleged that he will appear

with his representative on next date fixed on 17.12.2015. It

was ordered on 30.11.2015 that applicant may file claim on

17.12.2015 if he intends to file statement of claim.

4. On 17.12.2015 applicant Sh. Pukhraj Sain appeared

in person. Sh. Altaph Hussain Rahi, Sub-Divisional Engineer

(HRD) appeared on behalf of opposite party BSNL who

filed an application to the effect that the department of

BSNL has no objection in withdrawal of the case by

applicant Sh. Pukhraj Sain. He has further alleged that there

has been no pressure of any kind from the department on

Sh. Pukhraj Sain to withdraw the case. Further, Sh. Altaph

Hussain Rahi, Sub-Divisional Engineer (HRD) has made

endorsement on the application of Sh. Pukhraj Sain to

withdraw the case which reads as under :-

“No objection if Pukhraj Sain withdraw his case in

his own behalf.” Sd/- Altaph Hussain Rahi, SDE

(Admn), O/o GMTD Jodhpur BSNL.

5. The case was reserved for passing award on the

basis of application of Sh. Pukhraj Sain for withdrawing

the case. The application of the applicant Sh. Pukhraj Sain

for withdrawing the case reads as under :-

dsaæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;

izdj.k la[;k 15@2015

izkFkhZ%&

cuke

vizkFkhZ%&

Jh iq[kjkt lSu

ch- ,l- ,u- ,y-

izkFkZuk i= okLrs lsok fu;efrdj.k fookn ekuuh; U;k;ky;

ls okil ysdj dsUnzh; l{ke U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djus ckcr~

818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 20, 2016/PHALGUNA 1, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ekU;oj]

1- ;g gS fd izkFkhZ ds }kjk ,d lsok fu;efrdj.k fookn

mBk;k x;k ftl lsok fu;efrdj.k fookn dks dsfUnz; Je

ea=ky; ds }kjk ekuuh; U;k;ky; gktk esa fuLrkj.k gsrq Hkstk

x;k FkkA

2- ;g gS fd izkFkhZ ds fy;s ekuuh; U;k;ky; gktk esa tks

t;iqj esa fLFkr gS izdj.k dks lqpk: :i ls lapkfyr djus esa

dfBukbZ mRiUu gks jgh gSA D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks orZeku esa 33 o"kZ

dh ukSdjh ds ckotwn Hkh izfrfnu 405@& :Ik;s dh nj ds

vuqlkj 30 fnu ds 12]150@& #Ik;s izkIr gks jgs gS rFkk mlesa

Hkh 10 izfr'kr foHkkx }kjk dVkSrh dj 1]250@& #Ik;s mlds

osru esa ls de fn;s tk jgs gS rFkk izkFkhZ izfr is'kh t;iqj vkdj

iSjoh djus esa yxHkx 1]200@& #Ik;s [kpZ gks jgsa gSA

3- ;g gS fd leku izd`fr ds lsok fu;efrdj.k fookn

igys mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj esa fuLrkfjr gks pqds gaSA ftlesa

deZpkjh dks mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k mijkUr vuqrks’k izkIr

gqvk gSA

4- ;g gS fd izkFkhZ Hkh leku izd`fr ds izdj.k ftlesa

vuqrks"k deZpkjh dks izkIr gqvk gS mlh vk/kkj ij jktLFkku mPp

U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ;k dsUnzh; iz'kklfud izkf/kdj.k esa 'kh?kz U;k;

izkIr djus gsrq izdj.k yxkuk U;k;fgr esa mfpr le>rk gS

rFkk ;g izdj.k orZeku U;k;ky; ls gVkdj jktLFkku mPp

U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ;k dsUnzh; iz'kklfud izkf/kdj.k esa nk;j

djuk fof/k vuqlkj o U;k;ksfpr le>rk gSA

vr% izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsok

fu;efrdj.k fookn ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls okil ysdj mijksDr

crk;s x;s l{ke U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djus gsrq btktr iznku

djsaA

izkFkhZ

gLrk{kj

iBuh; iq[kjkt lSu

No objection if Pukhraj Sain

Withdraw his case in his own behalf.

Altaf Husain Rahi

Signature Illegible

SDE (Admn)

% GMTD Jodhpur BSNL

6. Looking into content of the application of Sh.

Pukhraj Sain it is clear that he is not interested in filing

statement of claim & evidence for adjudication of the

reference as stated above. He is interested in withdrawing

the case before this tribunal based on reference under

adjudication & presenting the matter for adjudication

before the CAT or Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at

Jodhpur. Accordingly, the application of the applicant is

allowed & case of the applicant is dismissed as withdrawn.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

7. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 338.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chbZ,y

vksiVªkWfud nsohdsl fyfeVsM] iq.ks ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;-2]

eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh 2/83 of 2014) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17/02/2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011/10/2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2016

S.O. 338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Reference

No.CGIT-2/83 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal Cum Labour Court No.2, Mumbai now as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the B.E.L.

Optronic Devices Ltd., Pune and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 17/02/2016.

[No. L-14011/10/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/83 of 2014

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF B.E.L. OPTRONIC DEVICES LTD.

The Chief Executive Officer

BEL Optronic Devices Ltd.

EL-30, ‘J’ Block, MIDC

Pune 411 026.

AND

Their Workmen

The President

BEL Optronic Devices Employees’ Union

EL-30, J-Block

MIDC

Pune 411 026.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 20] 2016@iQkYxqu 1] 1937

819

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Mr. S. N. Desai, Advocate

FOR THE UNION

: Mr. Umesh Vishwad,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 27^th January, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-14011/10/2014-IR (DU), dated

01.09.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the

following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of BEL

Optronic Devices Ltd., Pune in declaring the plant

performance incentive unilaterally without showing

any base or formula is justified? If not to what relief

the union is entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were

served with notice. The reference was fixed for filing of

Statement of Claim by the Union. In response to the notice,

Second party union filed their Statement of Claim at Ex-7.

On 13/2/2015 union filed application Ex-9 for interim relief.

Management filed their Say (Ex-10) on interim relief

application and Written Statement at Ex-11.

3. The matter was fixed for hearing on Ex-9. On

19/10/2015, Union filed application (Ex-12) along with

affidavit in support for withdrawing the Reference.

Representative (General Secretary) of the Second Party

Union prayed to dispose of this Reference as they are not

interested in pursuing it further. After hearing both parties

on Ex-12, today i.e. on 27/01/2016, Orders were passed on

Ex-12. As the Second Party Union does not want to pursue

this matter, the Reference is disposed of. Hence the order:

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of as withdrawn.

Date: 27.01.2016

M. V. DESHPANDE, 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.