1167 GI/2016
(1045)
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 2 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 480-—cSaddkjh fofu;eu vf/fu;e] 1949 (1949
dk 10) dh /kjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjr
ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh fliQkfj'kksa ij ,rn~}kjk] ;g ?kks"k.kk
djrh gS fd mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds
[k.M (x) ds mi&[k.M (i) ds mica/ cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk ij ykxw
ugha gksaxs] tgka rd bldk laca/ cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk ds izca/ funs'kd
,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/dkjh Jh ih-,l- t;dqekj dks bafM;k
cSad eysf'k;k csjgkM vkSj eSllZ bafM;k iQLVZ ykbiQ ba';ksjsal daiuh
fyfeVsM ds cksMZ esa funs'kd ukfer djus ls gS A
¹iQk- la- 13@22@2015&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
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- 12]
ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 13—ekpZ 19] 2016] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 23—iQkYxqu 29] 1937
No. 12]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 13—MARCH 19, 2016, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 23—PHALGUNA 29, 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)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 480.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949),
the Government of India on the recommendations of the
Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions
of sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the said Act shall not apply to Bank of Baroda in so
far as it relates to the nomination of Shri P.S. Jayakumar,
Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer of the Bank
of Baroda as director on the Boards of India Bank Malaysia
Berhad and M/s. India First Life Insurance Company
Limited.
[F. No. 13/22/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
1046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 481-—cSaddkjh fofu;eu vf/fu;e] 1949 (1949
dk 10) dh /kjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjr
ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh fliQkfj'kksa ij ,rn~}kjk] ;g ?kks"k.kk
djrh gS fd mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds
[k.M (x) ds mi&[k.M (i) ds mica/ bykgkckn cSad ij ykxw
ugha gksaxs] tgka rd bldk laca/ bykgkckn cSad ds vè;{k ,oa
izca/ funs'kd Jh jkds'k lsBh dks Hkkjrh; fu;kZr Í.k xkjaVh fuxe
fy- (bZlhthlh fy-) ds cksMZ esa xSj&dk;Zikyd funs'kd ukfer
djus ls gS A
¹iQk- la- 13@7@2014&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 481.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949),
the Government of India on the recommendations of the
Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions
of sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the said Act shall not apply to Allahabad Bank in so
far as it relates to the nomination of Shri Rakesh Sethi,
CMD, Allahabad Bank as Non Official Director on the Board
of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (ECGC
Ltd.).
[F. No. 13/7/2014-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 482-—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/fu;e] 1934 (1934
dk 2) dh /kjk 8 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (x) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] VkVk dalyVsalh
l£olst (Vhlh,l) ds eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/dkjh ,oa izca/ funs'kd
Jh uVjktu pUæ'ks[kju (tUe frfFk % 02-06-1963) dks mudh
fu;qfDr dh vf/lwpuk dh frfFk ls pkj o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy,
vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds
dsUæh; cksMZ esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 1@1@2015&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2016
S.O. 482.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (c) of the sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Reserve
Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Natarajan Chandrasekaran (DOB:
02.06.1963), Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director,
Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) as Part Time Non Official
Director on the Central Board of Reserve Bank of India for
a period of four years from the date of notification of his
appointment, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 1/1/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 483-—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/fu;e] 1934 (1934
dk 2) dh /kjk 8 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (x) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] efgUæk
iQkbusal ds dk;Zikyd vè;{k Jh Hkjr ujksre nks'kh (tUe frfFk %
12-06-1949) dh mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/lwpuk dh frfFk ls pkj
o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds dsUæh; cksMZ esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh
funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 1@2@2015&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2016
S.O. 483.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (c) of the sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Reserve
Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Bharat Narotam Doshi (DOB:
12.06.1949), Non-Executive Chairman of Mahindra Finance
as Part Time Non Official Director on the Central Board of
Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years from the
date of notification of his appointment, or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 1/2/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 484-—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/fu;e] 1934 (1934
dk 2) dh /kjk 8 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (x) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh lq/hj
eadM+ (tUe frfFk % 05-08-1947) dh mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/
lwpuk dh frfFk ls pkj o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa
rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds dsUæh; cksMZ esa
va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 1@3@2015&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2016
S.O. 484.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (c) of the sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Reserve
Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Sudhir Mankad (DOB: 05.08.1947),
as Part Time Non Official Director on the Central Board of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1047
Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years from the
date of notification of his appointment, or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 1/3/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
fons'k ea=kky;
(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 10 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 485-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk
,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds [akM
(d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds mPpk;ksx] uSjksch esa
Jh f'koe ¯lg] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh vkSj Jh lehj xks;y]
lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 10 iQjojh] 2016 ls lgk;d
dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy,
izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2015º
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 10th February, 2016
S.O. 485.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause
(a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central
Government hereby appoints (1) Shri Shivam Singh,
Assistant Section Officer and (2) Shri Sameer Goyal,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in
the High Commission of India, Nairobi to perform the
Consular services with effect from 10th February, 2016.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 486-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk
,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds [akM
(d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds mPpk;ksx] fyyksaXos esa
Jh ,l-ih- jkor] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 1 ekpZ]
2016 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds
fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2016
S.O. 486.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause
(a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central
Government hereby appoints Shri S.P. Rawat, ASO as
Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of
India, Lilongwe to perform the Consular services with effect
from 1st March, 2016.
[No. T-4330/01/2016]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 487-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk
,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds [akM
(d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] ¯d'kklk esa
(1) Jh fyykarq dqekj eaMy] futh lgk;d vkSj (2) Jh iwQykjke
Lokeh] ofj"B lfpoky; lgk;d dks fnukad 3 ekpZ] 2016 ls
lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu
ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@07@2016º
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2016
S.O. 487.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause
(a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central
Government hereby appoints (1) Shri Lilantu Kumar,
Personal Assistant and (2) Shri Phoola Ram Swami, Senior
Secretariat Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in the
Embassy of India, Kinshasa to perform the Consular services
with effect from 3rd March, 2016.
[No. T-4330/07/2016]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 488-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk
,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds [akM
(d) ds vuqlj.k esa dsaæ ljdkj Jh izohu dqekj] lgk;d vuqHkkx
vf/dkjh dks 14 ekpZ] 2016 ls Hkkjr ds Hkkjrh; mPpk;ksx] lwok
esa lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy,
izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2015º
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 488.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause
(a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
1048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central
Government hereby authorises Shri Parveen Kumar,
Assistant Section Officer in the High Commission of India,
Suva to perform the Consular services as Assistant Consular
Officer with effect from 14th March, 2016.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 489-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk
,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds [akM
(d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] csb¯tx esa
(1) Jh t;ar dqekj iVuk;d] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh vkSj
(2) Jh izdk'k Lo:i] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad
14 ekpZ] 2016 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj
lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 489.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause
(a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central
Government hereby appoints (1) Shri Jayant Kumar Patnaik,
Assistant Section Officer and (2) Shri Prakash Swaroop,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in
the Embassy of India, Beijing to perform the Consular
services with effect from 14th March, 2016.
[No. T-4330/01/2016]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=kky;
(okf.kT; foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 490-—dsUæh; ljdkj] fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k
vkSj fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e (2) ds lkFk
ifBr fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k vkSj fujh{k.k) vf/fu;e] 1963
(1963 dk 22) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ FkSjkI;wfVDl dsfedy fjlpZ dkWiksZjs'ku]
okMZ ua- 8] IykWV ua- 17] nqxkZpkSd dkyksuh ekdsZV] iqfyl LVs'ku &
nqxkZpkSd] ftyk&esfnuhiqj (iwoZ)] gfYn;k&721602] if'pe caxky]
dks bl vf/lwpuk] ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ
dh vof/ ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=kky; dh vfèklwpuk
la[;kad dk-vk- 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 mikc¼ vuqlwph
esa fofu£n"V [kfut vkSj v;Ld (lewg&I)] vFkkZr~ eSaxuht
MkbZvkDlkbV dk viotZu djrs gq, ykSg v;Ld vkSj eSaxuht
v;Ld dk fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu jgrs gq,] Øe'k% mDr
[kfut vkSj v;Ldksa dk gfYn;k esa] fu;kZr iwoZ fujh{k.k djus ds
fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk iznku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—
(i)
eSllZ FkSjkI;wfVDl dsfedy fjlpZ dkWiksZjs'ku] okMZ ua- 8]
IykWV ua- 17] nqxkZpkSd dkyksuh ekdsZV] iqfyl LVs'ku &
nqxkZpkSd] ftyk&esfnuhiqj (iwoZ)] gfYn;k&721602] if'pe
caxky] [kfut vkSj v;Ld (lewg&I) dk fu;kZr (fujh{k.k)
fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds v/hu fujh{k.k dk dk;kZUo;u
djus ds fy, muds }kjk viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k i¼fr dh
tkap djus ds fy, bl fufeÙk fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk
uke fu£n"V vf/dkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/k,a nsxh_ vkSj
(ii) eSllZ FkSjkI;wfVDl dsfedy fjlpZ dkWiksZjs'ku] okMZ ua- 8]
IykWV ua- 17] nqxkZpkSd dkyksuh ekdsZV] iqfyl LVs'ku &
nqxkZpkSd] ftyk&esfnuhiqj (iwoZ)] gfYn;k&721602] if'pe
caxky] bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu vius dk;ks± ds ikyu esa
funs'kd (fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=k.k) fu;kZr fujh{k.k
ifj"kn~ }kjk le;≤ ij fyf[kr :i esa fn, x, funs'kksa
ls vkc¼ gksaxs A
¹iQk- la- 04@02@2016&fu;kZr fujh{k.kº
larks"k dqekj lkjaxh] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2016
S.O. 490.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises
M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation, Ward
No. 8, Plot No. 17, Durgachak Colony Market, Police Station
Durgachak, District- Medinipur (East), Haldia-721 602, West
Bengal, as an agency for a period of three years from the
date of publication of this notification, for inspection of
Minerals and Ores (Group-I), namely, Iron Ore and
Manganese Ore excluding manganese dioxide specified in
the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government
of India, Ministry of Commerce notification number S.O.
3975, dated the 20th December 1965, prior to export of the
said Minerals and Ores at Haldia, subject to the following
conditions, namely :—
(i)
that M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research
Corporation, Ward No. 8, Plot No. 17, Durgachak
Colony Market, Police Station- Durgachak, District-
Medinipur (East), Haldia -721 602, West Bengal, shall
give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by
the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1049
the method of inspection followed by them in carrying
out inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals
and Ores Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
(ii)
that M/s Therapeutics Chemical Research
Corporation, Ward No. 8, Plot No. 17, Durgachak
Colony Market, PS - Durgachak, District- Medinipur
(East), Haldia-721 602, West Bengal, in the
performance of their function under this notification
shall be bound by such directions as the Director
(Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection
Council may give in writing from time to time.
[F. No. 04/02/2016-Export Inspection]
SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 491-—dsUæh; ljdkj] fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k
vkSj fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e (2) ds lkFk
ifBr fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k vkSj fujh{k.k) vf/fu;e] 1963
(1963 dk 22) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ bUlisDVksjsV fxzIFk bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM
23] jktkth lykbZ] pkSFkk ry] ih-Vh-yh- psaxkyokj;k ukbdj ekyhxbZ]
iSjht] psUubZ&600001] dks bl vf/lwpuk] ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku
dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT;
ea=kky; dh vfèklwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj]
1965 vkSj la[;kad dk-vk- 3978 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 ls
mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V [kfut vkSj v;Ld lewg&I] vFkkZr~
ykSg v;Ld vkSj eSaxuht v;Ld] [kfut vkSj v;Ld lewg&II]
vFkkZr~ eSaxuht MkbZvkDlkbV] cSjkbV~l vkSj LiQrh; dk fuEufyf[kr
'krks± ds v/hu jgrs gq,] Øe'k% mDr [kfut vkSj v;Ldksa dk
psUubZ esa] fu;kZr iwoZ fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i
esa ekU;rk iznku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—
(i)
eSllZ bUlisDVksjsV fxzIFk bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM 23] jktkth
lykbZ] pkSFkk ry] ih-Vh-yh- psaxkyokj;k ukbdj ekyhxbZ]
iSjht] psUubZ&600001] [kfut vkSj v;Ld lewg&I dk
fu;kZr (fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1965 vkSj [kfut vkSj v;Ld
lewg&II fu;kZr (fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds
v/hu fujh{k.k dk dk;kZUo;u djus ds fy, muds }kjk
viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k i¼fr dk tkap djus ds fy, bl
fufeÙk fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefu£n"V vf/dkfj;ksa
dks i;kZIr lqfo/k,a nsxh_ vkSj
(ii) eSllZ bUlisDVksjsV fxzIFk bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM 23] jktkth
lykbZ] pkSFkk ry] ih-Vh-yh- psaxkyokj;k ukbdj ekyhxbZ]
iSjht] psUubZ&600001] bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu vius
ÑR;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd (fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=k.k)
fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa :i
esa fn, x, funs'kksa ls vkc¼ gksaxs A
¹iQk- la- 4@8@2015&fu;kZr fujh{k.kº
larks"k dqekj lkjaxh] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2016
S.O. 491.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises
M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., 23, Rajaji Salai, 4th
Floor, P.T Lee Chengalvarya Naicker Maaligai, Parryes,
Chennai- 600001, as an agency for a period of three years
from the date of publication of this notification, for
inspection of Minerals and Ores Group- I, namely, Iron Ore
and Manganese Ore and Group-II, namely, Manganese
dioxide, Barytes and Feldspar, specified in the Schedule
annexed to the notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of Commerce vide number S.O. 3975, dated
the 20th December 1965, and S.O 3978, dated the 20th
December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said
Minerals and Ores at Chennai subject to the following
conditions, namely: —
(i)
that M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., 23,
Rajaji Salai, 4th Floor, P.T Lee Chengalvarya Naicker
Maaligai, Parryes, Chennai- 600001 shall give
adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the
Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine
the method of inspection followed by them in
carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export
of Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules,
1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores, Group-II
(Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
(ii)
that M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., 23,
Rajaji Salai, 4th Floor, P.T Lee Chengalvarya Naicker
Maaligai, Parryes, Chennai- 600001 in the
performance of their function under this notification
shall be bound by such directions as the Director
(Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection
Council may give in writing from time to time.
[F. No. 4/8/2015-Export Inspection]
SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 492-—dsUæh; ljdkj] fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k
vkSj fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e (2) ds lkFk
ifBr fu;kZr (DokfyVh fu;a=k.k vkSj fujh{k.k) vf/fu;e] 1963
(1963 dk 22) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ fe=kk ,l-ds- izkbosV fyfeVsM] Mksj
ua- 8&45&9@2@1 ch] lh] fo|kuxj dkyksuh] pkSFkh ysu] vksYM
lhchvkbZ MkÅu ds lehi fo'kk[kkiÙkue&530003] dks bl
vfèklwpuk] ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/
ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=kky; dh vfèklwpuk la[;kad
dk-vk- 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 vkSj la[;kad dk-vk- 3978
rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V [kfut
1050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkSj v;Ld (lewg&I)] vFkkZr~ ykSg v;Ld vkSj eSaxuht v;Ld]
isQjkseSaxuht vkSj ckWDlkbV vkSj lewg&II] Økse lfgr dsafær Økse
v;Ld dk fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu jgrs gq,] Øe'k% mDr
[kfut vkSj v;Ldksa dk fo'kk[kkiÙkue vkSj xaxkoje esa] fu;kZr
iwoZ fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk iznku
djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—
(i)
eSllZ fe=kk ,l-ds- izkbosV fyfeVsM] Mksj ua- 8&45&9@2@1
ch] lh] fo|kuxj dkyksuh] pkSFkh ysu] vksYM lhchvkbZ
MkÅu ds lehi fo'kk[kkiÙkue&530003] [kfut vkSj v;Ld
lewg&I dk fu;kZr (fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1965 vkSj [kfut
vkSj v;Ld lewg&II fu;kZr (fujh{k.k) fu;e] 1965 ds
fu;e 4 ds v/hu fujh{k.k dk dk;kZUo;u djus ds fy,
muds }kjk viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k i¼fr dh tkap djus ds
fy, bl fufeÙk fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefu£n"V
vfèkdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/k,a nsxh_ vkSj
(ii) eSllZ fe=kk ,l-ds- izkbosV fyfeVsM] Mksj ua- 8&45&9@2@1
ch] lh] fo|kuxj dkyksuh] pkSFkh ysu] vksYM lhchvkbZ
MkÅu ds lehi fo'kk[kkiÙkue&530003] bl vf/lwpuk
ds v/hu vius dk;ks± ds ikyu esa funs'kd (fujh{k.k vkSj
DokfyVh fu;a=k.k) fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk le;≤
ij fyf[kr esa :i esa fn, x, funs'kksa ls vkc¼ gksaxs A
¹iQk- la- 4@1@2016&fu;kZr fujh{k.kº
larks"k dqekj lkjaxh] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2016
S.O. 492.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises
M/s. Mitra S.K. Pvt Ltd., Door No. 8-45-9/2/1 B,C, Vidyanagar
Colony, 4th Lane, Near Old CBI Down, Visakhapatnam-530
003, as an agency for a period of three years from the date
of publication of this notification, for inspection of Minerals
and Ores (Group- I), namely, Iron ore, manganese ore ,
Ferro Manganese and Bauxite and Group II Chrome Ore
including Chrome concentrates, specified in the Schedule
annexed to the notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of Commerce vide number S.O. 3975, dated
the 20th December 1965 and S.O 3978, dated the 20th
December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said
Minerals and Ores at Vishakhapatnam and Gangavaram
subject to the following conditions, namely: -
(i)
that M/s Mitra S.K. Pvt. Ltd., Door No. 8-45-9/2/1
B,C, Vidyanagar Colony, 4th Lane, Near Old CBI
Down, Visakhapatnam-530 003, shall give adequate
facilities to the officers nominated by the Export
Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the
method of inspection followed by them in carrying
out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of
Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965
and the Export of Minerals and Ores, Group-II
(Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
(ii)
that M/s Mitra S.K Pvt. Ltd., Door No. 8-45-9/2/1
B,C, Vidyanagar Colony, 4th Lane, Near Old CBI
Down, Visakhapatnam-530 003, in the performance
of their function under this notification shall be
bound by such directions as the Director (Inspection
and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may
give in writing from time to time.
[F. No. 4/1/2016-Export Inspection]
SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.
ukxj foekuu ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 493-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e
(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] ukxj foekuu ea=kky; ds lac¼ dk;kZy;
ukxj foekuu egkfuns'kky; ds {ks=kh; dk;kZy; mi funs'kd]
mM+u;ksX;rk dk dk;kZy;] y[kuÅ dks ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr djrh
gS D;ksafd muds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjh&oU`n us fganh dk
dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS A
¹la- bZ-&11014@9@2015&jk-Hkk-º
vfuy JhokLro] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 493.—In pursuance of sub-rules (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby
notifies the Directorate General of Civil Aviation O/o Deputy
Director, Airwothiness Civil Aviation Department Lucknow
an attached of Ministry of Civil Aviation, whereof, more
than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of
Hindi.
[No. E-11014/9/2015-OL]
ANIL SRIVASTVA, Jt. Secy.
ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;
(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)
(jktHkk"kk ;wfuV)
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 494-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1051
ds vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky; (Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa
lk{kjrk foHkkx) ds varxZr uoksn; fo|ky; lfefr] uks,Mk ds
varxZr tokgj uoksn; fo|ky; xkao&'kjiQkckn] iksLV&iqQysjk]
ftyk&ckxir] m-iz- fiu % 201101 dks] ,sls dk;kZy; ds :i esa]
ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjh&oU`n us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d
Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS A
¹la- 11011&2@2015&jk-Hkk-,-º
lq[kchj ¯lg la/w] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Higher Education)
(O. L. UNIT)
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 494.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby
notify the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Vill.-Sharfabad,
Post-Phulera, Distt. Baghpat (U.P.) Pin-201101 of Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti, Noida under the Ministry of Human
Resource Development (Department of School Education
and Literacy) as an office, whose more than 80% members
of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 11011-2/2015-OLU]
SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 495-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 91@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 495.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 91/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 91/14
Sh.Hare Ram S/o Shri Hardev Ram,
R/o A-22 , Mohan. Co. Opt Industrial Estate,
Near Metro Station J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd.
106, Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15, K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 91/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 3.07.2015. Through which
workman /claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent No. 2.
MW1 Sh. Umesh Chand Sharma confirmed
settlement of Rs. 9000/- through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as
cash.
1052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 496-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 92@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 496.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 92/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 92/14
Sh. Ramkrit S/o Shri Mishri Lal,
R/o A-1/346 ,
J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd.
106, Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 92/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 3.07.2015. Through which
workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement along with prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent No. 2.
MW1 Sh. Umesh Chand Sharma confirmed
settlement of Rs. 22000/- through cheque and Rs. 3000/- as
cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 497-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 93@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 497.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 93/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1053
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 93/14
Sh. Kamlesh Yadav S/o Shri Shiv Narayan,
R/o A-2/343,
J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 93/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 3.07.2015. Through which
workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
WW1 Sh. Kamlesh Yadav confirmed settlement of
Rs. 9000/- through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 498-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 94@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 498.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 94/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 94/14
Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Ram Jiyawan,
R/o 641,
J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
1054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 94/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 3.07.2015. Through which
workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
WW1 Sh. Sanjay Kumar confirmed settlement of
Rs. 9000/- through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 499-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 95@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 95/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 95/14
Sh. Chandra Pal S/o Shri Budhi Ram,
R/o A-1/344,
J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 95/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 02.06.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
MW1 Sh. Umesh Chand Sharma confirmed
settlement of Rs. 9000/- through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as
cash.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1055
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 500-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 96@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 96/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 96/14
Sh. Puran S/o Shri Nand Kishor,
R/o D-390,
J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.012.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 96/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 02.06.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
MW1 Sh. Umesh Chand Sharma confirmed
settlement of Rs. 9000/- through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as
cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 501-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 97@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 97/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
1056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 97/14
Sh. Dev Kumar,
R/o 637,
Sanjay Colony,
Okhla Phase-II,
New Delhi-110020
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 97/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 02.06.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
MW1 confirmed settlement of Rs. 9000/- through
cheque and Rs. 2000/- as cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 502-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 98@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 502.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 98/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 98/14
Sh. Anjulas S/o Shri Maulush,
R/o 105, Jasola Village,
Jamia Nagar,
Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1057
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 98/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 22.05.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
MW1 Sh. Anjulas confirmed settlement of Rs. 9000/-
through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 503-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 99@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 503.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 99/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 99/14
Sh. Jagpal Singh S/o Shri Sonpal,
R/o A-70, Harkesh Nagar,
Okhla Phase-II,
New Delhi-110020
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 99/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 22.05.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
MW1 Sh. Umesh Chand Sharma confirmed
settlement of Rs. 9000/- through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as
cash.
1058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 504-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 101@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 504.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 101/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 101/14
Sh. Toofani S/o Shri Ram Tapeshwar,
R/o 728, J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 101/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 22.05.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
MW1 Sh. Umesh Chand Sharma confirmed
settlement of Rs. 22000/- through cheque and Rs. 3000/- as
cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 505-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 102@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 505.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 102/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1059
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 102/14
Sh. Akhilesh Kamat S/o Shri Badri Kamat,
R/o G-142, Harkesh Nagar,
Okhla Phase-II,
New Delhi-110020
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 102/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 03.07.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
MW1 Sh. Umesh Chand Sharma confirmed
settlement of Rs. 9000/- through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as
cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 506-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 103@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 506.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 103/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 103/14
Sh. Ganesh Chand,
R/o D-306, Indira Kalyan Vihar,
Okhla Phase-I,
New Delhi-110020
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
1060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 103/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 03.07.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
MW1 Sh. Umesh Chand Sharma confirmed
settlement of Rs. 22000/- through cheque and Rs. 3000/- as
cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 507-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 104@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 507.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 104/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 104/14
Sh. Deepak S/o Shri Kishan Pal,
R/o A-1/346,
J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 104/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 03.07.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
WW1 Sh. Deepak Kumar confirmed settlement of
Rs. 9000/- through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as cash.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1061
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 508-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 105@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 508.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 105/14)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 105/14
Sh. Gopal S/o Shri Radha Kant,
R/o 446, Phase-II,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s. BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 2.12.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 105/2014 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 03.07.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent no. 2.
WW1 Sh. Gopal confirmed settlement of Rs. 9000/-
through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 509-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 28@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 28/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
1062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 28/15
Sh. Avedesh Kumar S/o Shri Chandrika Prasad,
R/o 1791, J.J. Colony, Phase-III,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s. BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant/workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 4.03.2014. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 28/2015 and notice were issued to respondents.
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be
granted to workman.
Written statement on behalf of respondents have
been filed through which they denied the allegation of the
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.
Workman filed rejoinder on 22.05.2015. Through
which workman/claimant reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement alongwith prayer of the claim statement.
At the stage of framing of issues parties settled their
dispute through settlement and settlement report has been
filed by respondent No. 2.
WW1 Sh. Avedesh Kumar confirmed settlement of
Rs. 9000/- through cheque and Rs. 2000/- as cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 510-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku@chohth bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 105@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2016
S.O. 510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 105/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation/
BVG India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/03/2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 105/2015
Sh. Mahesh S/o of Sh. Kuwar Singh,
R/o 81, Jasola Village,
Jamia Nagar, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110076
...Workman
VERSUS
1. M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(Principal Employer),
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s. BVG India Ltd. 106,
Mercantile House, Ist Floor,
15 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Contractor)
...Respondent/Management
AWARD
The claimant /workman filed his claim statement u/s
2-A of I.D. Act on 7.7.2015. Which was registered as I.D.
No. 105/2015 and notice were issued to respondents.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1063
Through which he sought following relief:-
1. Reinstatement alongwith full back wages.
2. Rs. 25000/- as expenses of the case.
3. Any other relief which court deems fit to be granted
to workman.
At the stage of filing of written statement parties
settled their dispute through settlement and settlement
report has been filed by respondent No. 2.
MW1 confirmed settlement of Rs. 9000/- through
cheque and Rs. 2000/- as cash.
So claim stands satisfied. An award is accordingly
passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 24.02.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 511-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 192@2011) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@42@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2016
S.O. 511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 192/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi 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 09/03/2016.
[No. L-22012/42/2006-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO.1, DELHI
ID No. 192/2011
The General Secretary,
Food Corporation of India Shramik Sangh,
Quarter No.147, Type III, Sector I,
BHEL, Haridwar,
Uttaranchal
...Workmen
Versus
The Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
98 Nashvilla Road,
Dehradun
...Management
AWARD
Brief facts giving rise to the reference are that a
letter No. L-22012/42/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 08.06.2006 was
received from Ministry of Labour with the following
reference:
“Whether the demand of Food Corporation of India
Shramik Sangh Uttaranchal is just and legal to declare
that the workers Shri Rajbir Singh, S/o Shri Hodil
Singh and 199 others were employed at Food
Corporation of India Depot, Jwalapur since 1996-97
continuously and were also engaged by the
management of FCI Jwalapur under Direct Payment
System during the period 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004
and thereafter their discontinuance/termination from
service by the management of FCI in violation of
section 25(O) of the ID Act, 1947 is illegal and
unjustified? If so, to what relief the concerned
workman are entitled to?”
2.
Both the parties were put to notice and claimant union
averred that earlier also petitions have been filed by the
applicant union claiming themselves to be workers of
respondent No.1 to 5 and various interim orders were passed
by the Hon’ble High Court. In fact some of the unions/
workers misrepresented and concealed facts and obtained
interim orders from the High Court and misused such orders
in connivance with respondent No.4, as a result of which
genuine workers were deprived of work in spite of the fact
that orders were in their favour. But respondent No.4. for
its personal gains, did not allow the said workers work and
created grave troubles for them.
3.
By means of petition No.57 MB/04, workers herein
have challenged the tender order dated 28.12.2003
published in Amar Ujala newspaper by which respondent
No.3 and 4 invited tenders for work of handling and
transportation from the contractors who possessed license
under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 or who are
willing to get themselves registered within 30 days of
appointment in the case of handling and transport
contractor for transportation of sugar, fertilizers etc. The
aforesaid tender notice was issued with an aim to deprive
the workers herein from working under direct payment
system as ordered by the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow in
writ petition No.2379 (S/S) of 1999 and order passed in writ
petition No. 948(S/S) of 2003 alongwith writ petition No.4243
of 2001 and Writ Petion No.4793 of 2001 by which the
Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital has passed
1064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
orders in favour of the petitioners to the effect that if the
work and post is available, the petitioners are allowed to
get their salary according to law. Now, respondent Nos.1
to 5 are trying to appoint contractors just to frustrate the
claim of the workers by showing themselves to be
employees of the contract or to sack the union members
from work under the garb of newly introduced contract
system. This order of the management is illegal and not to
be acted upon.
4.
Before creation of the state of Uttaranchal, the
applicant union members were members of FCI Mazdoor
Sangh and after creation of the state of Uttaranchal, FCI
Mazdoor Sangh has ceased to have jurisdiction in
Uttaranchal because as per constitution of the aforesaid
union, it has jurisdiction only in Uttar Pradesh. Hence,
applicant union was constituted and registered. It is also
averred that in the earlier writ petition bearing No.4243 of
1999 and No.2370 of 2001 filed before the Hon’ble High
Court by the previous union but the General Secretary of
the said union played a fraud and changed the paternity
and name of some workers and obtained interim orders. It
is useful to mention here that the applicant union and its
members were working since 1966 and their names also
figure in the above petition. Subsequently, union of the
workers herein filed writ petition No.948/2005 before High
Court and interim order was passed in favour of the union.
Pursuant to the interim order, employees have taken work
directly with effect from 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004. It is
specifically averred that one Shri Dhir Singh who is claiming
himself to he General Secretary of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam
Mazdoor Sangh has filed writ petition no.4793 of 2001 on
the basis of false documents whereas it is admitted fact
that Shri Dhir Singh himself joined as contractor on
18.03.1977. Thereafter, Hon’ble High Court passed order
dated 18.09.2003 and directed the respondent FCI to prepare
a seniority list of the workers of Jwalapur Depot and in
compliance of the said order, FCI issued order dated
27/28.10.2003 and directed the contesting the parties to
inspect the seniority list. However, no copy was given to
the union.
5.
Union of the workers herein has filed an objection
on 06.11.2003 and raised an industrial dispute before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner and during pendency of
the dispute, FCI tried to disengage members of the union
and tried to engage some contractor for the said work. The
applicant union has filed a complaint under section 33A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) and the
ALC , thereafter, issued notice to FCI. In view of pendency
of the matter before the High Court, said proceedings were
kept in abeyance. However, management in the meanwhile
invited tender for appointment of contractor to carry out
the work at Jwalapur just for altering service conditions of
the members of the applicant union. The applicant union
has challenged the same in writ petition No.57 M/B. of
2004 and the court has passed interim order in favour of
the union and directed the management not to give effect
to the tender notice. Respondent, in order to circumvent
order of the High Court closed operation of the godown at
Jwalapur so as to deprive the applicant union and its
members to get the benefit of order of High Court.
6.
There are averments that Jwalapur godown comes
under the definition of ‘factory’ and being an industrial
establishment as more than 1 lakh workers are engaged in
various depots and even in Jwalapur Depot, more than 200
workers are employed. Nature of the work in Jwalapur is
adaptation and the articles are altered in the depot and as
such comes in the definition of factory. Thus, without
adopting procedure prescribed under section 25(O) of the
Act, closure is not permissible and thus de-hiring of
Jawalapur depot amounts to closure, which is totally illegal.
It is further alleged that contract system is a sham show
and a camouflage. In fact, members of the applicant union
has worked directly under the control of FCI but their
payment is illegally stored by FCI with effect from 10.07.2003
to 28.10.2004. Due to illegal change in service conditions
by violation of section 9(a) during pendency of dispute
without prior approval of ALC is illegal, bad and void ab
initio. Labour Enforcement Officer, Dehradun has also
verified membership of the applicant union. Stoppage of
the work amounts to illegal retrenchment and violation of
section 25(N) and (M) of the Act. . Hence, members of the
Union , i.e. workers are entitled to full back wages till date.
7.
Respondent management has demurred claim of the
applicant union by filing written statement where it is
alleged that there is no merit or substance in the statement
of claim filed by the claimant. Claim has been filed with
malafide intention. Statement of claim is liable to be
dismissed for mis-joinder of parties. In para 4 of the reply,
it is alleged that service of the labourers were hired by the
Corporation/FCI through an agency on contract basis as
per provision of Contract Labour Act, 1970. On merits, it is
alleged that Shri Rajbir Singh and 199 others employees
were engaged through a contractor and work and work of
FCI is contract labour. Therefore there is no question of
termination of their services by the Corporation/FCI as
their services were hired through an agency on contract
basis as per provisions of Contract Labour Act, 1970.
Management has also denied other allegations contained
in the statement of claim and submitted that FCI invited
tender under HTC provision and admitted filing of various
writ petitions before he Hon’ble High Court. Thus,
management has come with a specific stand that Shri Rajbir
Singh and 199 other workers were engaged through
contractor and work with the Corporation /FCI is contract
labour. Therefore, there is no question arises for any
termination from service of the Corporation/FCI as well as
violation of any provisions of Industrial Law.
8.
The applicant union filed rejoinder wherein material
averments contained in reply of the management have been
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1065
denied and stand taken in the claim statement has been
reasserted.
9.
In fact, reference in the present case was made to
CGIT-cum-Labour Court No.2 by the union government.
Later on, this case was transferred by the order of the
appropriate Government to CGIT-cum-Labour Court No.1
for disposal in accordance with law. It transpires from the
records that on the basis of pleadings of the parties, no
issue, other than those referred by the appropriate
Government for adjudication, was framed by this Tribunal.
10.
It is pertinent to mention here that earlier CWP No.57
of 2004, WPSS No.4243 of 2001, WP No.1981 of 2003. WP
No.2467 of 2001 (SS), WP No.267 of 2004 and WP No.4793
of 2001 as well as WP No.5539 of 2001 were filed by the
workmen through their union against Food Corporation
and Others, which was decided by a common order dated
02.08.2004 whereby Food Corporation of India was directed
to allow the petitioners to permit them to continue to work,
if the work is available at Jwalapur Depot. It was further
directed that Food Corporation of India shall prepare
seniority list of daily wagers and in case of shortage of
work, the same shall be assigned to the workers according
to their seniority and in case regular vacancies are available,
it shall be filled up by the workers already working with the
respondents on seniority cum merit basis, excluding the
unfits. This judgement of the Single Judge was challenged
by way of special appeal no.111/2004 by Food Corporation
of India and others and the same was decided vide
judgement dated 14.09.2005, wherein it was held as under:
31. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we are
convinced that there can be conciliation in the
matters under dispute with regard to the points raised
herein. The writ petitioners, therefore, may move
the Industrial Adjudicator under the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners
are given 15 days’ time to approach the Assistant
Labour Commissioner(Central) for conciliation and
thereafter the Assistant Labour Commissioner shall
conclude the conciliation proceedings within one
month. If conciliation fails, he shall report the matter
to the Appropriate Government, which shall make a
reference to the Labour Court within a period of one
month. The Labour Court concerned shall then decide
the dispute, according to law, within a period of three
months.
32. In the meantime, in order to avoid multiplicity of
parties, causes of action and proceedings and in the
ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to direct that
if depot at Jwalapur is operated, the appellant FCI
shall take the work from those included in the
seniority-list provisionally prepared and referred in
their letter dated 27/28.10.2003(Annexure 3 of WP
No.1981 of 2003). It is made clear that any incidental
expression of opinion in this judgement with regard
to the merit of the case shall have no bearing and
the case of the parties shall be decided by the
industrial adjudicator according to law applicable
thereto. The order dated 02.08.2004 passed by
Single Judge, and under appeal, is set aside and all
the writ petitions are disposed of in above terms.
The Special Appeals also stand decided accordingly.
11.
Since the matter could not be resolved within a
month before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, as
such, the appropriate Government referred the matter in
the manner stated above under Section 10 of the ID Act,
for adjudication.
12.
During pendency of the reference petition claimants
moved an application for production of documents, which
was granted by this Tribunal on 24.09.2012. The
management wanted to put that order at naught, claiming
that it is not in a position to comply that order. Under
these circumstances, this Tribunal exercised powers
contained in rule 23 of the Rules. Resultantly, Ms.Shipra
Shukla, Advocate, who was present before the Tribunal,
was appointed as Commissioner, authorizing her in writing,
to enter the premises at ‘FCI Godown Jwalapur, near Ashoka
Talkies, Jwalapur, Haridwar’, as well as premises at ‘3/3
Ganesh Bazar, near Ram Lila Ground, Shrinagar, Garhwal’,
where Godown and office are being run or were being run,
as the case may be, after service of notice in that regard on
the management and inspect the premises as well as record
lying therein, besides interrogating any person found
therein in respect of attendance and wage register of
employees at Jwalapur Depot from 1996 to 2002, attendance
and wage register relating to work taken by the management
from the workers with effect from 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004
reflecting details of payment made by the management to
its workers at Jwalapur Depot as well as report relating to
relinquishment of charge by Shri Tomar, Depot Incharge,
Jwalapur Depot and to seize any record relating to above
documents and proposition of work done by the claimants
in the period referred above and submit her report before
this Tribunal. She carried out inspection of the aforesaid
Godowns at Haridwar on 27.12.2012 and Ganesh Bazar on
28.12.2012 and filed her report on 16.01.2013, Ex.WW3/1.
Report of the Local Commissioner is very detailed and she
has also taken into possession during the course of
inspection, documents, Ex.WW3/2 to Ex.WW3/357,
including photograph of the godown. Objections were
also filed by the management to the report of the Local
Commissioner by the Management though they were not
invited by this Tribunal. Careful perusal of the report of
the Local Commissioner would show that officials of the
management, Shri Uday Singh Rawat and Shri Darbara
Singh were present when inspection was conducted in a
thorough manner by the Local Commissioner. I would be
discussing the report of the Local Commissioner in the
subsequent paras while drawing my conclusions.
1066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
It is pertinent to note here that no specific issues
were framed in the case in hand by my learned predecessors
before recording of evidence. However, it is clear from
perusal of the reference made by the Central Government
under Section 10 that there are two important components
of the above reference and the same are as under:
‘Whether Shri Rajbir Singh and 199 others were
employed at Food Corporation of India at its Jwalapur
Depot since 1996-97 engaged by the management
of FCI Jwalapur under Direct Payment System during
the period 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004,
and
Whether thereafter their discontinuance/termination
from service by the management of FCI in violation
of section 25(O) of the ID Act, 1947 is illegal and
unjustified?
14.
Workmen in order to prove their case against the
management examined Shri Rajbir Singh as WW1 and Shri
Saroj Singh as WW2. Later on Ms. Shipra Shukla was
examined by the workmen as WW3, whose report is
Ex.WW3/1. It is clear from perusal of statement of
Shri Rajbir Singh in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, that the same
is on similar lines as the averments contained in the
statement of claim. He has been cross examined but there
is nothing material in the cross examination of this
witness. Sum and substance of the statement of this
witness is to the effect that all the workmen were directly
engaged by FCI since 1996-97 and they have not been paid
wages under the direct payment system for the period
10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004.
15.
To the same effect is the statement of Shri Saroj
Singh, WW2, who has deposed that they were doing work
of loading and unloading at Jwalapur Depot. This witness
has tendered in evidence certificate of registration
Ex.WW2/1 which shows that the FCI Shramik Sangh
Uttaranchal Pradesh is duly registered under the Trade
Union Act. He has also tendered in evidence various letters
written by the officials of FCI to the Senior Regional
Manager as well as Shri Rajbir Singh regarding engagement
of the workmen in view of the orders passed by Hon’ble
High Court. There is also list of workmen Ex.WW2/5 which
contains names of the 200 workers. There is copy of ID of
WW2 Shri Saroj Singh, which is Ex.WW2/M1.
16.
Management in order to rebut the case of the workman
union examined Shri Uday Singh Rawat, Manager(Law),
FCI Srinagar as MW1. This witness, in his affidavit,
Ex.MW1/A, has tried to reiterate the stand taken by the
management in its reply. In para 7 of the said affidavit, it is
averred that though the claimants worked with FCI
management, but they were neither appointed by FCI
management nor they were on the pay roll of FCI. He has
admitted in his cross examination that Shri Aditya Mani
Sharma was District Manager and he has identified his
signatures on document Ex.WW1/3. He further admitted
that Shri R.C. Panwar was the Depot Manager at Jwalapur
Depot. However, he was not in a position to identify his
signatures. He has further admitted document Ex.WW2/2
is available in the official record.
17.
Shri M.C. Pant, appearing on behalf of the workmen
strongly urged that the workmen in the case in hand were
employed as daily wagers since 1996-97 and they have
been regularly performing their duties directly under the
management of FCI. They have never worked under any
contractor nor has FCI in its reply disclosed name of any
contractor. No wages were paid to the workmen herein by
the contractor . The learned A/R for the claimant invited
attention of the Tribunal to the report of Ms.Shipra Shukla,
Ex.WW3/1 as well as documents filed by the said Local
Commissioner alongwith her report so as to show that the
documents taken from possession of the depot at Jwalapur
shows that stocks were being maintained at the Jwalapur
Depot by the officials and the workmen herein were working
regularly at the said Depot.
18.
Secondly, it was urged that no evidence has been
led by the management so as to prove that during the
period 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004 any payment of wages was
made to the workmen herein and others directly by the
management or through any contractor. The learned
authorized representative proceeded to argue that whenever
payment of wages is made, signatures of the concerned
daily wager is obtained on the salary slip/registers etc.,
which always remained in possession of the management
and the management has intentionally withheld all these
documents so as to deny the relationship of employer and
employee between the parties. Learned authorized
representative invited attention of the court to the reply
filed by the management, which is alleged to be very evasive
in nature. There is no specific denial by the FCI to the
fact that as to what payment of wages for the above period
was either made by the management or their contractor. In
the entire reply, name of the contractor is also not
mentioned. It is also urged that in para 7 of the affidavit
filed by MW1, there is admission that the workmen herein
were working with the management of FCI, which is also
suggestive of the fact that the workmen were working
under FCI and they were not working under the contractors.
19.
Lastly, learned authorized urged that no contractor
was examined in the present case. Even if any contract
was given by the management to any contractor regarding
engagement of above workmen, same will not put an to the
relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
Such an agreement in the contention of the learned
authorized representative is purely sham, nominal and
camouflage inasmuch as the workmen were directly under
supervision of the officials of FCI. FCI were exercising
supervisory control over them and the workmen were doing
the work on the directions of the principal employer. In
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1067
relation to nature and quantum of work, it was also
submitted that the depot at Jwalapur falls within the
definition of ‘industry’ and that the workmen had worked
for more than 240 days in a calendar year, as such their
services should not have been terminated or dispensed
with, without service of one months’ notice or salary in lieu
thereof by the management. Learned authorized
representative also invited attention of the court to
provisions of section 7 onwards of the Contract Labour
Act, 1970 and urged that there is gross violation of the
various provisions by the FCI who are not registered under
section 7 of the said Act nor any evidence has been led by
the management whether the so called contractor was duly
authorized, as required under various provisions of the
said Act. Learned authorized representative has relied upon
a number of authorities and I would be discussing the
same while drawing my conclusions.
20.
Per contra, Shri Anil Sharma,, appearing on behalf of
the management urged that there was no direct relationship
of employer and employee between the management and
the workmen herein. As such, the workmen cannot be stated
to be in the employment of FCI. Services of the workmen
were hired by FCI through an agency on contract basis as
per provisions Contract Labour Abolition Act, 1970 and
after expiry of the said contract, services of the workmen
stood terminated automatically. Learned authorized
representative made reference to para 10 of his written
statement wherein it has been alleged in specific terms that
Shri Rajbir Singh and other workers were engaged through
contractor and were with the Corporation/FCI as contract
labour. Therefore, there is no question of termination of
service nor there is violation of any industrial law. Learned
authorized representative put heavy reliance on Steel
Authority of India Vs. National Water Front Workers [2001
(7) SCC 1] wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt at length
with the question as to whether a workman would be an
employee of the contractor or that of the principal employer
when they have been engaged by the principal employer
through contract labour.
21.
It is pertinent to mention here that during the course
of arguments, the learned authorized representatives for
both the parties have heavily relied upon the ratio of Steel
Authority of India Ltd.(supra). A critical appraisal of the
aforesaid authority would show that Constitution Bench
of five Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court primarily dealt
with the meaning of the expression ‘appropriate
Government’ as used in Section 2(a) of the ID Act in relation
to an establishment defined under Section 2(E) of the CLRA
Act. After discussing the various rulings on the subject,
it was held that in the case of Central Government Company/
undertaking, an instrumentality of the Government carrying
on an industry, the criteria to determine whether the Central
Government is the appropriate Government within the
meaning of CLRA Act, is that industry must be carried on
by or under the authority of Central Government.
22.
The other question involved in the said case was
whether notification issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA
Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any establishment
without fulfilling conditions contained in the said sub-
section (1) and (2) of Section 10 of the CLRA Act can still
said to be valid. It is further clear from the above ruling that
notification issued by the Central Government under
Section 10 of the CLRA Act was quashed being in violation
of Section 10 of the Act.
23.
One of questions of primary importance which was
dealt at length by the Hon’ble Apex Court and which is
relevant in the context of the controversy in hand was
regarding engagement of contract labour by the appropriate
Government (Central or State Government) when prohibition
notification has been issued under section 10(1) of the
CLRA Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court also dealt with the
question that when there is no such notification issued
under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and the workmen are
alleged to be engaged through contractor by the principal
employer. Vital question which then arose was whether the
said workmen can be said to be primarily in the employment
of the principal employer or they will be workmen of the
contractor. After examining the entire spectrum of the case
law on the subject and considering the contentions raised
on behalf of either of the parties, in para 105, it was observed
as under:
An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows
that they fall in three classes;
(i) where contract labour is engaged in or in
connection with the work of an establishment
and employment of contract labour is prohibited
either because the Industrial adjudicator/Court
ordered abolition of contract labour or because
the appropriate Government issued notification
under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no
automatic absorption of the contract labour
working in the establishment was ordered;
(ii) where the contract was found to be sham and
nominal rather a camouflage in which case the
contract labour working in the establishment of
the principal employer was held, in fact and in
reality, the employees of the principal employer
himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to
abolition of contract labour but present
instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and
declared the correct position as a fact at the
stage after employment of contract labour stood
prohibited;
(iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of
maintaining canteen in an establishment the
principal employer availed the services of a
contractor and the courts have held that the
1068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contract labour would indeed be the employees
of the principal employer.
106 : The controversy herein falls in clause (ii)
whether a contractor engaging contract labour in
connection with the work entrusted to him by a
principal employer, the relationship of master and
servant between him (the principal employer) and
the contract labour emerges.
24.
It is clear in the case in hand that there is no
notification issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, as
such case of workmen, in the contention of the learned
authorized representative falls under clause (ii) in as much
as contract in the present case is alleged to be sham, nominal
and rather a camouflage. Resultantly, contract labor working
in the establishment of Jwalapur Deport, in the contention
of the A/R shall deemed to be directly in the employment of
the principal employer, i.e FCI.
25.
Whereas Shri Anil Sharma, A/R for the management
has relied upon the observations made in para 71 of the
above ruling wherein the Apex Court has noticed that the
term contractor is defined in relation to an establishment
to mean a person who undertakes to produce a given result
for the establishment through contract labour or supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes sub-contractor but excludes a supplier of goods
or articles of manufacture to such establishment.
26.
Admittedly in the case in hand, there is nothing on
record to suggest as to who was the contractor to whom
the work for loading and unloading of articles belonging to
FCI was given. Name of such a contractor is not mentioned
in the written statement or reply filed by the management,
particularly para 4 as well as para 14 of the reply is very
evasive in nature. If entire reply and contention of the
management is taken to logical conclusion, it would simply
mean that the handling work was given to some contractor
who has employed workmen at the depot from time to time.
If that was the case, it was incumbent upon the management
to have specifically mentioned the name of the contractor
who was doing the requisite work by employing labour,
particularly during the period 1996-97 and the period in
question 10.07.2003 to August 2014. It is well settled
principle in law that if a particular averment contained in
the pleading is not denied specifically by the opposite
party, then facts contained in the pleading shall be deemed
to have been admitted. Moreover, in the case in hand, even
during the course of evidence when the management
examined Shri Uday Singh Rawat as MW1, he has also not
referred to any specific contractor who was given work of
handling of foodgrains at Jwalapur Depot. Under the CLRA
Act, there are several conditions which are to be fulfilled
by the contractor before the work is awarded to him. It is
regard, it is appropriate to refer to the provision of Section
7, which requires that registration of the establishment in
the prescribed manner so that necessary work could be
allotted to the contract labour through the contractor. It is
not out of place to mention that contravention of Section 7
of the CLRA Act is an offence under the Act and in case
any violation is made after issuance of the licence, the
same can be revoked under Section 8 of the Act. Section 9
of the said Act deals with fact of non-registration of
establishment employing contract labour and it very clearly
provides that in case such an establishment is not
registered, in that eventuality, the principal employer cannot
employ contract labour in the establishment. As discussed
above, Section 10 deals with the prohibition of employment
of contract labour and before notification is issued under
Section 10 of the conditions stipulated therein is to be
fulfilled as has been held in Steel Authority of India (supra)
relied upon by both the parties.
27.
It is also necessary to mention that Section 21 of the
CLRA Act provides that contractor shall be responsible
for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as
contract labour and such wages shall be paid regularly.
Even the principal employer is required to nominate a
representative to be present at the time of disbursement of
wages by the contractor. Clause (iii) of Section 21 further
requires that contractor has to ensure payment of wages in
the presence of an authorized representative of the principal
employer. There is no merit in the contention of the
management that wages in question for the period from
10.07.2003 to August 2014 were paid through contractor to
the workmen herein, inasmuch as management has not
produced any salary slipss, vouchers, payment slip etc. so
as to show that the payment of wages to the workmen. Further,
it was mandatory for FCI to appoint their authorized
representative in whose presence payment of wages was
required to be made. There is nothing in the statement of
MW1 nor in the written statement filed by the management
as to what amount of wages was released to the contractor
or whether payment of such wages was made by the
contractor to the workmen in the presence of the authorized
representative. Management has also not taken care to
specifically prove the contract for the period 2003-04, which
was very essential so as to ascertain the terms and
conditions of contract and to determine the period for which
the workmen were employed by the contractor.
28.
In Steel Authority of India (supra), Hon’ble Apex
Court while dealing with the question of sham or camouflage
contract in para 69 observed that the term ‘contract labour’
is a species of workman. A workman shall be so deemed
when he is hired in or in connection with the work of an
establishment by or through a contractor, with or without
the knowledge of the principal employer. A workman may
be directly employed by the principal employer, i.e. FCI
and that such workman hired in connection with the work
of an establishment by the principal employer through a
contractor even if such contractor merely acts as an agent
and therefore there will be master and servant relationship
between the principal employer and the workman. But where
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1069
a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an
establishment by a contractor, either because he has
undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment
or because he supplies workman for any work of the
establishment, a question might arise whether the
contractor is a mere camouflage as was held in the case of
Hussainbhai Calicut and in Indian Petrochemicals
Corporations case. If the answer is in the affirmative, the
workman will be in fact an employee of the principal
employer; but if the answer is in the negative, the workman
will be a contract labour.
29.
Ratio of Steel Authority of India case (supra) has
been followed consistently by the various High Courts as
well as Industrial Tribunals and the same has been cited
with approval by the Apex Court in the subsequent
pronouncements. The principles enunciated in the above
ruling really shines like a pole star and are of immense help
to those who are lost in the mist of legal confusion.
30.
Later on in International Airport Authority vs.
International Air Cargo Workers (2009 13 SCC 374) question
of engaging of contract labour or where contract is sham
or camouflage was again considered by Hon’ble Apex Court
particularly when there is no prohibition notification issued
under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and the workman is
coming with the plea that the contract is sham and nominal
and contract is merely a name lender but does not have
any supervisory control and it was held as under:
“20. But where there is no abolition of contract labour
under Section 10 of CLRA Act, but the contract labour
contend that the contract between principal employer
and contractor is sham and nominal, the remedy is
purely under the ID Act. The principles in Gujarat
Electricity Board continue to govern the issue. The
remedy of the workmen is to approach the industrial
adjudicator for an adjudication of their dispute that
they are the direct employees of the principal
employer and the agreement is sham, nominal and
merely a camouflage, even when there is no order
under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act. The industrial
adjudicator can grant the relief sought if it finds that
contract between principal employer and the
contractor is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage
to deny employment benefits to the employer and
that there is in fact a direct employment, by applying
tests like: who pays the salary; who has the power to
remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary
action; who can tell the employee the way in which
the work should be done, in short who has direction
and control over the employee. But where there is no
notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and
where it is not proved in the industrial adjudication
that the contract was sham/nominal and camouflage,
then the question of directing the principal employer
to absorb or regularize the services of the contract
labour does not arise. The tests that are applied to
find out whether a person is an employee or an
independent contractor may not automatically apply
in finding out whether the contract labour agreement
is a sham, nominal and is a mere camouflage. For
example, if the contract is for supply of labour,
necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor
will work under the directions, supervision and
control of the principal employer but that would not
make the worker a direct employee of the principal
employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the
right to regulate employment is with the contractor,
and the ultimate supervision and control lies with
the contractor. The principal employer only controls
and directs the work to be done by a contract labour,
when such labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him.
But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses
whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the
principal employer or used otherwise. In short worker
being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate
supervision and control lies with the contractor as
he decides where the employee will work and how
long he will work and subject to what conditions.
Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker
to work under the principal employer, the worker
works under the supervision and control of the
principal employer but that is secondary control. The
primary control is with the contractor.”
31.
Ratio of the above authority of Hon’ble Apex Court
was also followed by Delhi High Court in ‘Management of
Ramjas Public School (Day Boarding) represented by its
Chairman Vs. Dharmender & Others’ (2016 LLR 1126).
32.
Shri M.C. Pant, learned A/R for the claimant invited
attention of the Tribunal to the various documents/letters
particularly Ex.WW2/2 to ExWW2/4 written by FCI through
its Managers which shows that supervisory control over
the workmen was that of FCI and nowhere contractor was
involved in handling work at Jwalapur Depot. He has also
referred to the stock bills as well as stock of FCI at Shrinagar
and Jwalapur Depot, which are mentioned in Ex.WW3/153
to Ex.WW3/357, which shows that foodgrains from time to
time were being handled by the workmen at the respective
depots. There is also mention of the period of the year
2003 when salary paid to the workmen. Learned A/R for
the claimant has also made reference to the report of
Ms.Shukla, Ex.WW3/1 so as to prove the documents
pertaining to the employment of the workmen herein at
Jwalapur Depot but officials of the FCI were not
intentionally producing those documents so as to ensure
that they are not considered to be employees of the principal
employer.
32. I have carefully gone through report of the Local
Commissioner, Ms.Shipra Shukla WW3/1 when she visited
the Depot at Jwalapur initially on 27.12.2013 and at that
time learned authorized representatives of both the parties
as well as Shri Uday Singh Rawat, Shri Darbara Singh, Area
1070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Manager along with other officials of FCI and Shri Rajbir
Singh, General Secretary of FCI Labour Union were present.
Directions of the court were very clear and the officials of
FCI were required to produce all the documents, i.e.
attendance register, wage register and other documents,
including keys to open the almirah so that relevant
documents are taken into possession and examined by the
Local Commissioner. It is further clear from her report that
Shri Uday Singh Rawat, Manager had informed on the spot
that Jwalapur depot from March 2004 was non-functional
and even the staff of FCI stopped working for the said
depot after 12.03.2004. She has referred to letter dated
12.03.2004 which is Ex.WW3/4. This letter has been
addressed to SSP Shri Ashok Kumar at Haridwar. In the
end of the letter, it is clear that help of the police has been
sought so that PSD operation could be run smoothly in
Haridwar city. There is also reference to the contractor
who has been authorized to do the above work. WW3/357
is the photo of the sign board of Jwalapur depot. She has
also referred to another letter written by District Manager,
Shrinagar to Shri Rajbir Singh, General Secretary, which is
Ex.WW3/5, which clearly shows that Shri Rajbir Singh has
been asked to be present on 10.07.2003 alongwith other
workers at Jwalapur godown and start work therein in view
of the directions passed by the High Court in the writ
petition. It is clearly suggestive of the fact that the workmen
herein were engaged by FCI at Jwalapur depot in view of
the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, from 10.07.2003
onwards. There is list of articles in the godown, which is
Ex.WW3/6 and list of the workmen who were working at
Jwalapur Depot, Ex.WW3/9. Shri Uday Singh Rawat had
disowned the above list on the ground that it is not on the
letter head of FCI but he has not denied attestation of 200
workers made by the Assistant Manager on 30.09.2003. The
Local Commissioner has also found some very old record
in gunny bags, like transfer certificate for the year 1990
onwards. It is necessary to note here that as per para 13 of
the Local Commissioner, that the Depot Incharge Shri
Inderpal Singh volunteered to explain on the spot to the
Local Commissioner. However, Shri Darbara Singh has
virtually restrained him, as a result of which he kept mum. It
was admitted during the course of argument that charge of
FCI Depot at Jwalapur was taken by Shri Inderpal Singh
from Shri Tomar and that Inderpal Singh was virtually the
last Depot Incharge at Jwalapur Depot. There is another
letter Ex.WW3/12 which was in possession of the Local
Commissioner which shows that for a period of 2 years,
work of handling at Jwalapur Depot in the year 1993 was
given to some private contractor. There is another letter
dated 17.11.1993 Ex.WW3/14, which shows that for two
years HTC work was given to the workmen herein through
their union.
33.
During the course of arguments, this Tribunal wanted
to know from the learned A/R for the management regarding
proof of contract as well as payment of wages to the various
workmen through contractors. As discussed above, it was
incumbent upon the management to ensure payment of
wages to the workmen through the contractor, failing which
in terms of Section 21, principal employer (FCI) was required
to make the said payment. All these documents are required
to be maintained by the principal employer also. This is
also necessary because the principal employer can always
deduct the amount paid as wages to the workmen from the
amount of the contractor. Rule 74 and 75 of the Contract
Labour Central Rules also requires the principal employer
to maintain register of contractor in Form XII and Rule 75
requires the name of the workmen working at each
establishment to be mentioned in Form XIII. On termination
of the employment, contractor is also required to issue
wage slip to the workmen in Form XVI atleast one day prior
to disbursement of wages. Signature/Thumb impression
of the workers is required to be taken on the register of
wages or muster roll cum wage register as the case may be.
Clause(d) of Rule 78 further requires the contractor to
maintain the following registers. i.e. (a) Muster Roll;
(b) Register of Wages; (c) Register of Deductions
(d) Register of Overtime; (e) Register of Fines (f) Register
of Advances (g) Wage slip. All these documents are
required to be legible in English and Hindi or in any
language understood by majority of workmen. Not only
this, all registers and records are required to be preserved
in original for a period of three calendar years and all such
registers and record etc. shall be produced on demand
before the Inspector or any other authority under the Act.
Rule 82 requires every contractor to submit half yearly
returns on Form XVI so as to reach the Licencing Officer
concerned. Since management has not taken care to
produce any such document, nor the name of the contractor
has been mentioned, therefore simply because Local
Commissioner has taken into possession document to
which the A/R for the management has referred as
contracts, they would not mean that the same can be taken
into consideration as proof of engagement of the workmen
herein by contractor. This Tribunal can even otherwise
draw adverse inference against the management inasmuch
as management at every stage tried to withhold vital
documents and did not allow Shri Inderpal Singh to talk to
the Local Commissioner on the spot, who was explaining
to the Local Commissioner regarding background of the
dispute and availability of the relevant record in the office
of FCI at Jwalapur Depot.
34.
It is further clear from the report of the Local
Commissioner that after her visit at Jwalapur Depot, she
also visited the office/godown at Shrinagar and parties to
the case as well as other officials of FCI were present at
that time. Officials at Shrinagar were fully aware regarding
documents which were in possession of the Local
Commissioner and other documents which were not
produced by the officials of FCI by stating that the same
were at Head Office: Delhi. Though the management has
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1071
disputed observations of the Local Commissioner about
letter dated 06.10.2008, however the same could have
been easily verified by this Tribunal had the management
produced Shri R.P.S.Panwar so as to verify his signatures
on the relevant documents. Even after submission of the
report of the Local Commissioner, no steps were taken by
the management to produce the relevant documents,
including contract which was in operation during the period
10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004 or before of thereafter. From the
side of the management, no list of the workers in fact was
produced who were deployed as per the stand of the
management by the contractor at Jwalapur Depot. Conduct
of the management in not producing the relevant documents
as discussed above either before the Local Commissioner
or before this Tribunal is required to be deprecated. It is
now fairly settled position in law that if a party is in
possession of best evidence which can throw light on the
relevant issue in controversy and such a party withholds
the documents without assigning any specific reason, in
that eventuality court ought to draw adverse inference
against such party notwithstanding onus of the proof does
not lie on such party to prove the issue. Reliance in this
regard has been placed upon the case of Gopal Krishnaji
Ketpar vs. Mohamed Haji Latif ( AIR 1968 SC 1413). Even
in subsequent pronouncements in the case of Sushil Kumar
Vs. Rakesh Kumar (2004 (1) SLJ 655) and 2006 Cr.LJ 4598)
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that non-production of
the documents in possession of a public functionary who
is under statutory obligation to produce the same would
result in drawing of adverse inference against such party.
Further conclusion which can be drawn is that had the
documents been produced, the same would have gone
against such a party.
35. During the course of arguments, management also
relied upon the case of Ram Swaroop Vs. Labour
Court(1995 (73) FLR 1139) which was a case where services
of the workman was wrongly terminated and the
management resisted the claim that he was not direct
employee as the work has been outsourced to a private
contractor, as such there was no relationship of master and
servant between the management and workman as it has
come in evidence that overall control of the workman was
with the contractor who was paying salary to the workman
and his attendance was also being marked by the said
contractor. However, situation in the case in hand is different.
There is no cogent or reliable evidence on record to suggest
that handling wok of foodgrains was given during the
relevant period to any specific contractor. Management,
as discussed above, has not disclosed the name of such a
contractor nor any document has been filed by the
management to show that payment of wages was being
made directly by the contractor to the workmen herein nor
there is any evidence to show that control over the work
was that of the contractor directly. Rather in the case on
hand there is evidence on record to suggest that letter
Ex.WW2/3 has been written to the General Secretary Shri
Rajbir Singh, who has been directed by the officials of FCI
to bring all the workers at Jwalapur Depot so as to perform
their duties. It is clearly suggestive of the fact that control
of the workmen was with officials of FCI. Moreover, perusal
of the documents taken into possession by the Local
Commissioner right from Ex.WW3/2 to Ex.WW3/357 shows
that during different years, right from 1997 onwards,
payment regarding handling charges and salary of the
employees at Jwalapur Depot was being sanctioned by the
management of FCI. Admittedly the workmen herein were
working in the premises of Jwalapur Depot. There is a
sanction letter dated 16.12.2003 Ex.WW3/54 which shows
that FCI has released amount for the period 01.07.2003 o
31.10.2003 as per the bills. It is further clear from perusal of
the stock ledgers annexed with the report of the Local
Commissioner that the handling work of foodgrains was
being done regularly after 1996-97 as payment amount is
being shown at Shrinagar Depot as well a Jwalapur Depot
in the said entries. When the Local Commissioner was
examined as witness before this Tribunal, no specific
question has been put by the management to the Local
Commissioner regarding veracity of the above bills. Even
during the course of arguments, authenticity of these
documents was not challenged by either of the parties.
However, when this Tribunal tried to ascertain as to who
was the contractor during the relevant time, learned A/R
for the management stated that one Shri Jaswant Rana was
awarded work during the period 2003-04.
36.
Yet in another case, Hon’ble Apex Court in State of
Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh (1999 LLR 433)
question of contract labor which was alleged to be sham or
smoke screen by the workman was considered. It was a
case where Haryana State Electricity Board awarded contract
to a contractor to undertake the work of keeping plants
and cleaning etc. The said workman had put in more than
240 days of service and subsequently his services were
discontinued by the management. Ultimately matter was
referred to the Industrial Tribunal by way of reference and
labour Court after considering evidence on record came to
the conclusion that the worker had put in more than 240
days in a year ; as such, they were ordered to be reinstated
with continuity of service with 10% back wages. A writ
petition was filed in the High Court and the same was
rejected. Later on when the matter was taken to the Hon’ble
Apex Court, strong arguments was advanced on behalf of
Electricity Board that the workman in the said case were
engaged by the contractor who was paying wages to them
and the Board is not liable to continue them in service or
pay back wages. In the said case also, it was proved on
record that the contractor to whom contract was given was
not duly licenced nor the employer, Electricity Board was
holding license to award contract. Contention of the Board
was rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it was
observed as under:
1072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
‘It has to be kept in view that this is not a case in
which it is found that there was any genuine contract
labour system prevailing with the Board. If it was a
genuine contract system, then obviously, it had to
be abolished as per Section 10 of the Contract Labour
Regulation and Abolition Act after following the
procedure laid down therein. However, on the facts
of the present case, it was found by the Labour Court
and as confirmed by the High Court that the so called
contractor Kashmir Singh was a mere name lender
and had procured labour for the Board from the open
market. He was almost a broker or an agent of the
Board for that purpose. The Labour Court also noted
that the Management witness Shri A.K. Chaudhary
also could not tell whether Shri Kashmira Singh was
a licensed contractor or not. That workmen had made
a statement that Shri Kashmira Singh was not a
licensed contractor. Under these circumstances, it
has to be held that factually there was no genuine
contract system prevailing at the relevant time
wherein the Board could have acted as only the
principal employer and Kashmira Singh as a licensed
contractor employing labour on his own account. It
is also pertinent to note that nothing was brought
on record to indicate that even the Board at the
relevant time, was registered as principal employer
under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition
Act. Once the Board was not a principal employer
and the so called contractor Kashmira Singh was not
a licensed contractor under the Act, the inevitable
conclusion that had to be reached was to the effect
that the so called contract system was a mere
camouflage, smoke and a screen and disguised in
almost a transparent veil which could easily be pierced
and the real contractual relationship between the
Board, on the one hand, and the employees, on the
other, could be clearly visualized.’
37.
It is clear from dicta laid down in the above authority
that when the work is of perennial nature and neither the
employer nor the contractor are holding the requisite
licence to award contract in terms of provisions of CLRA
Act, in that eventuality conclusion would be that the
contract system was a mere sham or camouflage.
38.
Hon’ble Apex Court in ONGC vs. Petroleum Coal
Labour Union (2015) Lab IC 2483) deprecated the practice
of engaging workers on temporary basis where the work is
regular or of perennial nature. It was held that such a
practice amount to unfair labor practice as defined under
Section2(k) read with Section 25(T) and Section 25(U) of
the ID Act. In the present case also, work which was being
performed by the workmen is not of seasonal nature and
various documents taken in possession by the Local
Commissioner clearly establishes that the labour is being
employed for handling of sacks regularly by the officials at
Shrinagar, Rourkee and Jwalapur, which are permanent
depots of FCI.
39.
It was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that
the workers who were doing similar work at Rourkee and
other places are regular workmen whereas only Jwalapur
Depot has been singled out by the Government. To my
mind, this is really in violation of the principles of rule of
law which are applicable in the governance of the Country
and such an action of the Government cannot be said to be
in consonance with the equality clause contained in Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
40. As already discussed, there is no examination of
this witness nor any contract which was entered into with
the contractor has been placed on record so as to ascertain
the terms and conditions. There is nothing on record to
show that whether this contractor or any other contractor
has made payment of wages to the workmen herein for the
period 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004. At the cost of repetition, it
is to be stated under the provisions of CLRA Act, it the
duty of the principal employer to ensure payment of wages
to the workman in case payment has not been made by the
contractor. Even if payment is made by the contractor,
authorized representative, as per rules discussed above, is
required to be present on the spot so as to ensure due and
proper payment to the workers. There is nothing on record
to show that provisions of CLRA Act as discussed above
has been followed by the contractor or the management in
letter and spirit or in substantial manner. The Tribunal
cannot ignore the fact that Act was enacted by the
Parliament to deal with the abuse of contract labour system
and it is primarily a social welfare legislation so as to
safeguard interest of the workmen or casual labour
deployed by the management or the contractor as the case
may be. In Steel Authority of India (supra), has highlighted
various aspects of this Act and also emphasized the need
to follow various provisions so that the workmen are saved
from exploitation. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact
that the workmen herein were terminated without serving
any notice of one month or salary in lieu thereof as such
there is also violation of provisions of Section 25F of the
ID Act.
41. Net result of the discussion is that the workmen
herein have worked during the period 10.07.2003 to
28.10.2004 and it is held that they have not received wages
for the said period as no oral or documentary evidence
has been adduced by the management to prove the same.
Sine there is no admissible evidence on record to suggest
that handling work of Jwalapur Depot was given to any
licenced contractor by the FCI nor there is any statement
from the side of the contractor to prove that the workmen
herein were working under him, as such it is reasonable to
hold that the workmen herein were in direct employment of
FCI during the relevant period, more so when no evidence
has been adduced to the effect that it was the contractor
was directly making payment or supervising work of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1073
handling etc., in such circumstances. Conclusion can be
drawn that even if there was any contract in the manner as
alleged by the management, same is held to be sham or
camouflage or a smoke screen; such contractor was simply
a name lender as the said contractor has neither been
examined nor contract has been proved on record.
42.
Having said so, residual question which requires
further consideration is whether closure of Jwalapur Depot
by the management of FCI is in violation of section 25(o) of
the Industrial Disputes Act. It is neither in doubt nor in
dispute that the depot at Jwalapur has been closed since
2004. Learned authorized representative for the
management strongly urged that closure of the depot at
Jwalapur was due to the reason that the workmen herein
have created unrest and it was difficult for the management
to control them, as a result of which management was forced
to close the depot at Jwalapur. In this regard, it is appropriate
to mention ere that there is no cogent or relevant evidence
led by the management that any kind of unrest was created
by the workmen herein as a result of which management
was forced to close the depot after 2004. There is not even
a whisper in the statement of MW1 in his affidavit.
Therefore, arguments advanced by the management is just
for the sake of arguments only, which is not the basis either
in the pleadings or evidence adduced during the course of
trial. Section 25(o) of the ID Act contains procedure which
is required to be adopted in case any industrial undertaking
or an establishment is to be closed. An employer has to
apply in the prescribed manner, at least ninety days to the
Government before the date on which the employer intends
to close the undertaking or industry, clearly stating therein
reasons for such closure of such undertaking. Copy of
such application is required to be supplied to the
representatives of the workmen .It is thereafter that the
appropriate Government after making such enquiry as it
deems fit and affording reasonable opportunity of being
heard, both to the employer as well as the workmen and
after taking into consideration interest of the general public
etc., after reasons to be recorded in writing may grant or
refuse to grant such permission. Clause 6 of the above
section provides when such permission has been refused
by the Government, closure of undertaking shall be deemed
to be illegal from the date of closure and the workmen shall
be entitled to all benefits under any law for the time-being
in force as if the undertaking has not been closed down.
43.
Admittedly, the above procedures have not been
followed by the management and they have come with the
contention that in the present case provisions of section
25(o) cannot be pressed into service unless the conditions
contained in Section 25(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act
are fulfilled. Section 25(k) of the ID Act deals with deals
with special provision relating to law of retrenchment and
closure of certain establishment. Sub-section (1) of Section
25 clearly provides that provisions of this Chapter shall
apply to industrial establishments (not being an
establishment of seasonal character) engaging not less
than one hundred workmen were employed on an average
per working day for the preceding twelve months. To my
mind, contention of the management regarding applicability
of section 25(K) is meritless inasmuch as more than 100
workers were admittedly working at Jwalapur Depot.
Question as to whether the work at Jwalapur Depot is of
seasonal nature is to be decided by the appropriate
Government and not by the management. When Jwalapur
Depot comes within the definition of establishment or
industry and even contract labour employed either by the
contractor or FCI, as the case may be, falls within the
definition of ‘workmen’, under such circumstances, it does
not lie in the mouth of the management to say that
provisions of section 25(o) are not applicable.
44.
Learned authorized representative for the
management also referred to the award of the Tribunal in
FCI Mazdoor Sangh vs Senior Manager in ID No.69/2008,
decided on 11.03.2010. Firstly question involved in the
award, which is not exhibited, is not the same as involved
in the case in hand. Moreover, workers in the said award
are also different though it pertains to Jwalapur Depot.
However, this award passed by the Court of Co-ordinate
jurisdiction is not binding upon this Tribunal. There is no
merit in the contention that unrest was created by the union
herein as a result of which management was forced to close
the depot. Even if it were so, there was no bar for the FCI
to bring this fact to the notice of the authority or the
appropriate Government. In the absence of any such
evidence on unrest, contention of the management is
rejected.
45.
As a sequel to my discussion made hereinabove, it
is held that the workmen herein Shri Rajbir Singh and 199
others were employed by Food Corporation of India Depot
at Jwalapur and they have not received their salary/wages
for the period from 10.07.2003 to 28.10.2004 under direct
payment system and thereafter their discontinuation/
termination from service is also held to be illegal and
unjustified as the same is in violation of provisions of
Section 25(o) of the ID Act. Since the Depot at Jwalapur is
stated to be closed since 2004, as such, FCI would be at
liberty to engage the workmen herein willing to work at a
nearby place like Rourkee, Shrinagar, Haridwar etc. as the
management thinks fit. An award is accordingly passed.
Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act
1947, for publication.
Dated : February 29, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 512-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
1074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 37@2003) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@274@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2016
S.O. 512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2003)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Kunustorai Colliery,
M/s. Eastern Coalfield Limited and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 09/03/2016.
[No. L-22012/274/2002-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 37 OF 2003
PARTIES :
The management of Kunustoria Colliery
of M/s. E.C.L.
Vs.
Sri Kameshwar Paswan
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management
:
Sri. P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman) :
Sri. S. K. Pandey, Gen.
Secy., CMC
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 24.02.2016
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/
274/2002–IR(CM-II) dated 13.10.2003 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of management of Kunustoria
Colliery of ECL in not accepting the decision of the
Age Assessment Committee in respect of age of Shri
Kameshwar Paswan is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled?”
Having received the Order No. L-22012/274/2002–
IR(CM-II) dated 13.10.2003 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 37 of 2003
was registered on 20.10.2003. 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.
1.
The workman has stated in his written statement that
Kameshwar Paswan, Body Searcher of Kunustoria Colliery
under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
was appointed in Kunustoria Colliery as Body Searcher in
the year 1972. His age was not recorded in the ‘B’ Form at
the time of appointment. The age / Date of Birth of the
workman was recorded in the ‘B’ Form Register as
11.06.1942 without any basis and without the knowledge
of the workman. The workman requested to the management
for correction of his date of birth in the record since 1986
and again in the year 1987 through the Service Excerpts.
Accordingly the workman was called by the management
during 1988 and his age was arbitrarily assessed without
observing any formalities as per rules of medical
jurisprudences As per the request of the workman the
management again referred his case to the Age Assessment
Committee in the year 1989. Though the management did
not communicate the request of Age Assessment
Committee, but the workman came to know that his age
was assessed as 42 years in the year 1989. In spite of the
repeated request by the workman as well as Union the
management did not correct his date of birth in the ‘B’
Form of the Colliery as per the report of the Age Assessment
Committee held in the year 1989. The management forcefully
superannuated the workman from the service of the
company on the basis of wrong-recorded age / Date of
Birth in the ‘B’ Form of the colliery. The action of the
management of Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria Area
of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in not accepting the
decision of the Age Assessment Committee in respect of
age of Sri Kameshwar Paswan is illegal and unjustified.
The workman has prayed that the tribunal may kindly direct
the management of Kunustoria Colliery of M/s E.C.L to
accept the decision of the Age Assessment Committee in
respect of age of Sri Kameshwar Paswan held in the year
1989 and for payment of wages for his forceful idleness
w.e.f. 01.07.2002.
2.
In defence Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria
Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated briefly
in their written statement that Sri Kameshwar Paswan was
appointed on 05.06.1972 and he raised the dispute with
regard to his date of birth in the year 1987 in the several
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1075
record excerpts, and on raising such dispute his case was
referred to the Age Determination Committee which was
held at Kunustoria Area on 24.12.1988. As per the guideline
of I. I. no. 76 of JBCCI and the said committee assessed the
date of birth of the concerned employee as 11.06.1942. On
the basis of such assessment of age of the concerned
employee by the said committee the Form ‘B’ register,
Identity Card and other statutory records were corrected
on the basis of said assessed date of birth and the said
assessment was duly communicated to the concerned
employee who accepted the said assessment. After the
said assessment of age the concerned workman he again
represented before the Colliery management for re-
assessment of his age by disputing the earlier assessment.
The concerned workman was again referred to the Age
Assessment Committee and after proper assessment, the
age of the concerned workman was assessed as 11.06.1942
in the year 1989. The said assessment was done in
accordance with the principles of medical jurisprudence
and in strict compliance of the guideline as formulated in I.
I. No 76 of JBCCI. It is denied that assessment was done
arbitrarily without observing any formalities as per rules
and regulations of medical jurisprudence. The reference is
misconceived one
3.
The workman has filed copy of written statement
submitted by management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited before the A.L.C.(C) and copy of report of “Failure
of Conciliation” sent to Secretary, Govt. of India, Labour
Ministry. The workman has filed the affidavit in his oral
evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned
Advocate of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited has not filed any oral or documentary
evidence in their support.
4.
I have heard Sri S. K. Pandey, learned Union
representative on behalf of workman and Sri P. K. Das,
learned Advocate on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited.
5.
Sri S. K. Pandey has argued that the Age Assessment
Committee wrongly assessed the date of birth as 11.06.1942.
The report of second assessment held in 1989 was not
complied with by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Whereas
Sri P. K. Das has argued that the age was correctly assessed
by Age Assessment Committee of concerned workman as
per medical jurisprudence and it was duly communicated
to him. Second Age Assessment Committee also assessed
the same date of birth i.e. 11.06.1942. There is no
discrepancy in the Age Assessment Committee of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited.
6.
The contention of the concerned workman is that he
was appointed in the year 1972, at that time his Date of
Birth was not recorded in service records. Thereafter, he
agitated regarding his Date of Birth in the year 1986 and
1987. Though the Age Assessment Committee assessed
his date of birth as 11.06.1942 but after his protest the Age
Assessment Committee assessed his age for second time
in 1989. In 1989 his date of birth was assessed as 42 years.
On the basis of his wrong date of birth he was premature
superannuated. On the other hand, the contention of the
Kunustoria Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is
that the concerned workman was appointed on 05.06.1972.
On the protest of the concerned workman in 1987 the Age
Assessment Committee assessed the age of delinquent in
1988 as 11.06.1942. Again the workman protested regarding
his date of birth. Again Age Assessment Committee
reassessed his age in 1989 as 42 years as per guideline.
7.
As per affidavit of concerned workman filed in his
oral evidence he has stated that he was superannuated
forcibly on 30.06.2002. He has admitted that he was
medically examined by Age Assessment Committee twice
in the year 1988 and 1989. In cross examination dated
30.5.2013 he has stated his age as 58 years. He has not filed
any documentary evidence in support of his age. Even in
affidavit he has not stated on which date he was born.
Even in his written statement he has not disclosed his date
of birth. Therefore there is no basis for accepting this
statement that on May, 2013 he was 58 years old. The
workman has specifically admitted in para-5 and para-7 of
his written statement that his age was assessed by the
Committee as 11.06.1942. As per letter of Sri P. K. Nayak the
then Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ), Asansol dated
29.7.2002 / 01/08/2002 addressed to the Secretary, Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, it is apparent that the dispute
was raised by workman through his Union representative
regarding correction of his Date of Birth. The dispute was
referred by Union representative by letter No. KMC/KNT/
ID/2001/128 dated 18.03.2001. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner fixed the dates for reconciliation on
03.05.2001, 04.09.2001, 17.09.2001, 11.10.2001 and 23.11.2001.
The representatives of both sides appeared, but
reconciliation was failed.
8.
Thus, it is apparent that the concerned workman
raised the dispute before A.L.C.(C) in March, 2001. As per
his evidence in affidavit he was superannuated on
30.06.2002. Thus he agitated regarding his date of birth
just fifteen months before his superannuation. Whereas
he was very well aware in 1988 and 1989 about his Date of
Birth as 11.06.1942 which was recorded in his service
excerpts.
9.
It is settled law that the date of birth as recorded in
the service book cannot be changed after a long period,
particularly at the fag end or nearer to the date of retirement
or superannuation. Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. &
Anr. v/s Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (2005) 6 SCC 49 reported
in A.I.R. 2005 SC 4192 has held that the date of birth as
recorded in the Service Book cannot be changed after a
long period, particularly at the fag end or nearer to the date
1076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of retirement or superannuation. Hon’ble Apex Court in
another case: Registrar General, High Court of Madras
v/s M. Manickam and others (2011) 9 SCC 245: reported
in A.I.R. 2011 SC 3658 has held that “Change of date of
birth is a very important responsibility to be discharged
for there is a general tendency amongst the employees to
lower their age and change their date of birth to suit their
career and to lengthen their service career”.
10.
In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court
since the workman has agitated this dispute regarding his
incorrect date of birth cannot be accepted. It is relevant to
mention that concerned workman has nowhere mentioned
his Date of Birth. At the fag end of retirement few months
before superannuation assailing the incorrect Date of Birth
assessed by a Committee of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
cannot be accepted.
11.
Considering the whole facts and circumstances of
the reference, discussed above, I come to the conclusion
that the action of management regarding age of concerned
workman Sri Kameshwar Paswan is legal and justified. The
concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per
above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and
needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 513-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 48@2015) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22011@10@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2016
S.O. 513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India, Regional Office and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 09/03/2016.
[No. L-22011/10/2015-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 48 of 2015
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of Food
Corporation of India, Regional Office
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
: None
Management
On behalf of the
: None
Workman
State: West Bengal
Industry: Food & Public
Distribution
Dated: 24th August , 2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-22011/10/2015-IR(CM-II) dated
03.08.2015 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 decision of the Management of Food
Corporation of India is justified in engaging
contractual workmen through engagement of
Handling contractor in place of regular workmen for
loading and unloading of rakes at Sreerampour Rly.
Siding is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?”
2.
When the case is taken up today for hearing, none
appears either on behalf the union or on behalf of the
management. It appears from the record that none appeared
on behalf of the union on the previous two dates inspite of
service of notice. In fact none ever appeared on behalf of
the union since initiation of the instant reference.
3.
From the above facts and circumstances it may
reasonably be presumed that the union at whose instance
the present reference has been initiated has got no interest
in the matter. So, no fruitful purpose will be served in
keeping the matter pending.
4.
Considering the above, instant reference is disposed
of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
Kolkata,
Dated the 24th February, 2016
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1077
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 514-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 9@2005) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@58@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2016
S.O. 514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2005)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Sohagpur Area of
SECL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 09/03/2016.
[No. L-22012/58/2004-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/9/2005
The Secretary,
MP Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),
Near GM Office, Dhanpuri,
Distt. Shahdol
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Sohagpur Area of SECL,
PO Dhanpuri,
Distt. Shahdol
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of February, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 30-12-2004 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/
58/2004-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,
Sohagpur Area of SECL, PO Dhanpuri, Distt. Shahdol
(MP) in not allowing Shri Heera Singh, S/o Shri
Sukhdeo Singh, Token No. 3631, Amlai Colliery for
duties is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 2/2
to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as
General Mazdoor in new Amlai colliery holding Token No.
3631. That he was sick in the month of August 2001 the
employer was informed. After recovery of his illness, he
had gone to join duty alongwith medical certificate, he was
not permitted to join duty without assigning reasons. He
received letter dated 31-8-00. He given reply to said letter
which was received by office of 2nd party on 3-9-01. Ist
party workman reiterates that management did not allow
him to join duty. The dispute was raised before ALC. After
failure to settle the dispute, reference is made to this
Tribunal. Ist party workman contends that he filed
documents relating to his sickness therefore management
cannot discontinue or terminate on the ground of
misconduct. That he is illiterate person and unable to
understand the action taken by management. that in absence
of enquiry, action of management is in violation of principles
of natural justice. If misconduct is found proved, for
absence of 1-2 months when he was suffering from illness,
his services cannot be terminated. On such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/9
opposing claim of workman. case of 2nd party is that
workman Heera Singh was initially appointed as General
Mazdoor he was habitual absentee. He remained absent
from duty without intimation or permission or sanctioned
leave. Workman was issued several warnings, chargesheets
committed misconduct remaining absent form duty
unauthorisely. The details of the working days of workman
are shown in Para 4 of Written Statement in 1997 for 113
days, in 1998 for 98 days, in 1999 for 112 days, in 2000 for 55
days and in 2001 till August- 44 days.
4.
That chargesheet was issued to workman on
31-8-01 for absence from duty from 23-7-01. Workman
submitted reply to chargesheet. Reply of workman was
found unsatisfactory. Management decided to conduct
DE. Shri R.Kumar was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Shri
D.K.Verma as Management Representative. Memorandum
of enquiry was issued on 12-9-01. Enquiry was conducted
on 13-9-01. Charges were read over to workman. He denied
the charges against him. witness of management produced
Form C Register and Summary Register. Workman was asked
to cross-examine witness but he denied to cross-examine
management’s witness. 2nd party reiterates that enquiry
was conducted properly. Enquiry Officer held charges
against workman were proved. Considering proved charges
against workman, punishment of dismissal was imposed.
While imposing punishment, the past records of workman
was considered. He was given written warnings, not
attending duties. 2nd party refers to the ratio held in various
cases by Hon’ble Apex Court. 2nd party further submits
that sick leave is granted after certificate issued by Medical
officer. Workman had not given intimation about his
1078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
absence of sickness. For proved unauthorized absence,
workman was dismissed from service. Workman is not
entitled to any relief.
5.
As per order dated 26-2-2014, enquiry conducted
against workman is found proper and legal.
6.
Considering pleadings on record and order on
preliminary issue, the points which arise for my
consideration and determination are as under. My findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the charges alleged
In Affirmative
against workman is proved from
evidence in Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the action of the Chief
In Negative
General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, PO Dhanpuri, Distt. Shahdol
(MP) in not allowing Shri Heera Singh,
S/o Shri Sukhdeo Singh, Token No.
3631, Amlai Colliery for duties is proper
and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per final
entitled to?”
order.
REASONS
7.
Enquiry conducted against workman is found proper
and legal as per order dated 26-2-2014. Terms of reference
and statement of claim pertains to refusal by management
to allow workman on duty. However in Written statement,
2nd party has contented that chargesheet was issued to
workman and his services are terminated for proved
misconduct of unauthorized and habitual absence.
Document Exhibit M-8 produced in enquiry working days
of workman in 1999 are shown. The report of enquiry is
produced at Exhibit M-13. Working days of workman are
shown in 1998 – working days- 98 days, CL-9 & sick leave-
15, in 1999- working days-110 days, CL-10 days, sick leave-
15 days, in 2000- working days-55 days, CL-8 days, sick
leave-15, in 2001- working days 44 days, CL-8, sick leave-
15 days. Chargesheet was issuied to workman on 31-8-01
covering the working of Ist party workman in 1997 for 113
days, in 1998 for 98 days, in 1999 for 110 days, in 2000 for 55
days and in 2001- monthwise working days are shown till
the month of August. The copies of muster roll for the year
1998, 99, 2000, 2001 are produced in Enquiry proceedings.
Evidence in Enquiry Proceedings supports findings of
Enquiry Officer. Therefore findings of Enquiry Officer
cannot be said perverse. The unauthorized absence of
workman is established. The documents of earlier
chargesheet and warnings issued to workman are not
produced on record. the charges shown in chargesheet
Exhibit M-2 dated 31-8-01 are proved from evidence in
Enquiry Proceedings. The punishment of removal is
imposed against workman as per order Exhibit M-14.
8.
As per evidence of management’s witness, Ist party
workman was initially appointed as General Mazdoor.
Exhibit M-1 is excerpt of service book produced by
management. The age of workman at the time of appointment
is shown 32 years. In his affidavit of evidence, age of
workman is shown 50 years. It is clear that workman was
working with 2nd party for quite long period. Any adverse
service record is not produced. Therefore punishment of
removal imposed against workman appears harsh.
9.
Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in
Case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd versus Vipin
Beharilal Srivastava reported in 2008(3)SCC-446.
Ratio held in the case pertains to proper mode of
obtaining sick leave.
Ratio held in case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd
versus Prahlad Singh reported in 2001(1)SCC-424
deals with the delay of 13 years in raising dispute.
In present case, there is no longer delay in raising
dispute. The services of workman terminated in 2001, the
dispute is raised in 2005. Sick leave are already shown by
the management. Therefore ratio held in above cases
cannot be beneficially applied. Workman has not committed
any act of causing loss, damage to the property of 2nd
party by committing any fraudulent act, therefore
punishment of removal cannot be sustained. In my
considered view considering length of service served by
workman, punishment of removal from service deserves to
be modified to compulsory retirement allowing retiral benefit
to the workman. accordingly I record my finding in Point
No.2.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the Chief General Manager, Sohagpur
Area of SECL, PO Dhanpuri, Distt. Shahdol (MP) in
not allowing Shri Heera Singh, S/o Shri Sukhdeo
Singh, Token No. 3631, Amlai Colliery for duties is
not proper and legal.
(2)
Punishment of removal from service of workman is
modified to compulsory retirement. Ist party workman
be allowed retiral benefits as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 515-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ulh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 88@2012) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@84@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1079
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2016
S.O. 515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Jayant Project of NCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 09/03/2016.
[No. L-22012/84/2012-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/88/2012
Zonal Secretary,
Koyla Udhyog Kamgar Sangathan,
B-530, NCL, Jayant Project,
Distt. Singrauli,
MP
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Jayant Project of NCL,
PO Jayant,
Distt. Singrauli,
MP
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of February 2016
1.
As per letter dated 25-7-2012 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/
84/2012-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Jayant
Project of NCL in not revoking/ annulling the
punishment imposed on Shri Sitaram Pandey, Crane
Operator, even after acquittal of charges from the
Hon’ble Court of law is legal and justified? To what
relief the claimant is entitled for and from which date?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
working on permanent post of Crane Operator with 2nd
party. on 29-6-00, workman was asked by his superior to
reach near canteen and unload certain goods form truck
bearing No. UP-70/L-9030. Workman reached to the place
along with a Khalasi namely Shri Ramdhari Kushwaha. The
crane was parked at a distance of about 4 meter behind the
truck. While making preparations for the unloading of the
material and while arranging proper positioning and
support for the TMC to station, all of a sudden the Khalasi
Ramdhari Kushwaha put TMC in reverse gear without any
indication and caution causing the accident of helper who
was standing between the tail end of the loaded truck and
the TMC was crushed to death. It was unexpected action
from Khalasi. He had no reason to reverse the truck when
preparatory work for unloading was going on. Subsequent
to said accident, the workman was implicated in criminal
case for offence under section 304 IPC bearing Case No.
99/2000. That as per order dated 7-2-00, workman was
suspended. Chargesheet was issued alleging misconduct
under Clause 26.5, 26.22, 26.23, 26.28 & 26.43 of the standing
orders applicable to 2nd party. In substance, management
alleged that without seeking permission from Competent
Authority, workman allowed unauthorized person to ply
the vehicle. That workman was not supplied list of
witnesses alongwith chargesheet or during the Enquiry
Proceedings, his defence was prejudiced. Workman
submitted reply to the chargesheet on 11-2-2000 denying
charges against him. He prayed for withdrawal of charges.
Shri M.B.Ram was appointed as Enquiry Officer on
29-2-2000. Shri P.Ghosh was appointed as Presenting Officer.
Subsequently Shri V.K.Shrivastava was appointed as
Presenting Officer. List of documents and list of witnesses
was not supplied to workman. Workman was represented
by Sheshmani Pannika. The enquiry was conducted in
violation of principles of natural justice. Report of Enquiry
Officer was not supplied to workman on 6-9-05, punishment
of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect was
imposed against him.
3.
JMFC vide judgment dated 14-9-06 exonerated
workman on merit for offence under Section 304 IPC.
Workman submitted representations to review order of
punishment dated 6-9-05. The Disciplinary Authority while
imposing punishment did not consider his past record. the
appeal was not considered observing that leniency was
shown while imposing punishment. That the punishment
was imposed on recommendations of higher authorities,
Dy. Chief Personal Manager. Workman reiterates his service
record was unblemished. Enquiry Report was not given to
him. Enquiry is vitiated. The findings of Enquiry Officer are
perverse. He was implicated in false case. His defence was
not appreciated. On such grounds, workman prays that
punishment is disproportionate. On such grounds,
workman prays to quash the punishment order dated
6-9-05 imposed on him.
4.
2nd party management filed Written Statement
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that
workman was employed as crane operator. On 29-1-2000,
he was deployed at Crane No.17C/2509Mounting Crane
TMC. Workman was directed to attend work at CSD canteen
to load material from Private Truck from outside. Helper
Ramdhari Kushwaha assisted workman. He loaded crane
at distance of 4 meter from Truck. The workman left crane
1080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
leaving key on crane itself. The crane was landing upto
4.15 PM in same position. Shri Ramdhari Kushwaha climbed
on the crane and reversed the crane without any indication.
Shri Patiram Singh was working behind the truck. As train
went reverse position hitting Patiram Singh General
Mazdoor, he was crushed to death. Chargesheet was issued
on 6-2-2000. Workman submitted his reply. DE was initiated
as per order No.70. Shri N.B.Ram was appointed as Enquiry
Officer, Shri P. Ghosh as Presenting Officer. Enquiry was
conducted against workman, Defence counsel Sheshmani
was allowed for his defence. 2nd party reiterates that the
witnesses of management were cross-examined by co-
worker. Workman did not adduce oral or documentary
evidence in support of his defence. It is denied that enquiry
was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.
That criminal case was constituted by State against
workman. management had no role to play in the criminal
case. Acquittal of workman in criminal case doenot absorb
him from Disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
standard of proof in DE and criminal case are different. On
such ground, 2nd party submits that reference be answered
in its favour.
5.
On 26-9-14, Shri Pranay Choubey counsel for
workman submitted that he doesnot want to adduce
evidence on preliminary issue. Management also not
adduced evidence on preliminary issue. Legality of enquiry
was not challenged therefore the evidence was adduced
on other issues. As legality of enquiry conducted against
workman was not challenged, considering pleadings on
record, the points which arise for my consideration and
determination are as under. My findings are recorded
against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the charges alleged against
In Affirmative
workman are proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the action of the General
In Affirmative
Manager, Jayant Project of NCL in
not revoking/annulling the punishment
imposed on Shri Sitaram Pandey, Crane
Operator, even after acquittal of charges
from the Hon’ble Court of law is legal
and proper?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled
to any relief.
REASONS
6.
The legality of enquiry conducted against workman
was not challenged. Chargesheet was issued to workman
produced at Exhibit M-1. The charges against workman
pertains to deliberately avoiding the work entrusted to him.
Committing any act of indiscipline causing loss to the
company, causing damage to the property of company
allowing vehicle or machinery of company to unauthorized
person committing violation of standing orders. Exhibit
M-2 is copy of application submitted by workman for
withdrawal of charges Exhibit M-3,4,6 are memorandum of
enquiry issued to workman. Exhibit M-7 is copy of Enquiry
Proceedings, statements of management’s witness
Ramsharan, B.K.Singh, I.S.Rao are clear that the crane was
taken by workman to the Truck for unloading materials.
Helper Ramdhari Kushwaha had taken the crane reverse
while Ist party workman had come down from crane and
was discussing about unloading material from Truck. When
helper Ramdhari taken the crane reverse, it dashed to the
truck crushing mazdoor Patiram Singh. Statement of Ist
party workman is recorded at Page 26,27 of Enquiry
Proceedings. Workman in his statement in Enquiry
Proceedings says on 29-1-00 around 3.30 PM, he had
received order for unloading material from truck standing
near canteen. He reached to the place. The crane was taken
towards rear side of truck. The crane was shoot up. He
asked attendant Ramdhari to place blocking material to
block the wheels of crane for safety purpose. He got down
from the crane and was talking the matter about unloading
material. Helper Ramdhari was at crane. He had driven the
crane. Workman had rushed to crane and switched off.
After getting down, he saw that Patiram Singh was found
dead. Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. The
evidence of management’s witness is clear that workman
was crane driver. For unloading materials, crane was taken
near to truck. The crane was driven reverse by Helper
Ramdhari Kushwah. Workman had left the key at
dashboard. Therefore helper Ramdhari Kushwah could
drive the crane reverse back. The charge against workman
includes that he left key of crane at dash board is supported
by evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. The evidence is
sufficient to prove the charges against workman. Therefore
I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7.
Point No.2- Ist party workman and management’s
witness Kedar Nath filed affidavit of their evidence on
other issues. The evidence of workman Sitaram in his
affidavit is on the point that after switching off engine of
crane, he parked near the truck, he came down the crane
and instructed Shri Ramdhari Kushwah to bring blocking
material to block the wheels of the crane so that it may not
move and thereafter was discussing with the helper/ driver
of the truck as to manner in which the unloading process
would be carried. Shri Ramdhari without any instruction or
prior permission started the crane and moved the crane
due to which helper of truck died. In his cross-examination,
workman says on 29-1-06, he had taken vehicle near CHP
Canteen. During enquiry proceeding, he has stated that
Helper Ramdhari Kushwah has driven the crane.
Management’s witness Kedar Nath filed affidavit of his
evidence. He was not cross-examined by the counsel for
workman. Management’s witness in his affidavit says
workman was prosecuted by State Administration. His
acquittal from criminal charges doesnot absorb the
workman.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1081
8.
The order of punishment withholding 3 increments
of workman Exhibit W-3 was passed on 6-9-05. The workman
was acquitted in criminal case 99/02 as per judgment dated
14-9-2006 subsequent to the punishment of withholding 3
increments was imposed against him.
9.
Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Pranay Choubey
did not brought to my notice any citation that the acquittal
in criminal case subsequent to the punishment imposed
after enquiry invalidates the order of punishment.
10.
Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K.Shashi relies
on ratio held in
“Case of Corporation of Nagpur versus Ramchandra
G.Modak reported in AIR-1984 SC-626. Their
Lordship held merely because accused in acquitted ,
the power of authority concerned to continue
departmental inquiry is not taken away.”
The facts of present case are not comparable. The
punishment was imposed much earlier to the acquittal of
the workman in criminal case.
Next reliance is placed in case of South Indian
Cashew Factories Workers Union versus Kerala State
Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and others
reported in 2006(5)SCC-201. Their Lordship held
Section 11-A applicable only in case of dismissal or
discharge of a workman. Said section gives ample
power to the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence
adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over
the decision of the employer in imposing punishment
but that section is applicable only in case of dismissal
of workman.
The punishment of dismissal/discharge was not
imposed against workman. Punishment of withholding 3
increments was imposed against workman. Therefore the
evidence cannot be re-appreciated.
11.
Copies of Award in R/117/97, R/38/90 are submitted
by Shri A.K.Shashi.The facts and evidence in both cases
are different. Both the cases pertains to the punishment of
dismissal imposed against workman.
12.
I may also mention that the charge in criminal case
prosecuted against workman was for offence under Section
304-A IPC pertain to causing death by rash and negligent
driving whereas charge in the enquiry conducted against
him was leaving the key of crane in dash board
unauthorisely allowing helper to drive crane causing death
of the General Mazdoor Patiram Singh. The charge in criminal
case and Departmental Enquiry were not identical therefore
the acquittal of Ist party workman in criminal case doesnot
relieve him from the charges alleged against him in Enquiry
Proceedings. In view of ratio held in case 2006(5)SCC-201,
the punishment of withholding 3 increments of workman
cannot be said excessive. No interference is called for.
13.
Learned counsel for workman Shri Pranay Choubey
submits that departmental Enquiry was conducted against
Shri Ramdhari Kushwah and punishment of withholding
one increment was imposed against him. The punishment
of withholding 3 increments of workman is excessive and
discriminatory. In view of ratio held in 2006(5)SCC-201, the
interference in order of punishment is not justified. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in
Affirmative.
14.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the General Manager, Jayant Project of
NCL in not revoking/ annulling the punishment
imposed on Shri Sitaram Pandey, Crane Operator, even
after acquittal of charges from the Hon’ble Court of
law is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 516-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 105@2011) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@132@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2016
S.O. 516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 105/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL,
Baikunthpur Area, PO-Baikunthpur, SECL, Jhilmili, Sub-
Area of Baikunthpur Area and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 09/03/2016.
[No. L-22012/132/2011-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/105/2011
The President,
Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor
Sangh (AITUC) Union,
Baikumthpur Area, PO Pandavpara,
Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh
...Workman/Union
1082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
Chief General Manager,
SECL, Baikunthur Area,
PO Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea,
Chhattisgarh
Sub-Area Manager, SECL,
Jhilmili Sub-Area of Baikunthpur Area,
PO Pandavpara (Patna),
Distt. Korea, Chhistgarh
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of February, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 10-10-2011by 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/
132/2011-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
“Whether the action of the management of the Chief
General Manager, SECL, Baikunthpur Area and the
Sub-Area Manager, Jhilmili Sub Area SECL, Distt.
Korea (CG) in neither allowing to the workman in
dipsute Shri Surendra Pratap Singh for his duty we.f.
26-10-09 even after his application dated 26-10-09
not making payment from 26-10-09 to 15-12-09 due to
procedural delay of management was legal and
justified? To what relief the workman concerned is
entitled to and from which date?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. President of SKMS Union submitted statement of
claim on behalf of Ist party workman on 29-11-2011. The
case of Ist party is workman Shri Surendra Pratap Singh S/
o Shri Vishwanath working as Sr. Clerk, he was arrested on
13-12-07 for offence under Section 302 IPC. Son of workman
namely Rakshendra Pratap given its intimation in writing
to Sub-Area Manager. The intimation on phone was also
given. On application of workman, he was granted Casual
Leave for the period 15-12-07 to 22-12-07. Workman was
paid salary for the period 14-12-07 to 22-12-07. For purpose
of securing bail, workman had requested attendance
register. The certificate was issued by management about
the attendance during the period from 14-12-07 to 12-8-09.
Workman was in judicial custody in sub-jail at Surajpur. On
12-8-09, he was transferred to Central Jail, Ambikapur. On
21-10-09, he was acquitted by Additional Session Judge,
Suragpur. On 26-10-09, workman submitted application for
joining duty. He was permitted to join duty from 16-12-09.
After his arrest, workman was under detention for more
than 48 hours. Clause 28.9 of standing order provides for
immediate suspension and payment of subsistence
allowance. Workman was absent from duty for about 22
months. Management did not comly with clause 28.9 of
standing order. He was not paid 50 % subsistence
allowance. Workman submits that since he submitted
application on 26-10-09, till he was allowed to join duty on
16-12-09, he is entitled for full wages. The amount of
Rs.47,355/- is claimed by workman.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
workman. 2nd party did not dispute that workman was
working as Sr. Clerk Grade I in Jhilmili Sub Area. Workman
was granted leave from 14-12-07 to 21-12-07. He did not
report for duty. Chargesheet for unauthorized absence was
issued to workman on 16-2-08. Workman submitted
representation dated 1-10-08, 5-3-09, 25-5-09 & 4-9-09
intimating management that he was in judicial custody for
offence under Section 302/34 of IPC Criminal Case No. 54/
2007. After receiving his communication, management did
not take any action on the chargesheet issued to workman.
Workman submitted application to resume duty on 26-10-09.
The certificate issued by jail authority was also submitted
along with application in respect of period of detention
form 14-12-07 to 21-10-09. Copy of order passed in Criminal
Case 65/08 by Ist Additional Session Judge, Surajpur, Distt.
Surguja was produced. The workman alongwitihi other
accused were prosecuted for offence under Section 302
IPC. Workman was acquitted on 21-10-09. On receipt of
representation by workman, it was forwarded to
headquarter of the company for further advice on 4-11-09.
Said notesheet was received by Headquarters after taking
legal advice of company Headquarter. Headquarter
informed area management vide order dated 7-12-09
granting approval to permit the workman to resume duty.
2nd party submits that 41days time required for receiving
approval from Headquarter allowing workman for resuming
duty is bonafide. Workman is not entitled to monetary
benefits claimed by him.
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 manage-
In Affirmative
ment of the Chief General Manager,
SECL, Baikunthpur Area and the
Sub-Area Manager, Jhilmili Sub-Area
SECL, Distt. Korea (CG) in neither
allowing to the workman in dipsute
Shri Surendra Pratap Singh for his
duty we.f. 26-10-09 even after his
application dated 26-10-09 not making
payment from 26-10-09 to 15-12-09 due
to procedural delay of management
was legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
5.
Term of reference pertains to non-payment of wages
to workman for the period 26-10-09 to 15-12-09.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1083
6.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
contentions in statement of claim. That after his arrest,
workman was granted leave for the period from 14-12-07 to
21-12-07. Workman was paid wages for the said period. He
was not paid wages since 22-12-07. On his request,
attendance certificate was issued by 2nd party. Intimation
about his detention in jail was given to management on
various dates. After his acquittal on 21-10-09, workman
submitted application for joining duty on 26-10-09. He was
allowed to join duty on 16-12-09. He claims wages for the
period 26-10-09 to 15-12-09. Documents are produced at
Exhibit W-1 to W-23. I will deal with documentary evidence
at later part. In his cross-examination, workman says in
criminal case, charges of burning his daughter in law by
pouring kerosene were alleged against him. Charge was
found false and workman was released from jail. On
26-10-09, he had submitted application for resuming duty.
The application was submitted to inward clerk . On
16-12-09, he joined duty.
7.
Management’s witness ShriS.K.Mallik filed affidavit
of evidence supporting contentions in statement of claim.
The arrest and detention of workman in jail in criminal case
for offence under 302 IPC is not disputed. Management’s
witness was not cross-examined. Several documents are
produced by management. Parties are not in dispute about
workman submitting application for joining duty on
25-10-09 and he was allowed to join duty on 16-12-09.
8.
The documents produced by management Exhibit
M-9 is chargesheet issued for unauthorized absence.
Exhibit M-1 to 4 are applications submitted by workman on
10-10-08, 5-3-09, 25-5-09, 4-9-09 about his detention in jail
and his inability to report on duty. Exhibit M-5 is application
dated 26-10-09 M-6 is attendance certificate issued by Jail
authorities. Exhibit M-6 is copy of judgment. Exhibit M-10
is copy of note sheet submitted to headquarter for allowing
workman to join duty. Workman was allowed to join duty
as per Exhibit M-1. Exhibit M-8 is order dated 15-12-09
allowing workman to resume duty. Exhibit W-18 is copy of
voting card issued by Election Commission. The documents
Exhibit W-2 to W-8 have no direct relevance to the point in
controversy between parties. Workman has produced copy
of judgment in Case No. 65/08 at Exhibit W-9. The
application for resuming duty is produced at Exhibit W-10.
Similar set of documents are produced by workman at Exhibit
W-11 to W-17.
9.
The substance of the evidence adduced by both
parties is that workman submitted application for resuming
duty on 25-10-09, he was allowed to join duty on 16-12-09.
The question is whether workman is entitled to claim wages
for intervening period. The evidence is clear that
application received from workman was forwarded to
headquarter for guidance and headquarter had allowed
workman to resume duty as per order dated 15-12-09.
Whether time required for allowing application of workman
is unreasonable and workman should be paid wages for
the intervening period. Whether the period required for
taking decision by the management of 2nd party and its
headquarter is unreasonable , whether workman is entitled
to claim wages. The meaning of reasonable given in Oxford
Dictionary is fair, practical and sensible, acceptable and
appropriate in particular situation. The evidence is clear
that workman was arrested for offence under Section 302
IPC on 13-12-07. He was acquitted by Ist Additional
Session Judge on 15-12-09. The application for resuming
duty was given by workman on 26-10-09. After the
application was forwarded to head office, the request of
applicant was allowed on 15-12-09. Workman joined duty
on 16-12-09 if the above circumstances are considered,
time required for taking decision after advice from
headquarter cannot be said unfair and unreasonable. No
evidence is brought on record about unreasonable delay
for taking decision by the management of 2nd party therefore
claim of Ist party workman for wages for the period in
question cannot be accepted.
10.
I may quote ratio held by ShriA.K.shashi in case
between Management of Reserve Bank of India versus
Shri Bhopal Singh Panchal reported in 1994-I-LLJ-642. The
ratio in the case pertains to period of suspension pending
criminal proceeding. The Competent Authority has to take
into consideration circumstances of each case to decide as
to how period of suspension has to be treated. The ratio
has no bearing to the controversy between parties in
present case. Workman was not suspended. There was no
question of treating suspension period of Ist party workman
rather workman is claiming recovery of wages for the period
be submitted application for resuming duty on 25-10-09 till
he was allowed to join duty on 16-12-09. For above reasons,
I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
11.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 517-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 106@2011) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@130@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2016
S.O. 517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
1084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 106/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL,
Baikunthpur Area, PO-Baikunthpur, SECL, Jhilmili, Sub-
Area of Baikunthpur Area and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 09/03/2016.
[No. L-22012/130/2011-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/106/2011
The President,
Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor
Sangh (AITUC) Union,
Baikumthpur Area, PO Pandavpara,
Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
SECL, Baikunthpur Area,
PO Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea,
Chhattisgarh
Sub-Area Manager, SECL,
Jhilmili Sub-Area of Baikunthpur Area,
PO Pandavpara (Patna),
Distt. Korea, Chhistgarh
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of February, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 10-10-2011by 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/
130/2011-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
“Whether the action of the management of the Chief
General Manager, SECL, Baikunthpur Area and the
Sub Area Manager, Jhilmili Sub Area SECL, Distt.
Korea (CG) in non-payment of suspension allowances
to Shri Surendra Pratap Singh Sr. Clerk Grade I (SLU)
during the period of his judicial custody from
23-12-07 to 21-10-09 without suspension was legal
and justified? To what relief the workman concerned
is entitled to and from which date?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. President of SKMS Union submitted statement of
claim on behalf of Ist party workman on 29-11-2011. The
case of Ist party is workman Shri Surendra Pratap Singh
S/o ShriVishwanath working as Sr. Clerk, he was arrested
on 13-12-07 for offence under Section 302 IPC. Son of
workman namely Rakshendra Pratap given its intimation in
writing to Sub-Area Manager. On application of workman,
he was granted Casual Leave for the period 15-12-07 to 22-
12-07. Though workman had applied for Leiu leave,
workman was paid salary for the period 14-12-07 to 22-12-
07. Workman was in judicial custody till his acquittal on 21-
10-09. Workman was released from jail after his acquittal.
He submitted application for joining duty on 11-1-10. He
had also submitted application for payment of subsistence
allowance as per Clause 28.9 of the standing order for
recovery under Section 33(C)(2). The amount was not paid.
Workman reiterates that he is entitled to 50 % subsistence
allowance as per clause 28.9 of the standing order applicable
to the 2nd party. Workman was in judicial custody after his
arrest for offence under Section 302 IPC. Workman was
allowed to join duty on 15-12-09. He claims subsistence
allowance for the period 23-12-07 to 21-10-09 as per clause
28.9 of the standing order.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
workman. 2nd party did not dispute that workman was
working as Sr. Clerk Grade I in Jhilmili Sub Area. Workman
was granted leave from 14-12-07 to 21-12-07. He did not
report for duty. Any information was not received from his
side. He was unauthorisely absent without intimation or
sanctioned leave. In the circumstances, management had
no option but to issue chargesheet dated 16-2-08 for
unauthorized absence. Workman submitted representation
dated 1-10-08, 5-3-09, 25-5-09 & 4-9-09 intimating
management, he was in judicial custody for offence under
Section 302/34 of IPC Criminal Case No. 54/2007. After
receiving his communication, management did not take any
action on the charge sheet issued to workman, that
workman did not inform management about his arrest in
judicial custody till receipt of charge sheet issued to him
for unauthorized absence. Workman submitted application
to resume duty on 26-10-09. The certificate issued by jail
authority was also submitted along with application in
respect of period of detention from 14-12-07 to 21-10-09.
Copy of order passed in Criminal Case 65/08 by Ist
Additional Session Judge, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja was
produced. The workman was tried by State of Chhattisgarh
on charges that Shri Premkumar, S/o Shri Surendra Pratap
Singh was carried with Rambai about 12 years back from
date of incident. On 3-11-07, Rambai W/o Premkumar and
daughter in law demanded dowry of Rs. One Lakh from the
parents of daughter in law. Pouring kerosene in her daughter
in law was set on fire. Daughter in law was admitted in
Holly Cross Hospital where she was dead. After receiving
representation of workman for joining duty, application
was forwarded to Headquarter of the company at Bilaspur
for further advice on 4-11-09. Said notesheet was received
by Headquarters after taking legal advice of company
Headquarter. Headquarter informed area management vide
order dated 7-12-09 granting approval to permit the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1085
workman to resume duty. 2nd party submits that workman
was not suspended by management. He was detained after
his arrest. Workman was in judicial custody. Management
has no role with his arrest or detention. Workman was not
suspended by management. Workman is not entitled to
suspension allowance. The delay of 41 days granting
approval to resume duty to workman is bonafide. On such
ground, 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.
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 manage-
In Affirmative
ment of the Chief general Manager,
SECL, Baikunthpur Area and the
Sub Area Manager, Jhilmili Sub
Area SECL, Distt. Korea (CG) in
non-payment of suspension
allowances to Shri Surendra
Pratap Singh Sr. Clerk Grade I
(SLU) during the period of his
judicial custody from 23-12-07 to
21-10-09 without suspension was
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
5.
Term of reference pertains to denial of suspension
allowance to the workman for the period 23-12-07 to 21-10-09
as per Clause 28.9 of the standing order. The documents
produced by management Exhibit M-1 to M-11 are admitted.
Documents pertains to Exhibit M-9 is chargesheet. No
action was taken on chargesheet issued to workman for
unauthorized absence. Exhibit M-1 is application submitted
by workman for joining duty. Exhibit M-2 is application
dated 5-3-09 requesting management to allow workman to
join duty. Exhibit M-3 is application dated 25-5-09. Exhibit
M-4 is application dated 4-9-09. Workman had informed
management about his inability to join duty. Exhibit M-5 is
application dated 26-10-03 requesting management to allow
him to join duty. Exhibit M-6 is certificate issued by Jain
authorities about detention of workman in jail. Workman
was released from jail after his acquittal in criminal case.
Exhibit M-7 is copy of judgment in Criminal case No. 65/08.
Exhibit M-10 is notesheet whereby workman was permitted
to join duty. Exhibit M-11 is letter sent by management
along with notesheet allowing workman to join duty. Exhibit
M-8 is order allowing workman to join duty. Workman has
also produced similar documents at Exhibit W-10, 11,12,13
& 14. As per Exhibit W-15, workman had submitted
application for recovery of money due from employer. The
documents Exhibit W-16,17 are the application submitted
claiming amount due to recovery from the management.
6.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
contentions in statement of claim. That after his arrest,
workman was granted leave for the period from 14-12-07 to
21-12-07. Workman was paid wages for the said period. He
was not paid wages since 22-12-07. Workman was detained
in jail for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC
during the period 14-12-07 to 21-10-09. He claims to be
entitled for subsistence allowance. From his evidence in
chief, documents Exhibit W-18 to W-23 are admitted in
evidence. In his cross-examination, workman says in
criminal case, charges of burning his daughter in law by
pouring kerosene were alleged against him. Charge was
found false and workman was released from jail on 26-10-09.
The copy of attendance register produced by him are not
bearing signature of the authorities. Workman submits
that chargesheet Exhibit M-9 was not received by him.
7.
Management’s witness ShriS.K.Mallik filed affidavit
of evidence supporting contentions in statement of claim.
The arrest and detention of workman in jail in criminal case
for offence under 302 IPC is not disputed. Management’s
witness in his cross says on 16-2-08, chargesheet was
issued to workman but any action was not taken against
him as workman was prosecuted in criminal case. After
judgment in criminal case, workman was allowed to resume
duty. The service conditions of workman are covered by
certified standing orders.
8.
The dispute between parties pertains to recovery of
subsistence allowance as per clause 28.9 of standing order.
It is dispute between parties whether the workman is
entitled to subsistence allowance as per clause 28.9 of
certified standing order. Clause 28.9 of certified standing
order provides-
“not withstanding the provisions contained in the
standing orders as above, the management reserves
right to suspend a workman being prosecuted in a
court of law for any grave criminal offence involving
moral turpitude of murder until the disposal of the
trial. The workman concerned shall be entitled to
50 % of wages as subsistence allowance. In case the
above workmen is finally acquitted, he would be paid
full wages for the period of suspension.”
The pleadings and evidence of Ist party are silent
that the workman was suspended after he was acquitted in
criminal case. Clause 28.9 provides that the management
reserve right to suspend the workman being prosecuted in
court for criminal act involving moral turpitude. Said right
was not exercised by management. Workman was not
suspended. When workman was not suspended and he
was allowed to resume duty after his acquittal in criminal
court, the claim of workman for subsistence allowance
under Clause 28.9 of standing order cannot be accepted.
9.
Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C.Shrivastav
submits that clause 28.9 of the standing order gives right
to suspend workman on his prosecution in criminal court
1086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for the offence involving moral turpitude, murder etc. it
was obligatory for management to suspend workman. The
workman is deemed to have been suspended and therefore
workman be entitled to subsistence allowance as per clause
28.9 of standing order. In support of above argument,
reliance is placed in
Case of Prakash Kumar Sahu versus Union of India
and others reported in 2012(2)MPLJ-347. Ratio held
by their Lordship is on the point suspension of
Government Servant on ground of arrest in criminal
case. There is no break in service, a non duty period
cannot be excluded from counting the said period of
suspension for the purpose of pension. Decision of
the Competent Authority for not treating the period
of suspension having condoned the break in service
being patently erroneous cannot be given approval.
The ratio held in the case doesnot cover the
controversy between parties as workman was not
suspended, no question of revocation of suspension order
is involved. Workman is claiming suspension allowance.
Above clause in standing order gives power to the
management for suspending employee involved in criminal
case of moral turpitude etc. workman cannot be deemed
suspended. Clause 28.9 is silent about the deeming
suspension. The argument advanced by Shri R.C.
Shrivastava for workman cannot be accepted. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of the management in
non-payment of suspension allowances to
Shri Surendra Pratap Singh Sr. Clerk Grade I (SLU)
during the period of his judicial custody from 23-12-07
to 21-10-09 without suspension is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 518-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 133@1995) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@185@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2016
S.O. 518.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 133/
1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of WCL,
Baikunthpur Area, PO-Baikunthpur, SECL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/03/
2016.
[No. L-22012/185/1994-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/133/95
Smt.Saira Banoo, wife,
Sameer Ali & Javeed Ali- sons &
Ammena Banoo, daughter- LRs of
Shri Skakir Ali, Pumper, Chandametta Colliery,
Eagle Radios, Main Road,
Chandametta, Post Parasia,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Workman/LRs
Versus
Manager, WCL,
Chandametta colliery,
Post Chandametta,
Chhindwara (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of February 2016
1.
As per letter dated 12-7-95 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/
185/94-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Manager, Chandametta
Colliery of WCLtd., Pench area, PO Chandametta,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in terminating the services
of Shri Shakir Ali, S/o Ahmad Khan, Pump Khalasi,
Chandametta Colliery vide his order dated 10-5-82 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/2. Workman died during pendency of
reference. His LRs are brought on record. case of deceased
workman was that he was working from 1972 at Chandametta
colliery. He was working with devotion. For some reasons,
he was absent from duty from 20-3-82. On 10-5-82, his
services were terminated as per clause 19 of standing orders.
His services were terminated without chargesheet on
enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice. Workman
repeatedly requested for allowing him on duty was not
considered. On such contentions, workman submits that
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1087
order of his termination is illegal. He prays for reinstatement
with backwages.
3.
Management of 2nd party submitted preliminary
objection at Page 5/1 to 5/2 submitting that workman was
terminated on 10-5-82. The dispute was raised submitting
application before ALC on 9-6-92. The Government has
referred dispute vide order dated 12-7-95 is not tenable.
The statement of claim signed by Shri P.K.Bannerjee has
no locus standi is also not tenable.
4.
Detailed Written Statement is filed at Page 6/1 to 6/3.
2nd party submits that deceased workman Shakir Ali was
permanent employee of Chandametta colliery as Pump
Khalasi. He was absent from duty without permission from
20-3-82. His services were terminated as per clause 19 of
certified standing orders on 10-5-82 for his absence more
than 30 days. The dispute is raised after lapse of more than
13 years is not tenable. It is reiterated that when workman
was unauthorisely absent, his services were terminated as
per clause19 of standing orders. 2nd party contends that if
Tribunal hold that enquiry is necessary, management be
sought permission to lead evidence about unauthorized
absence of workman. The action of management is legal
and proper.
5.
Workman filed rejoinder at Page 8/2 to 8/3 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim.
6.
After amendment impleading LRs of deceased
workman by Ist party, additional Written Statement is filed
by management reiterating that dispute raised after 13 years
is not tenable.
7.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the Manager,
In Affirmative
Chandametta Colliery of WCLtd.,
Pench area, PO Chandametta, Distt.
Chhindwara (MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Shakir Ali, S/o Ahmad
Khan, Pump Khalasi, Chandametta
Colliery vide his order dated 10-5-82
is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman/LRs
entitled to?”
are not entitled
to any relief.
REASONS
8.
The term of reference pertains to legality of the order
of termination of service of deceased workman. workman
filed affidavit of his evidence, he was not cross-examined.
Workman died during pendency of reference proceeding.
His LRs are brought on record. Smt. Saira Bano, wife of
deceased Shakir Ali and Sameer Ali son of deceased
workman filed affidavit of evidence. Affidavit of Shri Saira
Bano was not pressed. Sameer Ali in his cross-examination
claims ignorance about the service of his deceased father.
Shri Javed son of deceased workman in his affidavit of
evidence says his father was repeatedly working with 2nd
party from 1972. Because of illness, he did not attend duty.
Intimation about his illness was given to the management.
his father was terminated without notice. Retrenchment
compensation was not paid. In his cross-examination, Shri
Javed says affidavit of his evidence is filed as per the
information he received from his father when he attained
18 years of age. He had not seen any documents of service
of his father. When his father was in service of WCL, all
family members were receiving treatment in company
hospital. His father was working in pench area of WCL.
Burkui hospital is at 3kms distance from pench area. Medical
facility is available in said hospital. He was unable to tell in
1982 period of his father attending duties and absence
from duty.
9.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of Personal
Manager Abdul Hakim but he did not appear for his cross-
examination. Management did not examine any witness to
substantiate its contentions as workman was proceeded
exparte. Termination order of workman is not produced. As
per ordersheet dated 27-5-08, right of workman to adduce
evidence was closed. In his statement of claim, workman
has contented for some reasons he was absent from
27-3-82. His services were terminated as per order dated
10-5-82 as per clause 19 of standing orders therefore non
production of order of termination of service of workman
cannot be said vital. Copy of standing order is produced
on record. Clause 19 of standing order provides- if workman
remains absent for more than 30 days without giving
intimation, his services would automatically stand
terminated.
10.
Learned counsel for workman Shri R.K.Soni submits
that clause 18 of standing order provides about the
misconduct. Clause 18(d) of the standing order pertain to
unauthorized absence of workman as misconduct. Shri
R.K.Soni emphasized that case of deceased workman is
covered under Clause 18(b) of standing order. His services
were terminated without notice therefore order of
termination is illegal. If clause 18 & 19 of the standing
orders are carefully considered, clause 19 of standing order
deals with absence of the employee without intimation to
the management for period more than 30 days when services
of workman are automatically terminated. The standing order
are not challenged before Competent Authorities therefore
standing orders are binding on deceased workman. the
unauthorized absence covered under Clause 18 appears
different from the absence more than 30 days without
intimation to the management covered under Clause 19 of
standing orders. Therefore the action of the management
cannot be said illegal.
1088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
Besides above, Shri A.K.Shashi for management
submit that services of workman were terminated as per
clause 19 of the standing order on 10-5-82, the dispute was
raised before ALC in 1992 and reference is made in 1995
after 13 years. The reference is not tenable. In support of
his argument, Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in
Case of Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka
versus Shivalinga reported in 2002-I-LLJ-457. Their
Lordship dealing with delay and latches- delay of
more than 9 years in approaching Labour Officer held
in cases of serious dispute as to relationship of
employer and employee, records of employer being
relevant would come a way of maintenance of same
situation of such nature renders claim stale.
In case between Indian Iron and Steel Co.Ltd versus
Prahlad Singh reported in 2001(1)SCC-424. Their
Lordship dealing with the dispute raised after 13
years of termination of service, no reasonable
explanation given for such delay, it was held that
Industrial Tribunal rightly refused to grant any relief.
In present case, as per pleading in Written Statement,
the dispute was raised before ALC in 1992 after lapse of 10
years the delay is not explained. The dispute raised by
workman is rendered stale.
12.
Shri A.K.Shashi further relies on ratio held in
Case between New India Assurance Company Ltd.
versus Vipin Beharilal Srivastava reported in
2008(3)SCC-446. Their Lordship held proper mode
for obtaining sick leave, sick leave can be granted
only on production of Medical Certificate from
Registered Medical Practitioner.
Ist party has not adduced evidence about deceased
workman given intimation about his absence to the
management. Any medical certificate is not produced
therefore action of management cannot be said illegal. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
13.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the Manager, Chandametta Colliery of
WCLtd., Pench area, PO Chandametta, Distt.
Chhindwara (MP) in terminating the services of Shri
Shakir Ali, S/o Ahmad Khan, Pump Khalasi,
Chandametta Colliery vide his order dated 10-5-82 is
proper and legal.
(2)
Workman/LRs are not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 519-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 252@1999) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@370@1998&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2016
S.O. 519.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 252/
1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/03/2016.
[No. L-22012/370/1998-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/252/99
Secretary,
Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (BMS),
C/o SECL Hqrs, Seepat Road,
Bilaspur (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chairman cum Managing Director,
SECL Hqrs., Seepat Road,
Bilaspur (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 5th day of February, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 23-6/9-7-99 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/
370/98/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of SECL in
reducing the annual leave of Security Guards from
18 days in a year to 8 days in a year from 1994 is
justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned
employees are entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at
Page 8/1 to 8/2. Case of Ist party Union is that all monthly
rated employees posted in SECL Hqr. Bilaspur including
security personnel/ Security Guard were enjoying 18 days
holidays in a calendar year right from the formation of SECL
from the year 1986 till 1993. In the year 1994, management
of SECL Hqr. Bilaspur issued office order dated 28-4-94
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1089
bifurcating the monthly rated employees in 2 groups on
their duty hours (1) whose working hours is 6 ½ hours and
(2) employees whose duty hours was 8 hours day.
Employees with duty hours of 6 ½ hours were entitled to
get 18 holidays and those whose duty hours was 8 hours
a day were put to disadvantageous condition by reducing
their holidays from 18 to 8 in a calendar year. By issuance
of above said order, the service conditions of 68 security
Personnel were affected. That after issuance of the aforesaid
order dated 28-4-94, the management denied the Security
Personnel to enjoy 18 days holidays from 1994. Union tried
to convince management but was of no use. Secondly the
dispute has been raised.
3.
Ist party Union further submits that the management
of SECL by issuing the order affecting change in service
conditions not consulted the workman or Union under IR
system. No notice of change under section 9-A of ID Act
was issued as the Leave with wages and holidays comes
under service condition as laid down in Schedule IV of ID
Act, 1947. It is alleged that the management adopted pick
and choose method. SECL Hqr. review their decision in
similar case like Security Personnel and re-extended 18
holidays facility to a group of employees like Telephone
Operators whose duty hours is also 8 hours like Security
Personnel. On such ground, the Union prays that facility
of 18 holidays be restored and triple wages of 10 days
holidays be paid with 18 % interest.
4.
2nd party management filed Written Statement at
Page 13/1 to 13/12 opposing claim of Union. 2nd party
submits that coal mines were owned by Private owners.
All the Coal Mines were nationalized as per the Coal Mines
Act 1972 to ensure the rational co-ordinated and scientific
development and utilization of the coal resources. In order
that the ownership and control of such resources are vested
in the State and thereby so distributed as best to subserve
the common good. The Union of India took under its control
the regulation and development of coal mines for the
purpose of general superintendence, direction, control and
management of the affairs and business of a coalmine. For
proper administration and operation of the mines, different
companies and subsidiary companies were established.
The service condition of such employees were different.
The Government had constituted Central Wage Board for
Coal Industry. Both the workman and the management
appeared before the Wage Board and after examining cases
of both parties, the Wage Board submitted its
recommendations fixing service conditions of employees
and wages. The recommendations of wage board were
accepted by Central Government. The wage scale were
fixed taking into consideration of 8 hours working days.
Wages were not fixed for 6 ½ hours working per day. That
NCDC is public sector company and Government colliery
followed Central Govt. Pay Scale and working pattern which
resulted in following Central Govt. pattern of working hours
and holidays.
5.
It is further contented that due to some
misunderstanding, ignorance or oversight in some collieries
of NCDC, a wrong working hours of clerical staff were
adopted as 6 ½ hours and holidays were given on
Government pattern. It was stopped after nationalization
of mines. That thousands of workers who were working 8
hours a day and having 8 holidays protested against the
illegal benefit given for few selected workers. It was
necessary to have common working hours, service
conditions, pay scales, working in the same industry. Any
discrimination is impermissible under industrial
jurisprudence and service law. That uniform policy was
also allowed under the Factories Act, Mines Act, Shop and
Establishment Act etc. The management was trying to
correct the imbalance advantage enjoyed by few persons.
The employees in dispute are covered by provisions of
Mines Act.
6.
The service conditions of employees working in coal
industry are covered by NCWA executed time to time. For
implementation of provisions of NCWA, there is committee
known as JBCCI. Said Committee used to have equal
strength of members from various recognized Central Trade
Unions as well as management. Joint Consultation
Committee meeting held at corporate level on 3-6-88 , 2-9-88.
Representatives of 3 Central Unions were present. The
representative of those Unions considering the stand of
management found that the provisions of Mines Act
doesnot require notice of change under Section 9-A of ID
Act. If demand of Union is admitted, lacks of workers will
come up with similar demand. It may be difficult to resist
such claim. It created total unrest in the industry. In SECL,
there were 95 mines comprising 12 Areas and sub areas in
each mine. Security Personnel were deployed to ensure
safety and security of the company property. Security
Personnel are liable for transfer to the collieries and other
establishments. In every colliery, only 8 paid holidays are
allowed . The Security Personnel in the Corporate office
who were by mistake allowed 18 paid holidays . In order to
avoid such situation, management taken appropriate action.
7.
2nd party also refers to clauses under NCWA-I of
1974, NCWA-II of 1979, NCWA-III of 1983, NCWA-IV of
1989, NCWA-V of 1991. The existing holidays were
continued at present. 2nd party has referred to ratio held
in various cases and reiterates that it was not necessary to
change notice under Section 9A. The Security Personnel
are enjoying 8 paid holidays from 1984. Section 9-A of ID
Act is also attracted. It is also submitted that the services
of staff are covered by Clause 11 of the standing orders.
The NCDC practice has become defunct after
nationalization of the coal mines. The wage Board has
recommended 8 paid holidays was accepted by
government. The facility of Gazetted Holidays cannot be
claimed as a matter of right by employees.
8.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
1090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of SECL in reducing the annual
leave of Security Guards from 18 days
in a year to 8 days in a year from 1994
is justified?
(ii) If not, to what relief the workman is
Workmen are
entitled to?”
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
9.
Point No.1- The terms of reference pertains to
reduction of annual leave from 18 to 8 from 1994 by
management of SECL. The Union has filed affidavit of Shri
M.P.Jangde supporting claim of workman that the dispute
pertains to 18 paid holidays/ National holidays, festival to
Security Guards reduced to 8 paid holidays in 1994. In the
year 1984, details of 18 paid holidays are given, the details
of office orders of 20-12-89, 1-1-91, 24-12-91, 15-12-92,
31-12-93 are submitted alongwith affidavit. The order dated
20-4-94 issued by the management reducing paid holidays
to 8 is produced. In his cross-examination, the witness of
Union Shri Jangde says that the dispute pertains to 68
persons working in security department. All those persons
were members of Union. At the time of his evidence, 15
employees were members of Union. The employees
connected with Union are working with Security Guard,
some of them as security sub inspectors. The witness was
unable to tell in 1994 on which post the employees
connected with dispute were working. Witness was unable
to tell the employees in telephone departmental monthly
rated employees, paid leave were reduced to 8. The working
hours of Security employees are 8 hours. Names of 68
workers are not shown in the order of reference. He claims
ignorance whether after nationalization, the coal mines
were managed and controlled by NCDC. Whether the
service conditions of employees working in NCDC were
different. The witness has admitted constitution of National
Wage Board for Coal Wage Industry. The Wage Board
recommended working 8 hours per day, 48 hours in a week.
The witness was unable to tell about the working days of
employees in subsidiary companies. The list of holidays
issued by management 18 holidays to the employees
working on monthly basis.
10.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri
Narendra Prasad Singh he not appeared for his cross-
examination. Management filed affidavit of evidence of
witness Shri Hemant Jha supporting contentions of
management in Written Statement. In his cross-examination,
management’s witness claims ignorance whether
employees connected with dispute were getting 18 paid
holidays till 1993. As per order Exhibit M-7 the employees
were allowed 8 days paid holidays. Order Exhibit M-7 was
issued by Personnel Manager Shri B.K.Jahan- the list of
national holidays issued by administration. The witness
was unable to tell whether National Holidays are reduced
from 18 to 8.
11.
The affidavit of Shri Sanjay Kumar Jha is filed but
the witness had not appeared for his cross-examination.
12.
Documentary evidence produced on record Exhibit
W-1(a) order dated 20-12-89 of 16 paid holidays in SECL,
Exhibit W-1(b) order dated 1-1-91 of 16 paid holidays,
Exhibit W-1(c) order dated 24-12-91 of 18 paid holidays,
Exhibit W-1(d) order dated 15-12-92 of 17 paid holidays,
Exhibit W-1(e) order dated 31-12-93 of 19 paid holidays,
Exhibit W-1(f) order dated 31-12-94 of 18 paid holidays,
Exhibit W-1(g) order dated 31-12-95 of 18 paid holidays in
SECL. Exhibit W-2 is office order dated 27-4-94 issued by
SECL office to Chairman cum Managing Director. Exhibit
W-3 is copy of Section-9(A) of ID Act, Exhibit W-4 is office
order dated 18-8-95. 8 employees were allowed to avail 16
paid holidays and 2 days Restricted Holidays. Management
has produced documents Exhibit M-1 to M-2 appointment
orders Clause iii of those appointment orders shows that
service conditions of employees are covered by Model
Standing Orders. Exhibit M-3 is office order dated 1-1-1990
issued by general Manager of SECL allowing 8 paid
holidays to the employees. Exhibit M-4,5,6 are orders
regarding 8 paid holidays. Exhibit M-7 is order dated 27-4-94
directing that employees attending 8 hours duty will not
be entitled for 18 days holidays.
13.
Union Secretary did not attend case after the case
was fixed for argument repeatedly. Shri A.K.Shashi for
management submits that the service conditions of the
employees in SECL are covered by NCWA, standing orders,
provisions of Mines Act, Shop and Establishment Act
providing 8 hours working a day, 48 hours working a week.
Management has brought uniformity. The service
conditions of employees are not changed as the working
hours are provided under Mines Act, Standing Orders etc.
Union Secretary remained absent and his argument on
above point are not advanced.
14.
Considering documents Exhibit M-1, M-2, service
conditions of employees are covered by Model Standing
Orders. The evidence adduced by Union doesnot show
any rational to hold that the reduction of paid holidays
from 18 to 8 is unjustified.
15.
Shri A.K.Shashi relied on ratio held in
Case between M/S Saxby and Farmer (India) versus
workmen reported in AIR-1975-SC-534. Their
Lordship dealing with the dispute pertain to holidays,
public utility service held it is generally accepted
that there are too many public holidays in our country.
When the need for industrial production is urgent
and paramount, it may be advisable to reduce the
number of such holidays in industrial concerns. It
cannot be disputed that a necessary step in the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1091
direction of increasing the country’s productivity is
the reduction of number of holidays.
Considering evidence discussed above and ratio held
in above cited case, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
16.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of SECL in reducing
the annual leave of Security Guards from 18 days in
a year to 8 days in a year from 1994 is proper and
legal.
(2)
Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 520-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-
1423@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
10@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@2@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2016
S.O. 520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1423/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Western Railway and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 10/03/2016.
[No. L-41011/2/2004-IR (B-I)]
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 11th January, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No-1423/2004
1.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda-390004
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workmen
Through the Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole, Kothi,
Baroda
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Sh.H.B. Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
-
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 41011/2/2004-
IR(B-I) dated 21.06.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication
to the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda(Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union for assigning the
seniority of Shri. H.J. Gupta and Shri SagheluAnoop
from the date of their engagement in services as
Gangman in Engineering Department and to give the
dues to concerned workmen are entitled to from which
date?”
2.
This reference dates back to 21.06.2004. First party
filed the vakilpatra (Ext.3) of his advocate on 17.04.2006
despite service and giving numbers of opportunities to
second party, did not prefer to submit 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] 10 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 521-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 794@2004)
(05@2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@03@2016
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@39@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2016
S.O. 521.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
1092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 794/
2004) (ITC No. 05/2003) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of Western Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/03/2016.
[No. L-41011/39/2002-IR (B-I)]
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 11th January, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 794/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 05/2003
1.
The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRO),
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda-390004
2.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda-390004
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workmen
Through the Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole,
Kothi,
Baroda-390001 (Gujarat)
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Sh K.J. Parikh, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
-
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 41011/39/2002-
IR(B-I) dated 23.01.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication
to the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda(Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Western Railway in not
making proper fixation of pay and not given arrears
to the eligible employees Shri Sudhir V. Pradhan Fitter
Gr.II Shri Yakub Mohammed, Fitter Gr. III ; Shri Suresh
S. Makwan, Fitter Gr. III as well as no payment to
Shri Anil Patel, Ex-Khallasi for 67 hrs. is proper, legal
and justified? If not, what relief the concenred
workmen are entitled and from which date?”
2.
This reference dates back to 23.01.2003. Despite first
party submitted vakilpatra by Kunjbela J. Parekh but second
party despite service did not prefer to submit 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] 10 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 522-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-
1421@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
10@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@1@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2016
S.O. 522.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1421/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Western Railway and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 10/03/2016.
[No. L-41011/1/2004-IR (B-I)]
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 11th January, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 1421/2004
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1093
Kothi Compound,
Rajkot
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Sh. Kishor Ojha,
Through the Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Near Vishwakarma Temple,
Jawahar Chowk, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
...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- 41011/1/2004-
IR(B-I) dated 21.06.2004 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 management of Divisional
Rail Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot in awarding
punishment of removal of service and on mercy
appeal reinstating Shri Kishore Ojha, Ex. F/man, LF,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad a class-III employee, to the
post of class IV category is justified and legal? If no,
what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
This reference dates back to 21.06.2004. Second party
submitted the statement of claim Ext.3 on 27.03.2006 first
party also submitted written statement Ext. 6 on 30.01.2009.
Despite giving dozens of opportunities to second party to
lead their evidence, they did not prefer to lead their
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] 10 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 523-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 5@2006)dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@03@2016 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@248@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2016
S.O. 523.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10/03/2016.
[No. L-12012/248/2000-IR (B-I)]
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 12th January, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 5/2006
1. The Zonal Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal office,
Opp. New SAchivalaya,
Sector No.10,
Gandhinagar (Gujarat)
2. The General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Main Branch,
Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad
3. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Palanpur Branch,
Opp. Jua Gunj Bazar,
Palanpur (Banaskantha)
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Sh. Parshottambhai Mohanbhai Makwana
Through the General Secretary,
Shramjivi Kamdar Sangh,
Dhal Vas,
Mesari Vas,
Palanpur (Banaskantha)
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Sh. B. M. Joshi, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
-
1094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 12012/248/
2000-IR(B-I) dated 05.01.2006 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 state
Bank of India, Palanpur Branch in orally termination
the services of Shri Parshotambhai Mohanbhai
Makwana w.e.f. 1.6.99 is justified or not? If not, what
relief the applicant is entitled to and from which date?”
2.
This reference dates back to 05.01.2006.All the parties
were served by registered post. Acknowledgement were
received. First party State Bank of India also filed the
Vakilatnama (Ext.9) but second party did not turned up to
file 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] 10 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 524-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkiksZjs'ku cSad
ds çcaèkra=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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-
1010@2004) (22@1996) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 10@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@223@15&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2016
S.O. 524.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1010/
2004) (ITC No. 22/1996) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of Corporation Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/03/2016.
[No. L-12012/223/15-IR (B-I)]
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 7th January, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 1010/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 22/1996
1. The Manager,
Corporation Bank,
Dhebarbhai Road Branch,
Dhebarbhai Road,
Rajkot- 360002
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Shrr. Jaydevsinh G. Jadeja,
Shri Momi Ashish,
Anand Nagar,
Qtr. No. E-62,
Rajkot-360002
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
-
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 12012/223/15-
IR(B-I) dated 17.04.1996 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 Corporation Bank, Rajkot
in termination the services of Shri Jaydev Singh G.
Jadeja, Peon at the Dhebarbhai Road Branch, Rajkot
w.e.f. 20.10.1992 just,valid & legal? If not, to what
benefits the workman is entitled for and what
directions are necessary in the matter?”
2.
This reference dates back to 17.04.1996. R.C.
Associates, a legal firm filed the vakilpatra on behalf of the
first party. Second party was also served and submitted
statement of claim (ext.4) ON 01.07.1997 later on a legal firm
Upadhyay &Upadhyafiled vakilpatra on behalf of the first
party and also submitted written statement (Ext. 14).
3.
A number of opportunities were given to lead his
evidence but he did not come forward to lead his 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.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1095
The reference is dismissed in default of the second
party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 525-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 70@2004)
(19@1998) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@03@2016
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@131@97&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2016
S.O. 525.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2004)
(ITC No. 19/1998) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown
in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of Western Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/03/2016.
[No. L-41012/131/97-IR (B-I)]
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. 70/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 19/1998
1. The General Manager,
Western Railway,
Churchgate, Mumbai-400001
2. The Chief Workshop Manager,
Western Railwat, Loco workshop,
Dahod-389160
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Through the Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
C/o. Shri K.C. Sharma,
Quarter No. 101/L.,
‘C’ Site, Freelanganj,
Dahod-389160
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Sh. H.B. Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party :
Sh. B.K. Sharma, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 41012/131/97-
IR(B-I) dated 17.03.1998 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 chief workshop Manager,
Western Railway, Loco workshop, Dahod in denying
promotion to Shri N.B. Makwana to the post of Shop
Suptd. And promoting his juniors to the above post
in the preceding years is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the concerned employee is entitled to?”
2.
This reference dates back to 17.03.1998. Second party
submitted the statement of claim on 30.04.1998 in response
to that first party submitted written statement (Ext.5) on
05.08.1998. Today, Harish B. Shah filed the vakalatnama on
behalf of the first party.
3.
The case is very old one but second party has been
absent since last several dated to lead 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] 10 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 526-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-
1032@2004) (50@1996) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 10@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@69@94&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2016
S.O. 526.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1032/
2004) (ITC No. 50/1996) of the Central Government
1096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of Western Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/03/2016.
[No. L-41012/69/94-IR (B-I)]
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 14th December, 2015
Reference : (CGITA) No. 1032/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 50/1996
The Chief Engineer (c),
Western Railway,
Station Building,
Kalupur, Ahmedabad
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Shri Uman Ahmed
Through the President,
Saurastra Employees Union ‘Baba Era’,
10/5, Jagnath Plot, Swami Tahiliaram Marg,
Rajkot: 360001
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Sh. H.B. Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party :
-
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/69/94-
IR(B-I) dated 21.11.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication
to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot (Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
Western Railway, Ahmedabad were justified
according to law in terminating the services of Shri
Uman Ahmed? If so was adequate opportunity
afforded to the workmen to show their willingness
for getting back into que for employment?
(2) Was the delay in raising the dispute justified?
(3) In view of the findings on (1) and (2) above, what
is the relief that Shri Uman Ahmed is entitled to?”
2.
The reference dates back to 21.11.1996. Second party
filed statement of claim (Ext.3) on 31.03.1998 and first party
also filed written statement (Ext. 7) on 31.07.2000 but despite
giving dozens of opportunities to the second party, second
party did not prefer to lead evidence. Thus it appears that
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 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 527-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,pMh,iQlh
fy- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 27@2010)
(24@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@03@2016
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@192@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2016
S.O. 527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2010)
(ITC No. 24/2009) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown
in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of HDFC Ltd. and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 10/03/2016.
[No. L-12012/192/2008-IR (B-I)]
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 14th December, 2015
Reference : (CGITA) No. 27/2010
Reference : (ITC) No. 24/2009
1.
The Branch Manager,
HDFC Ltd., Radha Swami Complex,
Highway Road, Kadi
Dist: Mehsana (Gujarat)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1097
2.
The Manager,
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Shilp-2, Gr. Floor,
Near Sales India, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
3.
The Manager (HRD),
HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House,
2nd Lf. Senapati Bapat March,
Lower Parel,
Mumbai
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Shri Nitin Kumar Jivrajbhai Patel,
36-C Alaknanda Soc. Nani Kadi,
At Kadi,
Dist: Mehsana (Gujarat)
...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-12012/192/2008-
IR(B-I) dated 11.06.2009 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 HDFC
Bank, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri
Nitin Kumar Jivarajbhai Patel without following the
procedure and in contravention of Section 25F,25G
and 25H of the ID Act, 1947, is valid reasonable and
justified? To what relief, the workman is entitled and
from which date?”
2.
This reference dates back to 11.06.2009. Both the
parties were served by way of registered post on 15.02.2010.
Neither of the parties have been appearing in the reference.
Second party has also not filed his statement of claim thus
it appears that both the parties are not willing to proceed
with the reference. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to
dismiss the reference in default of the parties.
The reference is dismissed in default of the parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 528-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
lkSjk"Vª ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 136@2004)
(vkbZVhlh ua- 1@1999) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 10@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@110@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2016
S.O. 528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/2004)
(ITC No. 1/1999) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of State Bank of Saurastra and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/03/2016.
[No. L-12012/110/98-IR (B-I)]
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 14th December, 2015
Reference : (CGITA) No. 136/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 1/1999
State Bank of Saurastra,
Branch Managerm S.B. O.S.,
Shahibaug Branch,
Sahjanand Complex,
Ahmedabad-380001
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Smt. Manjulaben Natvarlal Panchal,
C/o. Akhil Hujarat General Mazdoor Sangh,
Rangila Gate,
Shahpur,
Ahmedabad-380001
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Kum. Meenaben Shah,
Advocate
For the Second Party
:
-
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/110/98/
IR(B-I) dated 31.12.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication
to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
1098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Saurastra
in terminating the services of Smt. Manjulaben
Natvarlal Panchal w.e.f. 31.07.1997 is justified? If
not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled
to?”
2.
This reference dates back to 31.12.1998. Second party
filed statement of claim (Ext.6) on 26.07.1999 and first party
filed written statement (Ext.9). Despite giving dozens of
opportunities to the second party for leading evidence,
second party did not prefer to lead evidence. It is one of
the oldest case in the Tribunal by perusal of the record. It
appears that second party is not willing to lead evidence.
Thus Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in
default of the second party.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second
party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 529-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
lkSjk"Vª ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 168@2006)
(vkbZVhlh ua- 38@2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 10@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@132@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th March, 2016
S.O. 529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 168/2006)
(ITC No. 38/2003) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of State Bank of Saurastra and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/03/2016.
[No. L-12012/132/2005-IR (B-I)]
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 11th January, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 168/2006
Reference : (ITC) No. 38/2003
1.
The Chairman ,
State Bank of Saurastra,
Head Office,
P.O. Box No. 51,
Bhavnagar-394001
2.
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Saurastra,
Head Office,
P.O. Box No. 51,
Bhavnagar
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Tida Janjvadia,
At Village-Railway Station,
Punapara Maliya Hatina,
Dist. Junagadh, Gujarat
...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- 12012/132/
2005-IR(B-I) dated 06.09.2006 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 State Bank
of Saurastra in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh
Kumar Tida Janjvadia w.e.f. 23.06.2004 is justified? If
not, what relief he is entitled to?”
This reference dates back to 06.09.2006. Second party
submitted statement of claim (Ext. 4) on 17.04.2007. First
party also filed written statement (Ext.13)on 05.02.2009.
Second party also filed the affidavit of workman Sh. Rajesh
Kumar Tida Janjvadia, but he did not prefer to come forward
to get him cross examination despite giving number of
opportunities. 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 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 530-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chchlh,y
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1099
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
12@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@199@2002&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 12 of 2003) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20012/199/2002-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 12 of 2003
Employer in relation to the management of
Katras Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri U.N. Lal, Advocate
For the workman
:
Shri B.B. Pandey, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 08/02/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/199/2002/IR (C-1)) dated
24/01/2003, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise the powers conferred by clause (d)
of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Koyla Ispat Mazdoor
Panchayat from the management of BCCL, Katras
Area to provide employment to Sri Sanjay Bhuia, the
dependant son of Late Kedar Bhuia is proper and
justified? If so, to what relief is the said dependant of
the deceased workman entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference , both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld Counsel for
the workman submits that workman is not interested to
contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between the
parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 531-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fVLdks ds izca/ra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 4@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20013@2@2016&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 4 of 2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. TISCO and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20013/2/2016-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S (2A) (1) (2) of
I.D. Amendment Act, 1947
I.D. No. 4 of 2013
Sri Chitranjan Mahanta, Overseer
S/o Sri Ramesh Chandra Mahanta
C & SM West Bokaro
M/s. Tata Steel Ltd.
...Applicant
Vs.
The General Manager
West Bokaro Division
M/s. TISCO, P.O.- Ghatotand
Distt- Ramgarh
...Opp.Party
1100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Applicant
:
Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
For the Opp.Party
:
Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Steel
Dated : 10/02/2016
AWARD
One I.D. Application of Sri Chitaranjan Mahanta,
Overseer, S/O Sri Ramesh Chandra Mahanta Vs General
Manager West Bokaro Division of M/s. TISCO is received
U/s 2A (1)(2) of I.D. Amendment Act 1947 and registered as
I.D. case No. 4 of 2013 as following dispute for adjudication
in this Tribunal;
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of West
Bokaro Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. in dismissing
Sri Chitranjan Mahanta, Overseer w.e.f 31.10.2012/
02.11.2012 is legal and justified? If not, to What
relief the concerned workmen is entitled to?”
2.
The I.D. case is received on 01.08.2013. After receipt
of I.D, both Parties are noticed, the Opp.Party files their
written statement on 06.12.2013. Thereafter rejoinder and
document filed by the parties. No evidence adduced by
both side. But document of Opp. Party marked as M-1 to
M-11.
3.
The case of the applicant is that he was appointed as
Overseer Technical-B by letter dated 12.03.2009 and he
was working regularly as permanent workman. But all on
sudden the Opp.Party issued a chargesheet dated
20.03.2012. The chargesheet is primafacie illegal and against
the provision of standing order of the company.
4.
It is also submitted by the applicant that one domestic
enquiry was conducted in utter violation of principle of
natural justice. The opp party fails to file any relevant
document to prove the charges. And no legal document or
evidence was adduced by the management to prove the
allegation of fraud or dishonesty of the applicant. And on
the basis of perverse findings of the enquiry officer, the
management/ Opp.party dismissed the applicant by order
dated 31.10.2012/2.11.2012.It is also submitted by the
applicant that the dismissal order of the applicant is
primafacie illegal.
5.
It is further submitted by the applicant that the supply
order of stone to M/s. Santosh Kr. Singh was not issued
by the petitioner, and no document was produced in the
enquiry to prove that the measurement of stone supplied
by M/s. Santosh Kumar Singh was less than the
management’s measurement done by the applicant. The
delivery memo and the measurement book was checked
and verified by the higher authority and payment was made
by the Accounts Department as per the company’s rules.
As such the order of Opp.party is vindictive in nature and
too harsh as well as disproportionate. Hence the I.D was
arose.
6.
The case of the Opp.Party is that the applicant was
working as Overseer at west Bokaro Division of Tata Steel
Ltd. And was posted in Civil and Structural Maintenance
Department.
7.
It is also submitted by the Opp.party that the
applicant has committed serious misconduct, therefore the
management issued charge sheet under clause 27 (2) of
the certified Standing Order. The enquiry Officer conducted
domestic enquiry in resence of the applicant in accordance
with principle of natural justice and submitted his report
holding therein that the charges leveled against under
clause 27 (2) for act of misconduct of fraud and dishonesty
stand established. Thereafter the management issued
second show cause notice and supplied the copy of enquiry
report, after received the second show cause notice, the
applicant submitted his representation. Thereafter the
competent authority carefully going through the record of
enquiry proceeding , findings of enquiry officer, the
evidence on record , which has been established against
him and the competent authority dismissed him from service
w.e f. 3.11.2012. The dismissal of applicant is proportionate,
legal and justified.
8.
The short point to be decided in this I.D. is whether
the workman , who has been dismissed on the ground of
fraud & dishonesty is proper or not.
9.
As alleged after detection of fraud, departmental
enquiry was held . The workman participated, found guilty,
served with consecutive show cause notice and the
management considering the representation of the workman
dismissed him.
10.
In this I.D. the domestic enquiry held fair and proper.
Then the only thing is to be seen, whether punishment
imposed is appropriate or not.
11.
The allegation against the workman/applicant is
fraud. Fraud is a serious misconduct and on the same
ground the workman has been dismissed. Therefore this
Tribunal , is totally reluctant to interfere with the action of
the management. Hence claim dismissed.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 532-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 8@2015) dks
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1101
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@102@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 8 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20012/102/2010-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 08 of 2015
Employer in relation to the management of
Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
Shri R.R. Ram, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 11/02/2016
AWARD
By Order No-L-20012/102/2010 IR-(CM-I), dated
27/03/2015, the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub –
section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dismissal of Shri Nirpat Bhuia, Ex-M/
Loader w.e.f. 21.01.2004 from the company by the
management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of
M/s. BCCL is fair and justified? To what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
15.04.2015. After receipt of reference the Sponsoring Union
files their written statement on 16.04.2015. The management
files their written statement -cum-rejoinder on 30.10.2015.
No witness adduced by both side but document of
management is marked as M-1 to M-8. This is a case of
dismissal of workman on the ground of long absenteeism.
3.
During preliminary hearing of this case, domestic
enquiry held by the management is accepted by the
Sponsoring Union/workman as Fair & Proper . The point
involved in the reference is that the workman has been
dismissed from his services on the ground of long absence.
4.
During hearing of argument on merit. It is revealed
that the case is dismissal of workman for long absence on
duty. But he has already out of service for 12 years. It is
felt to give another chance to the workman to serve.
5.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee as cat-I
scale. But the workman be kept under probation for a
period one year . Therefore the question of giving back
wages does not arise at all.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 533-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
lh,eihMhvkbZ,y ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 12@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@02@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 12 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. CMPDIL and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20012/02/1993-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
1102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference No. 12 of 1994
Employer in relation to the management of
M/s. CMPDIL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri B.K. Sinha, Manager
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 19/01/2016
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012 /02/1993-IR(C-1) dated 14/02/
1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. Ranchi
is justified in terminating the services of the workman
Shri Gangadhar Pandey w.e.f. 03/11/1988 after
employing him continuously from 08/07/87 to 02/11/
88 without paying him notice pay in lieu of one month
notice and retrenchment compensation in violation
of Sec. 25 F of I.D.Act, 1947 ? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled and from what date ?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently
on behalf of the workman, Case remains pending. It is felt
that the disputes between the parties have been resolved
in the meantime. Hence, No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 534-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZlh,y ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@2008) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@8@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 23 of 2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. ECL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20012/8/2007-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 23 of 2008
Employers in relation to the management of
Mandman Colliery of M/s. ECL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
Shri U.P. Sinha, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 12/02/2016
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/8/2007-IR(CM-I), dated
28/05/2008, 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
“(i) Whether the action of the management of
Mandman Colliery of M/s. ECL in not providing
dependent employment to Shri Dilip Chouhan
against Late Lachhman Chouhan S/Loader under the
provision of NCWA is justified & legal ? (ii) To what
relief is the claimant entitled?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
02.06.2008. After notice both parties appeared, the workman
files their written statement on 08.07.2008. Thereafter the
management files their written statement-cum- rejoinder
on 12.02.2009. One witness each side adduced on their
behalf respectively. Documents of workman is marked as
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1103
W-1 to W-12 and document of management is marked as
M-1 to M-11. Rejoinder from both side also filed in which
denial of allegations by each other and every point by
both side.
3.
The case of the workman is that the claimant Sri Dilip
Chauhan is the son of Late Lachhman Chauhan and he is
entitled to get the benefit of employment as per NCWA-
III. The concerned workman Late Lachhman Chauhan died
while in service of Mandman Colliery of M/s. ECL on
20.12.1986 and left behind his only son Shri Dilip Chauhan,
who was dependant upon his deceased father. And mother
of Dilip Chauhan is predeceased him. He is entitled to get
employment against his father as para 9.4.1 and 9.4.2 of
NCWA –III .
4.
It is also submitted that the claimant Dilip Chauhan
submitted an application with required paper before the
management of Mandman Colliery in place of his deceased
father on 29.09.1989 within three years of the death. The
management accepted the application and desired some
other documents and the claimant submitted those
documents before the management on 31.07.1990.
Thereafter the management called the claimant to appear
before the screening Committee on 20.11.1990 the claimant
appeared before screening committee and medical
examination board and he was declared medically fit. He
was also submitted succession Certificate, dated 2/5/1992
granted by the competent authority of Asansol.
5.
It is also submitted by the workman that the
management also verified the relationship from the Office
of B.D.O Nirsa and all desired document including
Indemnity Bond, Succession certificate and getting him
medically examined for fitness for employment in mine but
the management did not provide employment to the
claimant. Hence Industrial dispute arose.
6.
The case of the management is that the sponsoring
Union raised the present dispute after the lapse of two
decades and claimed compassionate appointment. The
deceased employee died on 20.12.86 and after his death
none of his dependant applied for employment.
7.
It is also submitted by the management that the
claimant is not the dependant son of the deceased
employee. after lapse of several years, the claimant, Dilip
Chauhan submitted an application for employment on
compassionate ground stating therein that the deceased
employee late lachhman chouhan is my grand father (Nana)
i.e father of my mother. Grand son are not the dependant of
workman.
8.
It is further submitted that as per NCWA dependant
means “ the wife/ husband, unmarried daughter, son and
legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available
for employment, younger brother, widowed daughter,
widow daughter –in- law residing with the deceased and
almost wholly dependant on the earning of the deceased
may be considered to be dependant of the deceased. The
employment on compassionate ground is to be given as
per provision of NCWA, but the same cannot be considered
after long gap of 20 years.
9.
It is also submitted by the management that the
applicant submitted an affidavit before the management
that his actual name is Mahendra Chouhan and not Dilip
Chauhan. In the said affidavit he has stated that Smt Punia
Devi is his sister. As well as Smt Punia Devi is also sworn
an affidavit and stated that Mahendra Chouhan alias Dilip
Chauhan is his younger brother. Sri Mahendra Chouhan
adopted the name of Dilip Chouhan and suppressed the
material facts before the management that he is the grand
son of late Lachhaman Chouhan.
10.
It is also further submitted by the management that
the management received the legal notice from Sri Satyadeo
Sinha Advocate at and P.O Lakshisarai, Dist –Munger in
which he has stated that late Lachhman Chouhan deposed
before the magistrate on oath in a case under sec. 420 I.P.C
to the effect that he had never any daughter and the
applicant is not a genuine dependant of the deceased
employee.
11.
The workman claimed as dependant of Lachhaman
Chouhan. He claimed that he is the son of Lachhaman
Chouhan and that he received the gratuity of Lachhman
Chouhan. The management objected, saying that the
aforesaid workman claimed job after about twenty years
and he is no way related to Lachhman Chouhan to get the
job. Dilip Chauhan at one stage says he is also known as
Mahendra Chouhan. It is also learnt that the workman is
maternal grand son of late Lachhman chouhan. Except, the
exparte succession certificate and gratuity documents, the
workman has no photo I.D proof, photo copy of rashan
card that he is the son of Lachhaman Chouhan.
12.
In Para 6 of the written statement of the management
it is stated, that the applicant is the grand son of Lachhman
Chouhan and applied for job stating that. It is simply denied
by the workman in rejoinder. But the workman has not filed
any photo I.D proof that he is the son of Lachhman
Chouhan.
13.
In affidavit of Mahendra Chouhan before the notary
public “it is mentioned that my father died leaving behind
me and my elder sister Smt. Punia Devi as his legal heirs as
dependant”. In affidavit of Smt. punia Devi aged about 45
years in 20.9.1989 his younger brother is aged about 18
years there is 27 years different from both dependent. But
workman denied in affidavit which is filed before the
management with signature of Mahendra Chouhand @
Dilip Chauhan. But in Cross-examination of WW-1 he says
that Punia Devi is not related to him.
1104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
In close scrutiny of Photograph and signature of
Dilip Chauhan which is pasted in Form-K and Form –O is
same and signature which is marked as Ext- M-1/1 is tally
with all document of workman as well as affidavit of WW-1,
where the signature of the workman is pasted. It is also
noticed that all documents are there in the name of
Mahendra Chouhan alias Dilip Chauhan as mentioned in
Indemnity Bond.
15.
It is also perused that the deceased workman died
on 1986 when the aforesaid workman is minor and he got
major in 1989. But the name of the aforesaid workman is
mentioned in all forum in 2008 after lapses of 20 years of
course after he being major.
16.
As per Ext W-1 and Ext W-2, management has noticed
Dilip Chauhan to appear before the screening committee
and medical Board in the year 1990 but he was not provided
job by the management. At that point of time he has not
filed any disputes. Therefore it creates doubt why he has
not filed any claim at that point of time. Now he has filed
the claims after 20 years. Now he has about 44 years old.
Filing of Gratuity papers ipso facto will not give claim to
the said workman to get a post as dependant. Therefore
his claim is negative. Moreover the application of claimant
dated 12.09.1989 is filed by Dilip Chauhan S/o Sri Janki
Chouhan marked as Ext. M-1.
17.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that the action of the management of Mandman
Colliery of M/s. ECL in not providing dependent
employment to Shri Dilip Chauhan against Late Lachhman
Chouhan S/Loader under the provision of NCWA is
justified. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 535-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vkbZvkbZ,llhvks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 24@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@374@1992&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 24 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. IISCO and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20012/374/1992-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 24/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Moonidih Jitpur Colliery of M/s. IISCO
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
None
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 09/02/2016
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012 /374/1992-IR(C-1) dated
18/02/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Moonidih
Jitpur Colliery of M/s. IISCO Ltd. P.O. Jitpur, Dist.
Dhanbad in Dismissing Shri Bijoy Kumar Mitra,
Explosive Carrier, P.No. 898 from the services of the
company is justified ? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.
Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between
the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1105
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 536-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
26@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@380@1992&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 536.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 26 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20012/380/1992-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 26/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Sri Nagendra Yadav, Dy.
Manager (P)
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 10/02/2016
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012 /380/1992-IR(C-1) dated
18/21.02.1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kustore
Area of M/s. BCCL is justified in not running a canteen
by their own employees as provided under clause
8.9.1and 8.9 of NCWA- III and NCWA- IV
respectively and not employing employees S/shri
Sarjoo Prasad Swarankar and eighteen others (as per
annexure) running canteen since 1974 through
contractor who is provided with fuel, electricity, water
and accommodation free of cost by the management?
If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled and
from what date ?”
ANNEXURE
List of Persons
Sl.
Name
Designation
No.
1.
Shri Sarjoo Prasad Swarnakar
Canteen Manager
2.
Devendra Prasad Swarnakar
Sales man
3.
Rupesh Kumar
Clerk
4.
Rajendra Prasad Swarnakar
Cook
5.
Dwarika Pd. Swarnakar
Sales man
6.
Rakesh Kumar
Sales man
7.
Shiv Kumar Prasad Verma
Sales man
8.
Ashok Kumar
Service Boy
9.
Ram Lakhan Lal Swarnakar
Cook
10.
Jogeshwar Mahato No. I
Cook
11.
Jogeshwar Mahato No. II
Cook
12.
Pradeep Swarnakar
Service Boy
13.
Shyam Sundar Prasad
Service Boy
14.
Raj Kishore Prasad
Sales man
15.
Kishore Kumar
Sales man
16.
Dayanand Kumar
Service Boy
17.
Shiv Shankar Prasad Swarnakar Service Boy
18.
Pappu Swarnakar
Service Boy
19.
Balli Singh
Service Boy
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.
Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between
the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
1106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 537-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
35@1995) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@354@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 537.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 35 of 1995) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20012/354/1993-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 35/1995
Employer in relation to the management of
Angarpathra Colliery
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 18/01/2016
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012 /354/1993-IR(C-1) dated
04/04/1995, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union for
departmentalization/ regularization of Shri Lakhan
Mistry ( Bouri ) as Greaser Mistry by the management
of Katras Area of M/s. BCCL is justified? If so, to
what benefit the workman is entitled and from which
date?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently
on behalf of the workman. Case remains pending. It is felt
that the disputes between the parties have been resolved
in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 538-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fVLdks ds izca/ra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@30@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 41 of 2011) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. TSCO and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20012/30/2010-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 41/2011
Employers in relation to the management of
6 & 7 Pits Colliery, M/s. Tata Steel Co.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1107
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
Shri A.D. Choudhary, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 11/02/2016
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/30/2010-IR (CM-I) dated
14/03/2011, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the power 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 of this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of 6&7 pits
colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Co. Jamadoba in not paying
the wages including Sunday,Holidays, Overtime,
Compensatory days of rest including other tangible
as intangible benefits in respect of Sri Lalit Kumar
who was designated as Sr. Overman but allegedly
deputed as Manager (Mining) for the period from
09.03.2004 to 30.04.2008 is justified ? To what relief
the workman is entitled to ?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
05/09/2011. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. The Sponsoring Union/ workman files their written
statement on 12.09.2011. After long delay the management
files their written statement on 18.10.2012. One witness
each examined from both side.
3.
The case of the workman is that the concerned
workman joined Malkera Colliery of Sijua Group of Jharia
Division as Mining Apprentice on 21.11.1986 for 3.5 years
and thereafter passed Sirdarship & Overman and joined as
Overman on 10.09.1991 in Malkera Colliery of Tata Steel.
Thereafter he was summoned to work in the capacity of
statutory Asstt. Manager (Mining) in IL-5 in 6&7 pits
Colliery due to shortage of Asstt. Manager because of
exigency enhanced in the mines as it was necessary to
cope up such panic situation in the mines by immediate
monitoring and controlling. He was asked to work as
Statutory Asstt. Manager (Mining). He accepted the offer
of the designated authority keeping in the view of
company’s need as well as bright future.
4.
He joined in 6& 7 pits colliery from 09.03.2004 . He
was assured by GM to be confirmed soon, and he was
working as an Officer in 6&7 pits Colliery but the payroll of
the workman was of Overman in Bhelatand “A” Colliery of
Sijua Group and subsequently the Medical Cards were
issued in 6& 7 pits colliery with reference to an officer and
a bunglow No. B-60 at 12 No Digwadih Colony was
provided temporarily after three months. Even working more
than six month he was not got given confirmation. He
requested several times but higher authorities never
accepted his request.
5.
It is also submitted by the workman that he was
requesting the officials to Tata Steel Ltd. to promote and
regularise him as manager (Mining) but the management
adopted cunning policy and some how managed to take
him in continuous job of A.C.M / Manager ( Mining) for
four consecutive years and after that the workman was
kicked out from the post. The wages of Sunday, Holiday,
Overtime and compensatory Days of rest including other
benefits has been refused/denied by the management which
is gross injustice and deliberate act of authorities and that
is under serious utter exploitation amounting to legal
victimization comes under the unfair labour practice refer
to V schedule section 2 (r) (a) of I.D Act. 1947.
6.
It is also submitted by the workman that management
has violated the Sec 33 of Mines Act 1952 by not paying
overtime wages as the workman was deputed for holding
24 hours responsibility thrusted of Asstt. Manager/
Manager (Mining) IL-5.
7.
It is submitted by the workman that many legal dues
is due to the concerned workman
a. Wages of Sunday worked
= 163 days
b. Wages of Holiday worked
= 20 days
c. Wages of Calculated
compensatory days of rest
= 167 days
d. Wages of Overtime
= 2580 days
8.
It is prayed that denial of the wages of Sr. Overman
who was deputed as Manager (Mining) for the period of
09.03.2004 to 30.04.2008 is justified based on the document
but after denial the reference case arose.
9.
On the other hand the case of the management that
the person concerned resigned from the service of the
company w.e.f 02.05.2008 and since than no employer
employee relationship exists between the management and
the person concerned.
10.
It is also submitted by the management that once an
employee resigned from service and received the entire
legal dues in the form of final settlement, the jural
relationship between the management and the person
concerned ends. Such person are not workman within the
meaning of sec. 2(s) of the I.D Act, therefore there can not
be any Industrial dispute between the person concerned
and the management assuming the concerned person
claiming to be a workman has outstanding amount against
the management.
1108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
It is further stated by the management that the
present reference ha to be examined on the sole issue of
payment of Overtime to a person, who has ceased to be
workman of the management company. The reference so
instituted is bad in law is liable to be dismissed. For the
sake of clarity, the management company present the brief
facts relevant to the present issue.
12.
The person concerned was appointed as an Overman
on 10.09.1991 and promoted as Sr. Overman on 21.07.1994
subsequently he was appointed as Training Coordinator
for Sijua Group for a period of three years. Then he obtained
2nd class Manager’s certificate of competency under CMR
1957 and the management paid him Rs. 1,00,000/- as an
incentive in two equal installment.
13.
It is further submitted by the management that the
person concerned was deployed at 6&7 Pits Colliery to
acquire necessary competency. He was subsequently
interviewed by the management to ascertain his suitability
for promotion to the Assistant Manager (Mining), as IL-5
but the person concerned failed to succeed in the interview,
though he was allowed to continue with the work and
responsibility of Sr. Overman, and he did not apply for the
post of Asstt. Manager(Mining) IL-6 advertised in the year
2007 where the Skill and competency of the person may
have been recognized.
14.
It is further stated by the management the he had
requested to V.P(RM) for his placement as Manager
(Mining) in IL-5 vide his application dated 02.02.2008 and
after examining the facts he was intimated that he was not
found suitable for the post of Manager (mining). Thereafter
subsequently he resigned from the company’s service
which was accepted w.e.f. 02.05.2008 and all legal dues
were paid to him in the terms of final settlement. But he
raised issue related to unpaid overtime dues. The said
claims are clearly after thought and do not have any merit.
There is no iota of evidence that the person was asked to
do as overtime work and the claim is without any legal or
substance.
15.
The short point to be decided in the matter is to
whether the workman concerned is entitled to get wages
including sunday, Holiday, Overtime, compensatory days
of rest including other tangible or intangible benefits in
respect of the workman. MW-1 Sri Dinesh Kr. Sharma says
in cross examination that there was no post of IL-6 prior to
2005. Admittedly the workman voluntarily quit the job and
received all his benefits which will be apparent from his
evidence quoted below :-
“on 02.05.2008, I resigned from TATA company and
joined in other company I.e Electro Steel , Bokaro, as
Asstt. Manager. I raised this dispute in 2009 while I
was not an employee of TATA. I was working as an
Overman in TATA , which was a supervisory post.
Supervisory post is given to a person who was
certified by the DGMS. I also received my leave
encashment money, Gratuity, Annual bonus and all
other dues as per calculation of TATA. I was not
deployed to work Overtime. I do not remember
whether I was given order to work on Sunday/ weakly
up.”
16.
This being the situation from the own admission of
the workman that he received his leave encashment,
Gratuity, Annual Bonus and all other dues, and he also
accepts that and he was not deployed to work Overtime ,
he has nothing to get from the management Hence he has
no claim before us and as such the reference is answered
against him.
17.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that the action of the management of 6&7 pits colliery
of M/s. Tata Steel Co. Jamadoba in not paying the wages
including Sunday, Holidays, Overtime, Compensatory days
of rest including other tangible as intangible benefits in
respect of Sri Lalit Kumar who was designated as Sr.
Overman but allegedly deputed as Manager (Mining) for
the period from 09.03.2004 to 30.04.2008 is justified. Hence
he is not entitled to get any relief.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 539-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
68@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@204@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 539.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 68 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20012/204/1993-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1109
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. 68/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Koyla Bhawan of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
None
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 9/02/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /204/1993-IR(C-1) dated
24/03/1994, the central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. BCCL At & P.O-Koyla Nagar, Dist-Dhanbad in
dismissing Shri Ram Chandra Nonia from the service
of the co. w.e.f. 04.01.1992 is justified ? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled.
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
Though they took steps for certain dated, Subsequently
did not take any interest in the case . It is resumed that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 540-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
81@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@356@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 81 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/03/2016.
[No. L-20012/356/1999-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 81/2000
Employer in relation to the management of
P.B. Area M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 20/01/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /356/1999-IR(C-I) dated
28/01/2000, the central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union before the
management of Pootki Colliery under P.B.Area of
M/s. BCCL to provide employment to Sri Mantu
Kumar, dependant son of Smt. Ram Patia Kamin as
per voluntary retirement scheme for females is
justified? If so, to what relief the workman of her
dependant Sri Mantu Kumar is entitled?”
2.
After publishing of Award. The case is re-opened on
the ground of back wages as per order of Hon’ble High
1110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
court in WP (L) No.1672 of 2007. Both parties are noticed,
Also appeared for certain dates thereafter none appears.
Subsequently on behalf of the workman no interest taken
nor adduced fresh evidence as ordered by Hon’ble High
Court. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes
between the parties have been resolved in the meantime.
Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 541-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mhlhlh ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 18@2012) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@146@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Dankuni Coal Complex
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 14/03/2016.
[No. L-22012/146/2012-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 18 of 2012
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of
Dankuni Coal Complex
A N D
Their workmen
Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
:
Mr. Uttam Mondal, Ld. Counsel
Management
On behalf of the
:
None
Workmen
State : West Bengal
Industry : Coal
Dated : 29th February, 2016
AWARD
By Order No.L-22012/146/2012-IR(CM-II) dated
25.10.2012 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 management of Dankuni Coal Complex
is justified in denying the charter of demands
submitted by the union as per Annexure (copy
enclosed) is legal and/or justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
When the case is taken up for hearing today, none
appears on behalf of the union, though the management it
represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears from the record
that the union is absent for 3(three) consecutive dates.
3.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, it
appears that the union is not all interested to proceed with
the case further. So, no fruitful purpose will be served in
keeping the matter pending.
4.
In view of the above, instant reference is disposed
of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 29th February, 2016
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 542-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh,uch ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 87@2005) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@217@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/2005)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Central Narcotics
Bureau, Nivarak avam Aasoochana Prakoshth and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/217/2004-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1111
vuqcaèk
vuqcaèk
vuqcaèk
vuqcaèk
vuqcaèk
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 87@2005
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 87@2005
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 87@2005
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 87@2005
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 87@2005
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua-- L-42012/217/2004–IR (CM-II) fnukad 04@08@2005
Shri Tulsiram, S/o Shri Laluram Gameti,
Basant Vihar, Flat- No. 335, Hiran Nagri No. 5,
Udaipur (Rajasthan)
v/s
1.
The Office Superintendent,
Central Narcotics Bureau,
Kota – Rajasthan
2.
The Superintendent,
Nivarak avam Aasoochana Prakoshth,
Central Bureau of Narcotics,
Distt.- Udaipur (Rajasthan)
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh Hkokuh flag HkkVh & izfrfuf/k
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh Vh- ih- ‘kekZ & ,MoksdsV
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
fnukad % 4-12-2015
1-
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 10
mi&/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 04@08@2005 ds vkns’k ls izsf”kr
fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj
}kjk izsf”kr fookn fuEuor~ gS %&
2-
^^D;k v/kh{kd] dsUnzh; ukjdksfVDl C;wjks] jktLFkku] dksVk@ v/kh{kd
¼fu-½ fuokjd ,oa vklwpuk izdks”B] dsUnzh; ukjdksfVDl C;wjks] mn;iqj
ds }kjk vius deZdkj Jh rqylh jke iq= Jh ykywjke xesrh
MªkbZoj&de&prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dks fnukad 11-3-1993 ls fnukad
1-1-2003 rd dk;Z djus ds ckn fnukad 1-1-2003 ls lsok ls c[kkZLr
djuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k lEer gS\ ;fn ugh arks deZdkj vius
fu;kstd ls fdl jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ **
3-
LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa fn;s x;s rF; ds vuqlkj laf{kIr% izkFkhZ
Jh rqylh jke dk dFku gS fd mldh fu;qfDr MªkbZoj&de&prqFkZ Js.kh
deZpkjh ds :Ik esa fnukad 11-3-1993 dks foi{kh ds mn;iqj fLFkr dk;kZYk;
esa dh xbZ Fkh rHkh ls izkFkhZ ls okgu pkyu] lQkbZ ,oa pkSdhnkjh dk dk;Z
fujUrj fy;k tkrk jgk gSA izkFkhZ ds ikl okgu pykus dk ykbZlsUl
fnukafdr 15-4-91 gS vkSj blh ykbZlsULk ds vk/kkj ij mldh fu;qfDr dh
xbZ FkhA vkxs izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd foi{kh ds ;gka vU; dk;Zjr okgu
pkydksa@pkSdhnkjksa dks fu/kkZfjr osru Üka`[kyk,sa nh tkrh jgh gSa fdUrq izkFkhZ
dks pkydksa@PkkSdhnkjksa dh osru Üka`[kyk o HkRrs u nsdj ek= yxHkx 1800
:Ik;s izfrekg osru fn;k tkrk FkkA
4-
;kfpdk ds izLrj 2 esa izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ls dbZ
ckj pkydksa@PkkSdhnkjksa ds leku ifjykHkksa dh ekax dh fdUrq foi{khx.k us
izkFkhZ dks lEiw.kZ osru ykHk ugha iznku fd;k vkSj izkFkhZ ls ukjktxh j[kus
yxs tcfd foi{kh Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 12 ds vUrxZr jkT; dh
ifjHkk”kk esa vkrk gS vkSj foi{kh dk ;g nkf;Ro gS fd leku dk;Z djus okys
O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk leku O;ogkj djsaA Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds ewy vf/kdkj ,oa
uhfr&funsZ’kd rRoksa ds vUrxZr izkFkhZ dk ;g vf/kdkj Fkk fd okgu pkyd
dk dk;Z mlls fy;k x;k gS rks mls foi{kh }kjk okgu pkyd dh osru
Üka`[kyk ,oa HkRrs iznku fd;s tk;s ysfdu foi{kh us Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds
izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa izkFkhZ dks lEiw.kZ lsok ykHk iznku ugha fd;kA
5-
izkFkhZ us mijksDr lsok ykHk iznku djus ds fy, foi{kh dks
vuqyXud 2 yxk;r vuqyXud 9 ,oa vuqyXud 14 i= fy[ks rFkk
le;≤ ij dbZ vkosnu izLrqr fd;s ftlesa izkFkhZ us LFkk;hdj.k] ,oa
okgu pkyd ds dk;Z ds vuq:Ik osru Üka`[kyk ,oa HkRrs dh ekax dh ysfdu
foi{kh us dksbZ /;ku ugha fn;kA izkFkhZ vR;Ur xjhc vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr
¼xesrh½ dk vkBoha ikl O;fDr gS ftlds ikl oS/k MªkbZfoax ykbLksUl gSA
izkFkhZ ij mlds ifjokj ds pkj O;fDr;ksa ds thou ;kiu dk nkf;Ro gS vkSj
1800 :Ik;s ek= ls xqtkjk ugha gksrk gS izkFkhZ ls okgu pykus ds vfrfjDr
pkSdhnkjh vkSj lQkbZ vkfn dk dk;Z mlls 24 ?k.Vs fy;k tkrk Fkk ,oa
jfookj ds fnu Hkh mlls pkSdhnkjh dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk Fkk bl izdkj izkFkhZ
jkr dks pkSdhnkjh vkSj fnu esa okgu pykus dk dk;Z djrk FkkA izkFkhZ dks
dbZ ckj dkWUlVscy dh M~;wVh Hkh nh tkrh FkhA
6-
vkxs ;kfpdk ds izLrj 5 esa ;kph dk dFku gS fd mldk dk;Z
VsfyQksu vVS.MsUV] prqFkZ Js.kh] okgu pkyd ,oa pkSdhnkjh vkfn ds Fks vkSj
lHkh dk;Z ds fy, izkFkhZ dks Je fof/k ds vuqlkj U;wure osru fn;k tkrk
FkkA izkFkhZ dks yxHkx 10 o”kZ rd vLFkk;h fu;kstu esa j[kk tkuk vuqfpr
,oa voS/k Fkk vkSj izkFkhZ LFkk;hdj.k dk gdnkj FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk LFkk;hdj.k
,oa osru Üka`[kyk dh fujUrj ekax ds dkj.k foi{khx.k izkFkhZ dks cks>
le>us yxs vkSj fnukad 1-1-2003 dks vpkud lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA
foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha crk;kA izkFkhZ dh
lsok,a lUrks”kizn Fkh vkSj mlds fo#) dksbZ vkjksi ugha FkkA izkFkhZ dks lsok
ls gVkus ls iwoZ ,d ekg dh uksfVl vFkok uksfVl ds LFkku ij osru ugha
iznku fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks nqHkkZouk ls izsfjr gksdj lsok ykHk u nsus ds
mn~ns’; ls 10 lky dh lsok iw.kZ gksus ij Hkh LFkk;h ugha fd;k x;k vkSj
,d ekg dh uksfVl] uksfVl ds cnys osru rFkk NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s fcuk
lsok ls i‘Fkd dj fn;k x;k tcfd izkFkhZ ds ckn lsok esa vk;s deZpkjh
foi{kh la[;k 1 ds v/khu t;iqj] tks/kiqj ,oa mn;iqj vkfn LFkkuksa ij
dk;Zjr gS bl izdkj izkFkhZ dk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk voS/k gSA
7-
;kfpdk esa vkxs ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr /kkjk 25
,Q] 25 th ,oa 25 ,p ds mYya?ku esa dh x;h gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks lsok ls
gVk;s tkus ds ckn mn;iqj] t;iqj vkSj dksVk esa deZdkjksa dh fu;qfDr dh
x;h gS tks vHkh Hkh dk;Zjr gSA vr% izkFkhZ us ;kpuk dh gS fd mls
1112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
LFkk;hdj.k vkfn ds ykHk lfgr lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd;k tk; vkSj C;kt
lfgr leLr osru ykHk fnyk;k tk;A
8-
foi{k dh rjQ ls oknksRrj izLrqr dj ;kfpdk ds izLrj 1 yxk;r
11 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd ftl izdkj o.kZu Dyse dh mDr /kkjkvksa
esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS og Lohdkj ugha gSA vfrfjDr dFku esa ;g dgk x;k
gS fd Jfed dks foi{kh foHkkx }kjk dHkh fu;qfDr i= ugha tkjh fd;k x;k
vkSj u gh nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa j[kk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks dsoy ,d
vkdfLed Jfed ds :Ik esa j[kk x;k Fkk rFkk mls dHkh Hkh okgu pkyd
vFkok fdlh Hkh in ij dHkh Hkh fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h Fkh ftl dkj.k izkFkhZ
foHkkx dk LFkk;h deZpkjh ugha gS ,oa og pkyd@pkSdhnkj dh osru
Üka`[kyk rHkh izkIr dj ldrk gS tc og foHkkx dk LFkk;h deZpkjh gksaA
izkFkhZ dks C;wjks lsok esa dHkh Hkh fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h vkSj u dksbZ fu;qfDr
i= fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ ,d vkdfLed Jfed ds :Ik esa j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj
dk;Z lekfIr ij mldk dk;Z Lor% lekIr gks tkrk FkkA
9-
izkFkhZ ls okgu pkyd lEcfU/kr dk;Z ugha djok;k tkrk Fkk vkSj
nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa fu/kkZfjr nj ds vuqlkj 1800 #Ik;k izfrekg ds
fglkc ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ dk dk;Z dsoy lQkbZ djus dk
dk;Z Fkk vkSj mlh ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dk
gkftjh jftLVj esa gLrk{kj ugha djok;k tkrk Fkk vkSj dk;Zfnol ij
mifLFkr gksus ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk ftldk fjdkMZ foHkkx ds
ikl miyC/k ugha gSA ;kfpdk ds izLrj 6 esa izkFkhZ us ftu nLrkostksa dh
ekax dh gS og foHkkx ds ikl miyC/k ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ }kjk ekaxs x;s
nLrkost dkYifud gSaA
10-
;kfpdk ds izLrj 7 ds dFku ds fo#) foi{khx.k dk dFku gS fd
vizkFkhZ foHkkx Hkkjr ljdkj dk midze gS ftlds fy;s Hkkjr ljdkj ds
}kjk fn;s x;s fn’kk funsZ’kksa dh ikyuk djuk vko’;d gSA fu;qfDr dh
izfdz;k ds ckjsa esa Hkh LIk”V gS fd C;wjks fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks Hkkjr ljdkj ds
fn’kk funsZ’k dh vuqikyuk fd;s fcuk fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks fu;qfDr ugha ns
ldrkA izkFkhZ dks tc foHkkx ds }kjk fu;qDr gh ugha fd;k x;k rks
i`FkDdj.k dk loky gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr gS fd
mlus fujUrj 10 o”kZ rd dk;Z fd;k cfYd dk;Z gksus ij mls cqyk;k tkrk
Fkk vkSj dk;Z ds lekiu ds ckn mldh vko’;drk Lor% lekIr gks tkrh
FkhA vkxs foi{kh dk dFku gS fd foi{kh foHkkx }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/
kfu;e 1947 dh fdlh Hkh izkfo/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gS D;ksafd
foi{kh foHkkx Hkkjr ljdkj dk midze gS ftlds fn’kk funZs’kksa dk ikyu
djuk foHkkx dk dRrZO; gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dk
foHkkx ls gVus ds ckn dHkh Hkh vLFkk;h deZpkjh dh HkrhZ ugha dh x;h gS
cfYd foHkkx ds lHkh deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr LFkk;h izd`fr dh gSA
11-
vkxs foi{kh dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls ;kfpr
vuqrks”k eux<ar rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX;
gS rFkk izkFkhZ fdlh izdkj dk vuqrks”k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA
12-
;kph i{k dh rjQ ls ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa izys[kh; lk{; ds :Ik
esa vuqyXud 1 yxk;r vuqyXud 14 ;kfpdk ds lkFk izLrqr fd;s x;s gSaA
blds vfrfjDr nSfud osru Hkksfx;ksa dh fu;qfDr vkns’k fnukad 3-4-98 dh
QksVksizfr izn’kZ 15] lsoklEcU/kh izek.k i= fnukad 8-1-2003 dh QksVksizfr
izn’kZ 16 rFkk izkFkhZ dh MkbZfoax ykbZlsUl dh QksVksizfr izn’kZ MCY;w 1 ,
izLrqr gSA ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls ekSf[kd lk{; esa Jh rqylh jke] izkFkhZ
izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa ftuds ‘kiFk&i= ij mudh izfrijh{kk dh x;h gSA
13-
foi{k dh rjQ ls lwph ds lkFk flrEcj 98 ls tuojh 2003 dh
deZpkjhx.k dh mifLFkfr iaftdk dh izekf.kr QksVksizfr] fnukad 3-9-2000
ls 19-3-2001 rd dh okgu ls lEcfU/kr ykWx cqd dh izekf.kr QksVksizfr
vkSj fnukad 18-3-2002 ls 4-8-2002 rd dh LVs’ku Mk;jh dh izekf.kr
QksVksizfr izLrqr gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls Jh fot; flag] v/kh{kd fuokjd ,oa
vklwpuk izdks”B] mn;iqj dks ekSf[kd lk{; ds :Ik esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS
ftudh ‘kiFk&i= ij izLrqr lk{; ij ;kph i{k }kjk izfrijh{kk dh x;h
gSA mHk;i{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ vU; izys[kh; ;k ekSf[kd lk{; i=koyh ij
ugha gSA
14-
eSaus mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk
lE;d~ voyksdu fd;kA foi{k dh rjQ ls i=koyh ij fyf[kr cgl Hkh
izLrqr dh x;h gSA ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ fyf[kr cgl ugha izLrqr gSA
15-
;kph i{k dh rjQ ls fuEu fof/kd n`“VkUr izLrqr fd;s x;s gS%&
1- 2005 ,-vkbZ-vkj- ,l-lh-MCY;w i`“B 6103 vkj-,e-;sy~ykV~Vh
&vihykFkhZ cuke vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bUthfu;j &izR;FkhZ
2- 2005 ySc-vkbZ-lh- 2279 ¼loksZPp U;k;ky;½] cSad vkWQ cMkSnk
&vihykFkhZ cuke ?ksekjHkkbZ gjthckbZ jcMh &izR;kFkhZ
3- dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k lg Je U;k;ky;]
t;iqj }kjk lhthvkbZVh dsl uEcj 43@2003 Jh jkes’oj
yky tkV & ;kph cuke fMfLVªDV vksfi;e vf/kdkjh & foi{kh
esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 27-1-2005 dh izekf.kr QksVksizfr dh
QksVksizfr
4- dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k lg Je U;k;ky;]
t;iqj }kjk lhthvkbZVh dsl uEcj 129@2005 Jh mek ‘kadj
vxzoky & ;kph cuke n fMIVh ukjdksfVDl dfe’uj] &
foi{kh esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 03-1-2011 dh izekf.kr QksVksizfr
dh QksVksizfr
16-
foi{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ fof/kd n`“VkUr izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA
cgl dh lekfIr ds mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks funZsf’kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd
i{kdkj fof/kd n`“VkUr cgl dh lekfIr ds 15 fnu ds vUnj izLrqr djsa
ijUrq fu.kZ; dh frfFk rd dksbZ n`“VkUr ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
17-
;kph dh fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd ;kph
us yxkrkj 240 fnu ls T;knk dk;Z fd;k gS] foi{k }kjk /kkjk 25&,Q ds
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1113
uksfVl fn;s fcuk ;kph dks lsok ls fof/k fo:) gVk;k x;k gS] ;kph dks
dksbZ NaVuh eqvkotk Hkh ugha iznku fd;k x;k gSA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS
fd 240 fnu fujUrj dk;Z djus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus ds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ
i{k us foi{k ls vfHkys[k ryc djk;s Fks ftlds vuqikyu esa foi{k }kjk
vèkwjs vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;s x;s] vr% foi{k ds fo:) v/kwjs vfHkys[k izLrqr
djus ds dkj.k izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 114 ds vUrxZr
U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk xzg.k dh tkuh pkfg, D;ksafd foi{k }kjk M~;wVh jftLVj]
osru jftLVj ugha izLrqr fd;s x;s gS vr% ;kph dks foi{k }kjk lsok ls
fofèk fo:) gVk;s tkus ds dkj.k lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk leLr foxr
osru lfgr lsok esa iquLFkkZfir djus dk vkns’k U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr
fd;k tk;A foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd
izkFkhZ dks foi{k }kjk dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha tkjh fd;k x;k D;ksafd og
vkdfLed Jfed Fkk ftls nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa j[kk x;k Fkk rFkk
mls dHkh pkyd ds in ij fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh dHkh fu;qfDr
ugha dh x;h vr% mls lsok ls vyx djus dk loky mRiUu ugha gksrkA
izkFkhZ dk dk;Z dsoy lQkbZ djus dk Fkk vkSj mlh ds vuqlkj mldks
Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA ;g cgl Hkh fd x;h gS fd mlus fdlh Hkh o”kZ esa
240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;k rFkk foHkkx esa dk;Z u gksus ds dkj.k
Lor% dk;Z NksM+dj pyk x;kA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd foHkkx dk LFkk;h
deZpkjh ugha Fkk blfy;s mlds }kjk osru HkRrs ,oa ifjykHk izkIr djus dk
iz’u ugha mRiUu ugha gksrkA izkFkhZ dks nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa
vko’;drkuqlkj ikuh Hkjus] dk;kZy; dh lQkbZ djus bR;kfn vkdfLed
dk;Z gsrq nSfud etnwjh ij j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj fu/kkZfjr nj ds vuqlkj
mldks Hkqxrku dj fn;k tkrk FkkA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd mldk gLrk{kj
fdlh jftLVj esa ugha djok;k tkrk Fkk] foi{kh Hkkjr ljdkj dk miØe gS
tgka fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks fcuk izfØ;k viuk;s fu;qfDr ugha nh tk ldrhA
izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds ckn ls foi{kh foHkkx esa Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls dk;Z
djok;k tkrk gS vkSj lEcfU/kr Jfed dk Hkqxrku Bsdsnkj ds }kjk gh fd;k
tkrk gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr gS fd mlus 10
lky rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;k cfYd dk;Z dh miyC/krk ij Jfed dks dk;Z
ds fy;s cqyk;k tkrk Fkk vkSj dk;Z lekIr gksus ij og Lor% pyk tkrk FkkA
izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa dk;Z lekIr gksus ij Lor% gh lekIr gks x;h FkhA fyf[kr
cgl esa ;g mYys[k gS fd Hkkjr ljdkj us foi{kh foHkkx esa vkdfLed
etnwjksa dh HkrhZ ij iw.kZr;k izfrcU/k yxk;k gqvk gS blfy;s vkdfLed
Jfed dks ;kfpr in ij fu;qDRk djuk lEHko ugha gS] izkFkhZ dk Dyse pyus
;ksX; ugha gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls fyf[kr
cgl esa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd dsUnzh; ukjdksfVDl C;wjks] **m|ksx**
dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS vr% vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds
izkfoèkku ykxw ugha gksrs gS blds fo:) ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh rjQ
ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd foi{k dh ;g cgl iks”k.kh; ugha gS fd dsUnzh;
ukjdksfVDl C;wjks **m|ksx** dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS] ;kph i{k dh
rjQ ls vius dFku ds leFkZu esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k
lg Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj }kjk lhthvkbZVh dsl uEcj 43@2003
Jh jkes’oj yky tkV & ;kph cuke fMfLVªDV vksfi;e vf/kdkjh & foi{kh
esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 27-1-2005 dh izekf.kr QksVksizfr dh QksVksizfr ,oa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k lg Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj }kjk
lhthvkbZVh dsl uEcj 129@2005 Jh mek ‘kadj vxzoky & ;kph cuke n
fMIVh ukjdksfVDl dfe’uj] & foi{kh esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 03-1-2011 dh
izekf.kr QksVksizfr dh QksVksizfr izLrqr dh x;h gSA
18-
tgka rd dsUnzh; ukjdksfVDl C;wjks dks **m|ksx** dh ifjHkk”kk ls
vkPNkfnr gksus dk iz’u gS foi{k dh rjQ ls dsoy viuh fyf[kr cgl ds
izLrj 10 esa ;g fcUnq mBk;k x;k gS fd dsUnzh; ukjdksfVDl C;wjks **m|ksx**
dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS blfy;s vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds
izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gS rFkk ;kfpdk iks”k.kh; ugha gS ijUrq ;kph i{k dh
rjQ ls izLrqr dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k lg Je U;k;ky;]
t;iqj }kjk lhthvkbZVh dsl uEcj 43@2003 Jh jkes’oj yky tkV &
;kph cuke fMfLVªDV vksfi;e vf/kdkjh & foi{kh] esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad
27-1-2005 dh izekf.kr QksVksizfr dh QksVksizfr ,oa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
U;k;kf/kdj.k lg Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj }kjk lhthvkbZVh dsl uEcj 129@2005
Jh mek ‘kadj vxzoky & ;kph cuke n fMIVh ukjdksfVDl dfe’uj] &
foi{kh] esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 03-1-2011 dh izekf.kr QksVksizfr dh
QksVksizfr ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd iwoZ esa foHkkx ds fo:) mDr
nksuksa ekeys fuf.kZr fd;s x;s gS vkSj ;kphx.k dks muds fgr esa vuqrks”k
iznku fd;k x;k gSA dsl uEcj 43@2003 esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd
foi{kh foHkkx **m|ksx** dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr gSA bu fu.kZ;ksa ds
fo:) fdlh U;k;ky; esa dksbZ ;kfpdk yfEcr ugha crk;h x;h gSA foi{k
dh rjQ ls viuh cgl ds leFkZu esa dksbZ fof/kd n`”VkUr ugha izLrqr fd;k
x;k gS] vr% eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gwWa fd foi{k dh ;g cgl la/kkj.kh; ugha gSa
fd dsUnzh; ukjdksfVDl C;wjks m|ksx dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS
blfy;s ;kfpdk iks”k.kh; ugha gSA
19-
tgka rd foIk{kh ds foHkkx esa izkFkhZ dh MªkbZoj&de&prqFkZ Js.kh
deZpkjh ds :Ik eas fnukad 11-3-1993 dks fu;qDr fd;s tkus dk iz’u gS
;kfpdk ds izLrj 1 esa fnukad 11-3-1993 dks foi{kh ds mn;iqj dk;kZy; esa
fu;qDr gksus dk mYys[k izkFkhZ us fd;k gS ftl rF; dks oknksRrj esa foi{k us
vLohdkj fd;k gS vkSj dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks dHkh Hkh foi{k
}kjk fu;qfDr i= ugha tkjh fd;k x;kA bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS
fd izkFkhZ dks ek= ,d vkdfLEkd nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :Ik esa j[kk
x;k Fkk rFkk mls dksbZ LFkk;h fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h FkhA mDr fLFkfr ls ;g
Li”V gS fd foi{k }kjk fu;qfDRk ls bUdkj ds ckn ;kfpdk ds izLrj ,d esa
foi{kh ds ;gka fu;qDr gksus ds dFku dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij gSA
i=koyh ij izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= foi{kh ds ;gka fnukad
11-3-1993 dks fu;qDr gksus ds LkEcU/k esa ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us
lk{; esa izLrqr vius ‘kiFk i= esa foi{kh ds laLFkku esa fnukad 11-3-1993 dks
fu;qDr gksus dk mYys[k fd;k gS ysfdu fu;qfDr ds le; feyus okys
osrueku dk mYys[k ugha fd;k gS ijUrq ‘kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd lsok
1114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ls eqDr gksrs le; mldk vfUre osru 1800 :Ik;s izfrekg FkkA izfrijh{kk
esa ;kph us ;g dgk gS fd ;g lgh gS fd lQkbZ dk;Z ij j[krs le; mls
dksbZ fu;qfDRk i= ugha fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy, mls vdsys gh
j[kk x;k FkkA ;kph us ;g Hkh izfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd foHkkx
}kjk mldh fu;qfDRk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ foKkiu ugha fudkyk x;k FkkA ;g
Hkh dgk gS fd mlds firk foi{kh ds foHkkx izrkix<+ esa dke djrs Fks
blfy;s mls lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy;s j[kk x;k FkkA foi{kh lk{kh Jh fot; flag
eh.kk] v/kh{kd] fuokjd ,oa vklwpuk izdks”B dh iwjh izfrijh{kk ds voyksdu
ls ;g izdV gS fd foi{k }kjk vius foHkkx esa izkFkhZ dh fu;fer fu;qfDRk ds
rF; dks dgha Lohdkj ugha fd;k x;k gSA i`”B ,d ij izfrijh{kk esa
Jh fot; flag eh.kk us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd i=koyh ij miyC/k
gkftjh jftLVj dh QksVksizfr Mh 1 yxkk;r Mh 37 esa ftrus yksxksa ds uke
vafdr gS muesa Jh rqylh jke lQkbZ deZpkjh gS vkSj ‘ks”k lHkh yksx
fu;fer deZpkjh gS rFkk rqylh jke ds vfrfjDr ‘ks”k lHkh dks fu;qfDr i=
fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk Dyse ds lkFk izLrqr vuqyXud&3 ls ;g
izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ 11 :Ik;s nSfud etnwjh ij foi{k }kjk lQkbZ dk;Z
ds fy, j[kk x;k FkkA vuqyXud 2 esa Loa; ;kph us gh mYys[k fd;k gS fd
og lQkbZ dk dk;Z 6 o”kksZa ls djrk vk jgk gSA blls izkFkhZ dk ;kfpdk ds
izLrj ,d esa fd;k x;k dFku xyr lkfcr gksrk gS fd fnukad 11-3-1993
dks mls MªkbZoj&de&prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa fu;qfDr nh x;h FkhA
vuqyXud 4 fnukafdr 3-4-97 esa Hkh ;kph us lQkbZ deZpkjh gksus ds rF; dks
gh Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj vuqyXud 5 fnukafdr 14-9-99 ,oa vuqyXud 6
fnukafdr 8-2-2002 esa Hkh Lo;a dks lQkbZ deZpkjh gh crk;k gSA vuqyXud
8 fnukafdr 1-8-2002 esa igyh ckj ;kph us dgk gS fd og lQkbZ dk;Z ,oa
pkSdhnkjh ds lkFk dHkh dHkh ‘kkldh; okgu pykus dk dk;Z Hkh djrk Fkk
ftldh iqujko`fRr vuqyXud 9 fnukafdr 21-12-2002 esa dh x;h gSA blls
;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd og pkyd de prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik
esa fu;qDr gqvk FkkA ;kph dh rjQ ls izLrqr vfHkys[k Ex-W-15 fnukafdr
3-4-98 ls ;g tkfgj gS fd ;kph dh 32@ :Ik;s nSfud etnwjh ij
lQkbZdehZ ds :Ik eas fu;qfDr fnukad 10-3-1998 ls dk;kZy; v/kh{kd]
mn;iqj ds dk;kZy; esa dsoy ,d ekg ds fy, gqbZ FkhA bl fu;qfDr vkns’k
dh ‘krZ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks foi{k dh lsok esa fy;s tkus ;k ojh;rk lwph
esa lfEefyr gksus dk vf/kdkj miyC/k ugha gSA LVs’ku Mk;jh dh izfr rFkk
ykx&cqd dh izfr;ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd ;kph us dHkh&dHkh
fu;fer pkydksa dh vuqifLFkfr esa foHkkx ds vko’;drkuqlkj okgu pkyd
dk dk;Z Hkh fd;k gS ,oa bl rF; dks foi{kh lk{kh us izfrijh{kk esa i`”B 4
ij Lohdkj fd;k gS tc lk{kh dk /;ku okgu ykx cqd ds i`”B rhu ij
vkdf”kZr fd;k x;k gSA lk{kh us dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks ykx cqd dh izfof”V
esa Msyh ostj ds :Ik esa n’kkZ;k x;k gS ,oa ml fnu pkyd ugha jgk gksxk
blfy, mls pkyd dk dke lkSik x;k gksxkA lk{kh us dgk gS fd
rqylhjke dks dUVhtsUV fcy cukdj Hkqxrku foHkkx }kjk gh fd;k tkrk
FkkA izys[kh; ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; dh mDr O;k[;k o fo’ys”k.k ls eSa bl
fu”d”kZ ij gwaW fd izkFkhZ foi{kh foHkkx esa lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy;s fnukad
11-3-1993 dks lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy;s nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa 11 :Ik;k
nSfud etnwjh ij j[kk x;k FkkA
20-
tgkW rd fnukad 11-3-1993 ls fnukad 1-1-2003 rd yxkrkj izkFkhZ
}kjk foHkkx esa dk;Z fd;s tkus dk iz’u gS bldh iqf”V ds fy, i=koyh ij
dksbZ izysf[k; lk{; ugha gS ftlls ;g tkfgj gks lds fd izkFkhZ us fnukad
11-3-1993 ls fnukad 1-1-2003 rd fu;fer dk;Z fd;k gSA vxj ,slk gksrk
rks fu;qfDr i= fnukad 3-4-98 Ex-W-15 tkjh djus dh t:jr ugha gksrhA
foi{kh lk{kh dks ekSf[kd lk{; ds nkSjku ,slk dksbZ lq>ko Hkh ugha fn;k x;k
gS fd izkFkhZ us foHkkx esa fnukad 11-3-1993 ls fnukad 1-1-2003 rd v[k.M
:Ik ls yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gks vr% eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gWw fd ;kph ;g lkfcr
ugha dj ldk gS fd fnukad 11-3-1993 ls fnukad 1-1-2003 rd yxkrkj
dk;Z fd;k gSA
21-
;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh gS fd foi{k ls gkftjh
jftLVj vkSj osru Hkqxrku jftLVj dh ekWx dh x;h Fkh tks iw.kZ :Ik ls
ugha izLrqr gS vr% foi{k ds fo:) /kkjk 114 lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr
izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k gksuh pkfg, blds fo:) foi{k }kjk izfrokn
fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ fdlh Hkh o”kZ esa 240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;k
rFkk tks vfHkys[k miyC/k Fks mls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS
fd izkFkhZ dk dksbZ fjdkMZ ugha j[kk tkrk Fkk rFkk mls mifLFkfr ds vuqlkj
Hkqxrku dj fn;k tkrk FkkA tgkW rd /kkjk 114 lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrXkZr
izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k fd;s tkus dk iz’u gS bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2006] lqizhe dksVZ ¼,y-,.M ,l-½ i`“B 38 esa nh x;h
fof/k O;oLFkk izklafxd ,oa mYys[kuh; gSA
22-
2006 lqizhe dksVZ ¼,y-,.M ,l-½] 38] lqjsUnz uxj ftyk iapk;r &
vihykFkhZ cuke ng~;kHkkbZ vej flag & izR;FkhZ esa izdj.k ds rF;kuqlkj
izR;FkhZ dh lsok 15-8-85 ds vkns’k ls lekIr dj nh x;h FkhA lsok lekfIr
ds yxHkx lkr lky ckn fnukad 01-6-92 dks izR;FkhZ us vihykFkhZ dks lsok
esa iquLFkkZiuk dh uksfVl Hksth vkSj vUrr% izR;FkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dk
fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;kA
izR;FkhZ us vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa ;g mYys[k fd;k fd og
lsok lekfIr ds vkns’k fnukad 15-8-85 rd 10@& :i;s nSfud etnwjh ij
vihykFkhZ dh lsok esa Fkk ,oa lsok lekfIr ds vkns’k fuxZr gksus ds iwoZ
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;kA Je
U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;FkhZ dh rjQ ls ,d vkosnu vihykFkhZ dks funsZ’k
tkjh djus ds fy, izLrqr gqbZ fd vihykFkhZ 1976 ls 1986 rd dh lsok
vof/k dk osru jftLVj ,oa eLVj jksy izLrqr djsaA vihykFkhZ us LVsVesUV
vkWQ Dyse ds fo:) ;g dFku izLrqr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ Loa; dke ij vkuk
cUn dj dj fn;k ,oa mls dksbZ LFkk;h fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h FkhA og
eqrQdkZ dk;kZsa ds fy, fu;qDr Fkk rFkk tc dke gksrk Fkk rks mls cqyk fy;k
tkrk FkkA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd deZpkjh us lsoklekfIr ds Bhd iwoZ iwoZorhZ
12 ekgksa esa 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd
mlus lu~ 82] 83 vkSj 84 esa Øe’k% 114] 63 vkSj 124 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS vr%
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1115
mldh lsok,a lekIr djus ds iwoZ /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
esa nh x;h izfØ;k dk vuqikyu djus dh fof/kd vko’;drk ugha FkhA
izR;FkhZ us Loa; dks lk{; esa izLrqr dj l’kiFk dgk gS fd og nl
lky rd 470@&:i;s izfrekg ds osru ij fu;qDr FkkA vihykFkhZ dh rjQ
ls ,d deZpkjh us lk{; esa mifLFkr gksdj dgk fd deZpkjh us dHkh Hkh
,d o”kZ esa 240 fnu dke ugha fd;kA Je U;k;ky; us izR;FkhZ ds lk{; ij
Hkjkslk fd;k vkSj eLVj jksy rFkk 1976 ls 86 rd dh osru jftLVj u
izLrqr djus ij izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k dj ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd
izR;FkhZ us 240 fnu ls T;kns dk;Z fd;k vr% mldh lsokeqfDr voS/kkfud FkhA
Je U;k;ky; us /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½] 25 ¼th½ ,oa 25 ¼,p½ dh izfØ;k dk ikyu
u djus ds dkj.k deZpkjh dks iquLFkkZiuk ds fy, vknsf’kr fd;k ,oa lkFk
gh fiNys osru dh 20 izfr’kr /kujkf’k vnk djus dk funsZ’k fn;kA
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh
iqf”V dh rFkk Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihykFkhZ dh ;kfpdk
[kkfjt dhA ,dy ihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh
[k.MihB us ysVlZ isVsaV vihy fujLr dh ,oa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd Je
U;k;ky; us lgh vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd deZpkjh us ekSf[kd lk{; ls vius
dFku lkfcr fd;k gSA ekuuh; [k.MihB us Je U;k;ky; }kjk osru
iaftdk] eLVj jksy] rFkk deZpkfj;ksa dh ofj”Brk lwph u izLrqr djus ij
xzg.k dh x;h izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk dks Hkh lgh Bgjk;kA Je U;k;ky; us ;g
Hkh vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ dh rqyuk esa ,oa dfu”d deZpkjh dh lsok
fu;fer :Ik ls tkjh j[kh x;h vkSj izR;FkhZ dh lsok lekIr dj nh x;hA
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB ds
fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihykFkhZ dh ;g cgl Fkh fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us
vius vusd fu.kZ;ksa esa vR;Ur Li”V :Ik ls ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd
izkjfEHkd rkSj ij fl) djus dk nkf;Ro deZpkjh ij gS fd lsok lekfIr dh
frfFk ds iwoZ ,d o”kZ esa deZpkjh us 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS tks nkf;Ro
fuokZg djus esa deZpkjh vlQy jgk gSA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h fd 10 lky
dk vfHkys[k izLrqr u djus ij izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus dh dksbZ
otg ugha FkhA izR;FkhZ dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h Je U;k;ky; us
izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk vfHkys[kksa ds lEcU/k esa xzg.k djds Je U;k;ky; us lgh
fd;k gS D;ksafd fu;kstd ds dCts esa vfHkys[k Fks vr% Je U;k;ky; }kjk
ekax fd;s tkus ij mls izLrqr djuk fu;ksDrk dk drZO; FkkA ;g cgl Hkh
dh x;h fd vfHkys[k fu;ksDrk ds dCts esa gS blfy, mldk nkf;Ro gS fd
og fl) djs fd lEcfU/kr vof/k esa deZpkjh us 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA
mHk;i{k dh mDr cgl ds ifjis{; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us
/kkjk 2 ¼vksvks½] /kkjk 25 ¼ch½ ,oa 25 ¼,Q½ dh Li”V ,oa cks/kxE; O;k[;k
djrs gq, izLrj 8 i`“B 43 esa deZpkjh }kjk rF;ksa dks fl) djus ds nkf;Ro
ds lEcU/k esa rFkk NVuh dh oS/kkfudrk ds lEcU/k esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS]
“To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman
claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists
relationship of employer and employee; that he is a
workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act; the
establishment in which he is employed is an industry within
the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less
than one year of continuous service as defined by Section
25- B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative.
If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of
Section 25 –F will not be attracted. To get relief from the
court the workman has to establish that he has right to
continue in service and that his service has been terminated
without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of
the Act.
The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by
an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:-
(i)
one month’s clear notice in writing indicating
the reasons for retrenchment or that the
workman has been paid wages for the period of
notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii)
payment of retrenchment compensation which
shall be equivalent to 15 day’s average pay for
every completed year of continuous service or
any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii)
a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.”
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us izLrj 10 esa ¼1980½ 4 ,l-lh-lh i`“B
443] lqjsUnz dqekj oekZ cuke lsUVªy xoZesaUV b.MLVªh;y fVªC;wuy de yscj
dksVZ esa vius iw.kZihB ds Qslys lfgr vusd Qslyksa dk mYys[k ,oa mudh
O;k[;k djrs gq, ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd ;g fl)kUr gS fd fl) djus
dk nkf;Ro deZpkjh ij gS fd og n’kkZ;s fd dfFkr NVuh dh frfFk ds Bhd
iwoZ ,d o”kZ esa mlus 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj ;g nkf;Ro Hkh mlh ij
gS og Loa; ds Lkk{; esa ifjf{kr djkus ds vfrfjDr lk{; izLrqr djsaA
fu.kZ; ds izLrj 18 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us mYys[k fd;k gS
fd izR;FkhZ dh rjQ ls ekSf[kd lk{; ds vfrfjDr dksbZ lk{; 240 fnu dk;Z
djus ds lEcU/k esa ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] u osru ;k etnwjh ds lEcU/k
esa dksbZ jlhn] ;k vfHkys[k ;k vkns’k izLrqr gS] u dksbZ lgdeZpkjh ifjf{kr
djk;k x;k] u gh fu;ksDrk }kjk izLrqr eLVj&jksy ij dksbZ [k.M+u izLrqr
fd;k x;kA
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd ;g
vlEHko gS fd deZpkjh tks bruh yEch lsok djus dk nkok djrk gS mlds
ikl fu;ksDrk ds v/khu lsok esa yxs jgus rFkk dk;Z dh izd‘fr ds lEcu/k
esa dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; ugha gksxkA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vo/kkfjr
fd;k fd deZpkjh us 240 fnu rd dk;Z esa layXu jgus ds rF; dks fl)
djus ds nkf;Ro dk fuokZg ugha fd;k gS ,oa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us
fu;ksDrk }kjk 10 o”kZ dk vfHkys[k u izLrqr djus ds lEcU/k esa izfrdwy
voèkkj.kk xyr xzg.k dh gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr
fd;k fd izR;FkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ izR;Fkh dks /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ dh
lqj{kk vFkok vuqikyu dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA
1116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
/kkjk 25 ¼th½ ,oa 25 ¼,p½ ds vuqikyu ds lEcU/k esa ;g lk{; Fkk
fd nSfud osru Hkksxh dh lwph dk j[kj[kko vihykFkhZ }kjk ugha fd;k
tkrkA bl lEca/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd
deZpkjh fu;fer lsok ds vHkko esa vihykFkhZ ls nSfud osru Hkksfx;ksa dh
ofj”Brk lwph ds j[k j[kko dh mEehn ugha dh tk ldrh gSA vfHkys[kkas dh
ekWx ij vihykFkZhZ }kjk u izLrqr fd;s tkus ij /kkjk 114 (III) ¼th½
Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr U;k;ky; }kjk izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k
fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS
,slh vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus iwoZ U;k;ky; ds le{k deZpkjh }kjk bl ckr
dk lk{; izLrqr djuk gksxk fd dksbZ ofj”Brk lwph vfLrRo esa gS vU;Fkk
izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus dh vuqrks”k ugha iznku dh tk ldrhA
U;k;ky; }kjk izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus gsrq vf/kdkj iznRr gksus ds
fy, U;k;ky; dks lUrq”V gksuk vfuok;Z gS fd lk{; vfLrRo esa gS vkSj mls
fl) fd;k tk ldrk FkkA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us rnuqlkj vihy
Lohdkj dhA
2006 lqizhe dksVZ ¼,y-,.M ,l-½] 38] lqjsUnz uxj ftyk iapk;r &
vihykFkhZ cuke ng~;kHkkbZ vej flag & izR;FkhZ esa nh x;h mDr O;oLFkk ds
voyksdu ls ;g Li”V gS fd /kkjk 114 Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr
izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus ds fy, ;g vko’;d gS fd lEcfU/kr
i{kdkj dks igys ;g n’kkZuk vko’;d gS fd foi{k ds ikl okfUNr
vfHkys[kksa dh miyC/krk gSA orZeku ekeys esa ;kph ,slk n’kkZus esa vlQy gS
vr% eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gwa fd izkFkhZ ds i{k esa foi{kh ds fo:) izfrdwy
voèkkj.kk xzg.k djus ds fy, dksbZ fLFkfr ugha curh gSA
23-
foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dh gkftjh ls lEcfU/kr izLrqr mifLFkfr iaftdk
dh izekf.kr QksVksizfr;ksa ds voyksdu ls Hkh bl rF; dk leFkZu ugha gksrk
gS fd izkFkhZ deZdkj fnukad 11-3-1993 ls fnukad 1-1-2003 rd
MªkbZoj&de&prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa dk;Z djus ds rF; dks fl) dj
ldk gSA
24-
tgka rd /kkjk 25 ,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds lUnHkZ esa izkFkhZ
deZdkj }kjk lsokeqfDr dh frfFk 1-1-2003 dh Bhd iwoZ dys.Mj o”kZ esa 240
fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks fl) djus dk iz’u gS bl
lUnHkZ esa izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izek.k i= izn’kZ MCY;w 16 izklafxd gS tks
lsokeqfDRk dh frfFk ds ckn dh frfFk 8-1-2003 dks fuxZr gSA bl izek.k i=
esa ;g mYys[k gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds ;gka ikap o”kZ rd dk;kZy; esa dk;Z
fd;k gSA ;g izek.k i= l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr tkfgj gksrk gSA blls
bl rF; dh iqf”V gksrh gS fd lsokeqfDr dh frfFk 1-1-2003 ds Bhd iwoZ
izkFkhZ us yxHkx ikWp lky rd foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Z fd;k gS tks frfFk
1-1-1998 curh gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks izn’kZ MCY;w 15 ds ek/;e ls 10-3-98 ls
nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa ,d ekg dh vof/k ds fy, fu;qfDr nh x;h gS
tks jfookjh; vodk’k dks NksMdj gSA foi{kh lk{kh Jh fot; flag] v/
kh{kd] fuokjd ,oa vklwpuk izdks”B dh izn’kZ MCY;w 16 dks fn[kkdj
izfrijh{kk dh x;h gS ftlesa foHkkx }kjk bls tkjh djus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ
LIk”V bUdkj ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% izn’kZ MCY;w 16 dks Lohdkj djus esa
dksbZ fof/kd vM+pu ugha gSA izn’kZ MCY;w 16 ds lEcU/k esa lk{kh us dgk gS
fd lk{kh ;g ugha dg ldrk fd izn’kZ MCY;w 16 mlds foHkkx }kjk tkjh
fd;k x;k gS ;k ugha D;ksafd bl ij dksbZ i=koyh la[;k bR;kfn vafdr
ugha gSA i=koyh la[;k vafdr djus dk dk;Z fyfidh; dk;Z gS ftls
lEcfUèkr fyfid }kjk u djus ls izek.k i= dks vekU; ugha fd;k tk
ldrkA foi{k }kjk izek.k i= ds lEcU/k esa LIk”V vLohd‘fr ds vHkko esa
izek.k i= izkFkhZ ds i{k eas lk{; esa xzg.k fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS D;ksafd mlds
xyr ;k QthZ gksus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ dFku ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj bldh
izfr foi{k dks fnukad 7-12-2010 dks izkIr djk;h x;h gSA fnukad 7-12-2010
ls vcrd foi{k }kjk bl vfHkys[k ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ izfrdwy dFku ugha
fd;k x;k gSA ;kph us izn’kZ MCY;w 16 ds lEcU/k esa izfrijh{kk esa ;g
mYys[k fd;k gS fd bls foHkkx okyksa us fn;k FkkA ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls
bl lEcU/k esa izLrqr n`“VkUr 2005 ,-vkbZ-vkj- ,l-lh-MCY;w i`“B 6103 vkj-
,e-;sy~ykV~Vh &vihykFkhZ cuke vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bUthfu;j &izR;FkhZ]
izklafxd ,oa mYys[kuh; gSA
25-
2005 ,-vkbZ-vkj- ,l-lh-MCY;w i`“B 6103 vkj-,e-;sy~ykV~Vh &vihykFkhZ
cuke vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bUthfu;j &izR;FkhZ esa vihykFkhZ nSfud osru
Hkksxh ds :Ik esa fnukad 26-11-88 dks fu;qDr gqvk vkSj fnuakd 20-6-94 rd
dk;Z fd;kA fnuakd 20-6-94 dks mldh lsok lekIr dj nh x;hA mldk
dguk Fkk fd fnuakd 20-6-94 ds iwoZ mlus 240 fnu rd yxkrkj lsok dh
Fkh vr% lsoklekfIr esa /kkjk 25&,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk
mYya?ku fd;k x;k] bl izdkj mldh lsok lekfIr voS/k NaVuh Fkh vr% mls
lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd;k tk; rFkk lsok lekfIr dk vkns’k fujLr fd;k
tk;A foi{k }kjk oknksRrj esa ;g dgk x;k fd vihykFkhZ /kkjk 2¼,l½ dh
ifjHkk”kk ds vuqlkj ^^deZdkj^^ ugha gS vr% /kkjk 25&,Q dk ykHk ikus dk
gdnkj ugha gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd foi{kh ^^flpkbZ foHkkXk^^ ^^m|ksXk^^ dh
ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS blfy, /kkjk 25&,Q ds vuqikyu dh
vko’;drk ugha gSA lgk;d vf/k”kklh vfHk;Urk us vihykFkhZ dks bl vk’k;
dk lsok izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k Fkk fd vihykFkhZ us fnuakd 24-11-88 ls
fnuakd 20-6-94 rd lsok dh gSA Je U;k;ky; us mHk;i{k dh lquokbZ ds
ckn ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd vihykFkhZ ^^deZdkj^^ Fkk rFkk nSfud osru Hkksxh
ds :Ik esa fu;qDr FkkA Je U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh vo/kkfjr fd;k fd lgk;d
vf/k”kklh vfHk;Urk }kjk fnuakd 24-11-88 ls fnuakd 20-6-94 rd dh vof/k
esa ds fy, dk;Z izek.k&i= dks vfo’okl djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha Fkk ,oa
mDr izek.k&i= dks lk{; ls izekf.kr ekukA Je U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh ik;k
fd foi{k us egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks nck;kA Je U;k;ky; us 50 izfr’kr foxr
osru ds lkFk vihykFkhZ dks lsok esa iquLFkkZfir djus dk funsZ’k fn;k ftlds
fo:) fjV ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr dh x;hA fjV
;kfpdk esa fu.kZ; ds fo:) fjV vihy esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh
[k.MihB us vihy Lohdkj dh vkSj ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd i=koyh ij
dksbZ lk{; ugha Fkk fd lsok dk izek.k&i= lgk;d vf/k”kklh vfHk;Urk }kjk
tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk foHkkx }kjk izLrqr fjdkMZ ls ;g tkfgj gqvk Fkk
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1117
fd dk;Z izek.k&i= ,d tkylkth ls rS;kj fd;k x;k vfHkys[k Fkk rFkk
izek.k&i= esa dgha mYys[k ugha Fkk fd 240 fnu dh lsok yxkrkj dh x;hA
ekuuh; [k.MihB us ;g Hkh ik;k fd vihykFkhZ }kjk fu;qfDr i= ,oa lsok
lekfIr dk i= rFkk osru izek.k&i= Hkh ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA
ekuuh; [k.MihB us ;g Hkh ik;k fd vihykFkhZ ds ,d lk{kh ds :Ik esa
vius dFku ds vfrfjDr mlds dFku dks lefFkZr djus dk dksbZ lk{;
i=koyh ij ugha FkkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; ds
fo:) vihy ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us Lohdkj dh rFkk lgk;d
vfèk”kklh vfHk;Urk }kjk vihykFkhZ dh lsok ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr izek.k&i=
dks Je U;k;ky; }kjk fo’oluh; ekuus ds fu”d”kZ dh iqf”V dhA ;g Hkh
vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izek.k&i= dks u ekuus ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; [k.MihB
us dksbZ dkj.k ugha fn;k gSA orZeku ekeys esa mDr n`“VkUr esa nh x;h
fof/k O;oLFkk vuqdj.kh; gS ,oa ykxw gksrh gSA mDr O;k[;k o fo’ys”k.k ds
vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gWw fd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDRk /kkjk 25 ,Q ds
izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa dh x;h gSA foi{k bl rF; dks fl) djus esa lQy
ugha gS fd ;kph dk;Z u gksus ds dkj.k Lor% dk;Z NksM+dj pyk x;k tSlk
fd ‘kiFk&i= ds izLrj 3 esa vkSj fyf[kr cgl esa foi{k }kjk dgk x;k gSA
izkFkhZ }kjk lsok esa fu;fer djus gsrq i=koyh ij izLrqr ,oa foi{k dks
lECkksf/kr vusd izfrosnuksa dh QksVksizfr;ksa ds voyksdu ls bl rF; dks cy
ugha feyrk fd izkFkhZ Loa; dk;Z NksM+dj x;k vkSj foi{k dk bl lEcU/k esa
dFku Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gSA
26-
izkFkhZ i{k dh rjQ ls izLrqr n`“VkUr 2005 ySc-vkbZ-lh- 2279
¼loksZPp U;k;ky;½] cSad vkWQ cMkSnk &vihykFkhZ cuke ?ksekjHkkbZ gjthckbZ
jcMh &izR;kFkhZ ds ekeys esa izR;FkhZ us dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k
vgenkckn ds le{k ;g nkok izLrqr fd;k fd og vihykFkhZ cSad esa 1500
:Ik;s ekfld osru ij pkyd ds in ij fu;qDr Fkk rFkk cSad dh ml dkj
dks pykrk Fkk tks cSad ds vf/kdkjh Jh esuu dks vkoafVr FkhA mlus twu
1994 ls vDVwcj 1995 rd dk;Z fd;k ,oa mldh lsok;sa fcuk fdlh {kfriwfrZ
dh vnk;xh fd;s /kkjk 25&,Q] /kkjk 25&th ,oa /kkjk 25&,p vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e ds mYya?ku esa fof/k fo:) lekIr dj nh x;hA ;kph us
lEiw.kZ foxr osru ds lkFk lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dh ;kpuk dhA cSad us izR;FkhZ
ds cSad dh lsok esa gksus ls bUdkj fd;kA cSad us ;g dFku izLrqr fd;k fd
cSad dh Ldhe ds vuqlkj dqN vf/kdkjh;ksa dks ,d dkj cSad us vkofUVr
fd;k ijUrq dkj ds fy, pkyd dh lqfo/kk ugha nh rFkk vkoafVr dkj ij
pkyd j[kus dh ftEesnkjh lEcfU/kr vf/kdkjh dh gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd
lEcfU/kr vf/kdkjh ds LFkkukUrj.k ;k lsokfuo`fr ij lEcfU/kr pkyd dh
lsok Lor% lekIr gks tkrh gSA bl izdkj pkyd cSad dk deZpkjh ugha FkkA
cSad us ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd tks Hkqxrku 1500 :Ik;s ekfld vf/kdkjh us
pkyd dks fd;k mldh izfriwfrZ cSad }kjk vf/kdkjh dks dh tkrh gSA cSad
ds dFkukuqlkj ;g ;kstuk dbZ jk”Vªh;d`r cSadksa esa ykxw gS ,oa ,sls okguksa ds
pkyd lEcfU/kr vf/kdkjh ds oS;fDrRo deZpkjh gSA U;k;kf/kdj.k us ;g
ik;k fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Hkqxrku okmpj ls ;g tkfgj Fkk fd mls 1500
:Ik;s Hkqxrku osru ds en esa fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk mlus ;g Hkh lkfcr fd;k
Fkk fd mlus yxkrkj fnukad 17-7-1994 ls 10-10-95 rd lsok dh FkhA
U;k;kf/kdj.k us ;g Hkh ik;k fd cSad us ,slh dksbZ lkexzh U;k;kf/kdj.k ds
le{k ugha izLrqr dh ftlls mudh ;kstuk lkfcr gks lds ftlds lEcU/k esa
mUgksaus dgk Fkk fd mudh ;kstuk ds vUrxZr caSd vf/kdkjh dks pkydjfgr
dkj vkoafVr gksrh gS vkSj ;fn vf/kdkjh dksbZ pkyd j[krk gS rks mldh
izfriwfrZ cSad }kjk vf/kdkjh dks dh tkrh gS rFkk vf/kdkjh ds LFkkukUrj.k
vFkok lsokfuo‘fRRk ds lkFk pkyd dh lsok Lor% lekIr gks tkrh gSA
deZdkj }kjk izLrqr Hkqxrku okmpj ds fo:) Hkh cSad }kjk dksbZ [k.Mu
izLrqr ugha Fkk vr% vf/kdj.k us iapkV deZdkj ds i{k esa ikfjr fd;k
ftlds fo:) vihykFkhZ cSad dh pqukSrh ekuuh; ,dyihB ,oa [k.MihB ds
le{k vlQy gqbZA ekuuh; [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; us [kkfjt dhA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr
fd;k fd deZdkj }kjk pkyd ds :Ik esa yxkrkj 240 fnu dk;Z djus ds
rF; dks cSad }kjk bUdkj ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj cSad }kjk crk;h x;h
;kstuk dks lkfcr djus ds fy, dksbZ lk{kh ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA mDRk
n`“VkUr ls ;kph rqylhjke ds ekeys esa dksbZ enn ugha feyrh D;ksafd ;kph
dh okLro esa ewy fu;qfDr lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy, gh gqbZ Fkh vkSj dsoy
dHkh&dHkh gh mlls pkyd dk dk;Z fu;fer pkyd ds u gksus ij fy;k
x;k gSA blls ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd mls pkyd dh lsok esa j[kk x;k
Fkk vkSj mls pkyd ds in ij iquLFkkZfir gksus dk gd gsSaA mDr n`“VkUr ls
izkFkhZ ds i{k esa dksbZ enn ugha yh tk ldrhA i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa rFkk
mlds leFkZu esa iznr lk{; dh mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo’ys”k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa
bl fu”d”kZ ij gWw fd ;kph deZdkj foi{kh ds ;gka **lQkbZ okyk** ds in
ij fu;qDr ,oa dk;Zjr Fkk vkSj lsokeqfDRk dh frfFk ls yxHkx ikWp o”kZ iwoZ
rd lQkbZ okyk ds in ij dk;Z djus ds rF; dks lkfcr fd;k gS vkSj bl
rF; dks fl) djus esa lQy ugha gS fd mlus fnukad 11-3-1993 ls fnukad
1-1-2003 rd MªkbZoj&de&prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa dk;Z fd;k gSA
27-
TkgkW rd /kkjk 25 ,Q esa mYya?ku ds ifj.kkeLo:Ik izkFkhZ deZdkj
dh lsok ls fof/k fo:) c[kkZLRkxh ds dkj.k fu;kstd ls jkgr ikus dk
iz’u gS bl lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd c[kkZLrxh dh frfFk ls lsok esa
iquLFkkZfir gksus dh frfFk rd pkyhl izfr’kr foxr osru ,oa lsok dh
fujUrjrk ds lkFk ;fn deZdkj dks lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd;k tk; rks
U;k;kfèkdj.k dh jk; esa lEcfU/kr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g jkgr dh Ik;kZIr ek=k
gksxh rFkk blls U;kf;d mn~ns’; dh iwfrZ gks ldsxhA
28-
;kph }kjk ;kfpdk ds izLrj 9 esa /kkjk 25 th vkS|ksfxd fookn
vfèkfu;e ds mYya?ku dk vk/kkj Hkh fy;k x;k gS ysfdu ,slk dksbZ mYys[k
ugha fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh rqyuk esa fdl dfu”d deZpkjh dks lsok esa
j[kk x;k vkSj izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA lk{; esa izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr
‘kiFk i= esa Hkh /kkjk 25 th ds mYya?ku ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ dFku ugha gSA
vr% eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gWw fd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr esa /kkjk 25 th dk dksbZ
mYya?ku ugha gSA /kkjk 25 ,p ds mYya?ku ds lEcU/k esa Hkh vfHkdFku fd;k
x;k gS ysfdu blds fo:) ;kph us dksbZ ldkjkRed lk{; ugha izLrqr
fd;k gSA
1118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
29-
i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa rFkk mlds leFkZu esa i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr
izys[kh; ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; dh mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo’ys”k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa
bl fu”d”kZ ij gWw fd ls fnukad 1-1-2003 ls v/kh{kd] dsUnzh; ukjdksfVDl
C;wjks] jktLFkku] dksVk@ v/kh{kd ¼fu-½ fuokjd ,oa vklwpuk izdks”B] dsUnzh;
ukjdksfVDl C;wjks] mn;iqj ds }kjk vius deZdkj Jh rqylh jke iq= Jh
ykywjke xesrh] nSfud osru Hkksxh lQkbZ okyk dh lsok ls c[kkZLrxh /kkjk
25 ,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds mYya?ku esa gksus ds dkj.k U;k;ksfpr
,oa fof/k lEer ugha gSA izkFkhZ deZdkj dks c[kkZLrxh dh frfFk ls lsok esa
iquLFkkZfir gksus dh frfFk rd pkyhl izfr’kr foxr osru ,oa lsok dh
fujUrjrk ds lkFk foi{kh dh lsok esa lQkbZ okyk ds in ij mls iquLFkkZfir
fd;k tkrk gS ,oa foi{kh dks vkfn”V fd;k tkrk gSa fd iapkV dh vf/klwpuk
izkIr gksus ds nks ekg ds vUnj izkFkhZ dks lsok esa iquLFkkZfir djsaA izkFkhZ dh
lsoklekfIr rn~uqlkj fujLr dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ dh LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse esa
;kfpr vuqrks”k rn~uqlkj Lohdkj fd;s tkrs gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf”kr funsZ’k
dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
30-
iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk’kukFkZ izsf”kr dh tk;A
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 543-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 39@2007)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@12@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2007) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Union Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14.03.2016.
[No. L-12012/12/2007-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 39 of 2007
Between-
Smt. Kalpana w/o Kamal,
House No. 3, Mohalla Sati,
District Etawah
And
The Branch Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Branch Etawah,
Etawah.
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide notification
No. L-12012/12/2007-IR(B-II) dated 31.08.07, has referred
the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of Union Bank
of India in refusing employment of Smt. Kalpana (part time
sweeper) w.e.f. 29.6.05, is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled?
3.
In short the case of the worker is that she was
appointed as sweeper by the opposite party on 07.10.97 at
Etawah Branch, Etawah, and before appointment the bank
called application supported with relevant documents
which were examined. Although the nomenclature of the
post was sweeper but she was being used to work for
whole day by the bank and apart from the work of sweeper
work of peon was also taken from her. Her services were
determined by the bank with effect from 29.06.05, without
making compliance of section 25F of the Act. It is also
alleged that she had continuously worked for more than
240 days in each calendar year from the date of her
appointment till the date of her termination of service. Her
oral termination of service is illegal inasmuch as at the time
of termination she was neither given any notice, nor notice
pay nor retrenchment compensation. Thus it has been
prayed by her that she is entitled to be reinstated in the
service of bank with full back wages continuity of service
and with all consequential benefits.
4.
The bank refuted the claim of the worker on the
ground that there remained never relationship of master
and servant between the bank and worker, she was engaged
only for some specific work for which she was compensated
as per mutually agreed terms and it is also stated that mere
engagement of any person for some specific work does
not confer upon him any legitimate right to claim regular
and permanent employment. The present matter does not
fall within the term Industrial Dispute as defined under
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1119
section 2(k) of the Act. Worker had never been subjected
for regular selection against any regular post in the bank,
therefore, no right had accrued in her favor to claim
reinstatement in the service of the bank. It has also been
denied by the bank that the worker at any point of time was
appointed as part time sweeper and she had rendered only
casual services for which she was paid by the bank. On the
basis of above it has been alleged by the bank that no right
had accrued in her favor to claim reinstatement and also
she is not entitled for any compensation as the bank had
never violated the provisions of section 25F of the Act in
the case of the worker. Therefore, the claim of the worker is
liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
5.
Claimant Kalpana has examined herself as w.w.1
whereas management has examined Arun Kumar Mishra
as M.W.1 the branch manager of the bank. Both the parties
have also filed documents which shall be discussed at the
appropriate stage.
6.
I have heard the representatives for both the parties
and have also perused the records.
7.
Learned representative for the management
contended that claimant Smt. Kalpana has filed this claim
petition against her termination on the ground that her
services were terminated on 29.06.05, despite she has
completed 240 days continuous service in each calendar
year from 07.10.97 that is the date of her appointment as
sweeper and she was not given any notice nor retrenchment
compensation, but the schedule of reference referred in
this case speaks otherwise i.e. whether the action of the
management in refusing employment of Smt. Kalpana (part
time sweeper) w.e.f. 29.06.05. This clearly shows that
reference is not on the subject of termination of the service
of Smt. Kalpana.
8.
It is pertinent to point out here that when the contents
of claim statement are viewed in the light of schedule of
reference order it becomes quite obvious that the claim
petition is completely contrary to the reference order and
there is no mention in the claim petition of worker that the
management ever refused her for employment and reference
order also does not speak about the termination of service
of the worker with effect 29.06.05.
9.
As such the tribunal finds that the reference order
has not been properly worded in as much as schedule of
reference order does not meet the ingredients of term
retrenchment as defined under section 2-A of the Act, as
such the worker cannot be given any relief with regard to
the present reference order.
10.
Besides this Smt. Kalpana is shown as part time
sweeper whereas in the claim statement she has pleaded
that she was appointed as sweeper on 09.10.97 and she
used to work for whole day and was performing the duties
of additional peon. As such she has shown herself as full
time sweeper against the genesis of the schedule of
reference order.
11.
Be that as it may, the claimant as w.w.1 has stated
that she was performing the duties of sweeping only and
was paid through cash vouchers. She has told age in her
statement as 30 years on the date of recording her statement
on 12.10.12 but in her cross examination she has stated to
be 30 years in 1997. It also shows that she was over age in
1997 and could not get apopointment as sweeper. She has
stated in her statement that after her removal from service
one Prem Chandra was appointed in her place but in cross
examination she has stated that she does not know whether
person by name Prem Chandra was appointed sweeper or
not. She has further stated that she has filed vouchers to
show that she has worked for more than 240 days of
continuous service preceding 12 calendar months from the
date of her termination from service.
12.
In this case worker has also summoned vouchers
which were filed by the bank which makes it clear that no
voucher is filed for the month of June 05 and by calculating
the dates it is very much clear that worker has failed to
prove that she had worked for more than 240 days of
continuous service before 12 preceding months from the
date of termination or in any year.
13.
In this regard M.W.1 Sri A K Mishra has also stated
that in his branch there was no sanctioned post of part
time sweeper and sweeping work was taken from the
persons available in the open market and management has
also filed paper no.25/1-38 as were summoned by the worker.
14.
Therefore, on the basis of above discussion, the
tribunal is of the opinion that the reference is not properly
worded so as to come it within the definition of section 2-
A of the Act i.e. retrenchment. Worker has also failed to
prove that she had worked for 240 days of continuous
service preceding 12 calendar months from the date of
termination of service i.e. 29.06.05, though the reference is
not on the subject of termination of the service of Smt.
Kalpana, therefore, she is not entitled for any relief as
claimed by her and the reference is answered accordingly
against her.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 544-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 21@2000) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@291@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
1120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2000) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 14.03.2016.
[No. L-12012/291/98-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/21/2000
Shri S.K.Bhagat,
S/o Shri Dharmraj Bhagat,
Qr. No. 2/J, Street No.14,
Sector-6 Bhilai,
Durg (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Branch Manager,
UCO Bank, Sector-I,
Kohak Branch, PO Bhilai,
Distt. Durg (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 29th day of January 2016
1.
As per letter dated 28-12-99 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-12012/
291/98-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether Shri Suresh Kumar Bhagat, so called
Personal Driver is an employee of the Bank and a
workman under ID Act 1947? Whether his termination
of the services w.e.f. 9-6-97 is justified? If not, what
relief he is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he belongs
to SC. He was holding qualification for appointment as
Class IV employee. On 6-4-91, he submitted application to
Sr. Manager of UCO Bank for post of Driver. He was
appointed as personal driver vide order dated 6-4-91. From
6-4-91 to 9-6-97 he was working without break. While
working as Driver, he was transferred to Sr. Officer. He had
also rendered service as peon in the Bank. He was paid
salary and admissible allowance bonus and increments.
On 9-6-97, his services were terminated without notice or
giving opportunity of hearing. He raised dispute about
termination of his service. Workman reiterates that he was
continuously working from 6-4-97 to 9-6-97. Instead of
regularizing him in service, 2nd party terminated his
services in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. he had
rendered more than 240 days continuous service in each of
the calendar year. On such ground, workman prays for
setting aside order of his termination.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2
opposing claim of workman. Case of 2nd party is the
reference is not legal. Workman remained absent on 18-6-
98, 2-7-98. No information was received from him, the
conciliation proceeding was held exparte. Workman was
never in pay role of the Bank. He was personal driver of
Branch Manager. As per Bank’s guidelines, his pay was
reimbursed. As a matter of policy, the facility of Bank car
was withdrawn from certain centres. As its consequence,
the respective Branch Managers were directed to
discontinue availing reimbursement of payment towards
personal driver. Directions were also issued to ground the
vehicle. The workman was never in employment of Bank.
He remained absent. That workman is working as car driver
since 28-5-97 in Bharat Industrial work. The certificate is
issued by said company on 25-7-98. 2nd party denied that
workman Suresh Kumar Bhagat was employed as Driver
cum peon in the bank from 6-4-91 to 9-6-97. It is denied that
he was paid monthly salary, washing allowance, overtime,
bonus, festival etc. from the Bank. There is no employer
employee relationship between the parties. Workman was
not employed by the Bank. There was no question of
payment to him by Bank. That the service of workman
Suresh was personal and temporary. His termination after
withdrawal of facility in Bank’s card is legal management
has referred to copy of Bank’s circular dated 30-8-96. As
per letter by Dy.General Manager dated 27-5-98, salary
receipt of Bhilai Sector 1 branch, copy of attendance
registers, name of workman is not appearing.
4.
Workman submitted rejoinder reiterating his
contentions in statement of claim. That he was carrying
Officers from Bhopal, Calcutta visiting Bhilai. He was doing
different work in the Bank, its documents are available with
the Bank. The services were terminated on the basis of
anonymous complaint.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether Shri Suresh Kumar
In Affirmative
Bhagat, so called Personal Driver
is an employee of the Bank and a
workman under ID Act 1947?
(ii) Whether termination of workman
In Negative
from services w.e.f. 9-6-97 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per final
entitled to?”
order.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1121
REASONS
6.
As per pleadings in Written Statement filed by the
management, workman was engaged as personal driver of
the Branch Manager. Workman filed affidavit of his
evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim
that he was working as car driver in the Bank from 6-4-91 to
9-6-97. He was also working as peon. He was paid monthly
salary and allowance. He was given annual increments,
bonus was paid to him through A/C No. 24355/98. He was
getting dress allowance, car washing allowance, overtime
allowance, leave increments. He was doing other work in
the Bank. Record is with the Bank. He worked more than
240 days during each of the year. As per circular dated
19-10-98 on completion of 3 years service, he was eligible
for absorption in subordinate cadre. In his re-examination,
workman has proved documents Exhibit W-1 to W-3.
Management’s counsel remained absent. Workman was
not cross-examined. His evidence remained unchallenged.
7.
Management did not adduce any evidence to
substantiate its contentions.
8.
Documents Exhibit W-1 is application submitted by
workman dated 6-4-91 disclosing his age, qualification and
holding light motor vehicle driving licence. Exhibit W-2 is
order dated 6-3-91 workman was appointed as personal
driver after absorption of Driver Bahadur. The application
alongwith 8th passed marksheet was enclosed with the
order. Exhibit W-3 is certificate issued by Sr.Manager Shri
K.M.Pandey that workman was satisfactorily working as
personal driver from 6-4-91 to 9-6-97.
9.
The evidence of workman is corroborated by
document Exhibit W-1 to W-3. Workman was continuously
working from 6-4-91 to 9-6-97 as personal driver. As per the
policy of 2nd party, reimbursed salary paid to workman.
when Bank has allowed its policy, facility of car driver and
reimbursing salary of personal driver to the officer, workman
becomes the employee of the Bank though he was
appointed as personal Driver. Therefore I record my finding
in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
10.
Point No.2- Workman was continuously working with
Bank as personal driver from April 91 to June 97, documents
Exhibit W-1 to W-3 corroborates evidence of workman. His
services are terminated without notice. The copy of circular
issued by Head office dated 15-5-89 is produced. Said
circular clearly shows that the officers provided with
Bank’s car were engaging personal drivers. Circular further
clearly provides that the personal driver completing 5 years
service were eligible for absorption as subordinate staff.
The salary of personal driver was reimbursed to the officers.
The circular is also clear that it was advised that as and
when officer go on leave , the car shall continue to be with
him/ her only and he need not surrender it to nay authority
till such time he/she is required to surrender the car due to
change for his her posting or on his/ her retirement.
11.
Workman completed more than 240 days service as
personal driver. His services were terminated without
notice. Certainly there is violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1
in Negative.
12.
Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.2,
termination of service of workman is in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act is illegal, the management has not adduced
evidence. The evidence of workman remained
unchallenged. Workman as working as personal driver from
6-4-91 to 9-6-97. Reasons for his termination from service
are not established by cogent evidence. Therefore claim of
workman for reinstatement deserves to be allowed. The
affidavit of evidence of workman is silent about what he
was doing after termination of his service. Considering
above aspects, the workman deserves to be reinstated with
25 % back wages. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No.3.
13.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
Workman Suresh Kumar Bhagat is employee of the
Bank. Action of management terminating his service
on 9-6-97 is not legal.
(2)
Management is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service and 25 % backwages.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 545-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 32@09) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@82@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/09) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Bank of Baroda and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14.03.2016.
[No. L-12012/82/2008-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
1122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/32/09
Shri Balram S/o Mayaram Burane,
29, Marimata Chouraha,
Distt. Indore
...Workman
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office,
Ganga Jamuna Complex,
Plot No.202, MP Nagar Zone-I,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of January, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 25-2-09 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
82/2008-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the claim of the workman that he has
completed 240 days of services in a calendar year,
his services were terminated w.e.f. 24-4-04 without
following the procedure of Industrial Dispute Act,
1947 and he should be reinstated by the management
of Bank of Baroda is legal and justified? What relief
the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim dated
27-1-2010. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed as peon on 25-9-96, he was continuously
working as peon till 3-1-97. He was paid wages Rs. 48 per
day. He was not paid minimum wages. He was working in
Navlakha branch from 3-6-96 to 24-4-04. He was paid R. 90
per day. His services were orally terminated on 24-4-04. In
para 3 of his statement of claim, workman has shown his
working days 84 days during 1996, 42 days in 1997, 210
days in 1998, 280 days in 1999, 280 days in 2000, 280 days
in 2001, 2002, 337 days in 2003. 98 days till April 2004.
3.
Workman reiterates that he completed more than
240 days continuous service. His services were terminated
without notice in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act,
retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. After
termination of his service, he is not in employment. On
such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with
backwages.
4.
2nd party management filed Written Statement
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that
workman was engaged for the work of arranging record.
from 11-10-96 to 3-1-97, he was also engaged for the work
of supplying drinking water. He was paid Rs.40 per day.
Workman was not appointed following recruitment rules
as per the regulations. The engagement of workman on
daily wages was ending at end of the day. Workman was
engaged as staff gap arrangement. He is not entitled to
regular appointment. Workman was not interviewed. That
employment in Bank is covered under Article 16 of the
constitution. Workman is not entitled to any relief. On such
ground, 2nd party prays that reference be answered in its
favour.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the claim of the workman
Termination of
that he has completed 240 days of
workman is not
services in a calendar year, his
in violation of
services were terminated w.e.f.
Section 25-F
24-4-04 without following the
of ID Act.
procedure of ID Act is proper
and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
6.
After reference, statement of claim is filed by
workman. management of 2nd party filed Written Statement
opposing claim of workman. Workman has failed to
participated in reference proceeding. He has not adduced
any evidence to substantiate his claim. There is no
evidence to support claim of workman that he worked
more than 240 days during any of the calendar year.
Management has also not adduced any evidence. As claim
of workman is not substantiated by evidence, I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
Workman has not completed 240 days continuous
service.
(2)
He is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 546-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 26@2011)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@40@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1123
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Central
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 14.03.2016.
[No. L-12011/40/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 26/2011
Between-
The General Secretary in the
case of (Milap Chandra),
Central Bank Employees Congress,
MIG C-1241, Rajaji Puram,
Lucknow
And
Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Regional Office,
372/18-B, Gwalior Road,
Jhansi 284001
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide notification
no.L-12011/40/2010-IR(B-II) dated 11.05.2011, has referred
the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India, Jhansi in not releasing promotion to Sri Milap
Chand CTO posted at Bara Bazar is just & proper? What
relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
3.
In short the case of the union on behalf of the worker
is that while posted at the post of CTO at Bara Bazar Branch,
Jhansi, he appeared in promotional examination for the post
of JMGS-1 in the year 2006 and he was declared successful
and after conducting interview the worker was promoted
at the post of officer. The bank instead of relieving the
worker to join the post served upon him charge sheet dated
04.09.2006. On the basis of inquiry he was awarded
punishment of recovery of an amount of Rs.16000/- and
the appeal against the punishment was maintained by the
appellate authority. It is alleged that order to recover the
amount do not fall within the definition of punishment
according to the provisions of various settlements. In this
way the worker is not connected with any misconduct and
lastly it is prayed by the worker that the action of the
opposite party be declared as unjust and unfair and he be
held entitled to be promoted with effect from 2006.
4.
Management has filed the reply against the claim
petition of the worker denying all the allegations. It is
pleaded that after receipt of a complaint from the account
holder Smt. Urmila, the concerned worker was issued a
memo and opportunity was granted to him to submit his
reply and the reply of the worker was not found satisfactory
by the competent authority. Smt. Urmila filed a complaint
against the worker and Sri B K Gautam before Consumer
Forum Jhansi, regarding illegal withdrawal of R.46000/- from
the account and after hearing the both parties an order
dated 12.10.06 has been passed against bank with direction
that the bank is free to recover directed amount from the
concerned employees. An appeal against this order was
also filed before the Appellate Forum wherein by interim
order the impugned order was stayed with direction to
deposit Rs.46000/- before the Consumer Forum Jhansi.
Lastly it is pleaded that gross misconduct has been proved
against the worker therefore, he is not entitled for his
promotion etc. as claimed by him. Accordingly his claim is
liable to be rejected.
5.
By paper no.10/1 authorised representative for the
worker has filed 9 papers. The bank by paper no.17/1 has
filed one paper. By paper no.19, the bank has also filed
certified copies of the decision of District Consumer Forum
and Appellate Forum.
6.
Worker has not adduced evidence and his evidence
was closed therefore, learned representative for the
management has also endorsed on order sheet that there is
no need to adduce any oral evidence on behalf of the bank.
7.
I have heard the arguments of the parties at length
and have also gone through the entire records of the case.
8.
It is not at all in dispute that Smt. Urmila an account
holder of the bank had filed a complaint before the District
Consumer Forum and the said case was decided in her
favor and against the worker. The worker has also preferred
an appeal before the impugned order of the District
Consumer Forum before Appellate Forum and the appeal
so filed by the worker was dismissed by order dated nil
being devoid of merit.
9.
As worker has not adduce any evidence to establish
that inquiry conducted by the management is not just
proper and fair as such his contention against the inquiry
is not proved.
10.
Therefore, considering the overall matter available
on the record I do not consider it fit to disturb the order of
the disciplinary authority as upheld by the appellate
authority.
1124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
Accordingly it is held that he action of the
management as referred to in the schedule of reference
order is just fair and proper and needs no interference.
12.
Therefore, the worker / union is not entitled for any
relief pursuant to the reference order.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 547-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2013)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@91@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2013) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Punjab National Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
14.03.2016.
[No. L-12011/91/2012-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT,
KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 25/2013
Between-
The General Secretary in the
case of (Ashok Kumar Jaiswal),
U.P. Bank Karamchari Sangh,
45-A Chander Nagar, Lal Bangla,
Kanpur.
And
Deputy General Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office,
Birhana Road,
Kanpur.
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide notification
no.L-12011/91/2012-IR(B-II) dated 07.03.2013, has referred
the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of Punjab
National Bank Kanpur in debarring Sri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal
for officiating as special assistant officer till 23.12.12 and
allowing officiating to others on same grounds is just fair
and legal? What relief the workman concerned is entitled
to?
3.
After receipt of reference order several notices
through registered post were sent to the union raising the
dispute but neither union put in appearace in the case nor
filed claim petition. Union was also provided with sufficient
opportunity in this regard but the union failed to avail the
opportunity. Therefore, it appears that the union is not
interested in prosecuting his case as such the reference is
liable to be answered against the union for want of pleading
and proof.
4.
Accordingly reference is decided against the union
holding that the union is not entitled for any relief what so
ever in the absence of pleading and proof.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 548-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2008)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@105@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2016
S.O. 548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2008) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Bank of Baroda and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14.03.2016.
[No. L-12012/105/2007-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1125
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER HJS, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 25/2008
Between-
Sri Mohd. Wazid,
S/o Sri Mohammad Mustafa,
R/o ED-24 ADA Colony,
Naini,
Allahabad.
And
The Assistant General Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office,
Civil Lines,
Allahabad.
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide notification
no.L-12012/105/2007 I.R. B-II, dated 07.01.2008, has referred
the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-
2.
Whether the action of the management of Bank of
Baroda, in terminating the services of Sri Mohd. Wazid
Messenger, with effect from 04.11.2006 is justified and legal?
If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
3.
Brief facts are –
4.
It is stated by the claimant that the Naini Branch,
Allahabad of the opposite party is under the control and
supervision of Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda
and he started working at the post of Messenger with effect
from April, 2000. It is further stated by the claimant that the
branch manager of the Naini Branch Allahabad, without
any reason of ryhm stopped the workman from his work on
verbal orders with effect from 04.11.2006. No notice, notice
pay or retrenchment compensation was offered to the
workman by the opposite party at the time of dispensation
of his services. He has further alleged that in each calendar
year he had rendered for more than 240 days of service.
During the period of his employment with the opposite
party neither there was any complaint against the workman
nor was he ever issued any charge sheet. It is alleged that
at the time of dispensation of the service of the workman
juniors to him were working at the branch that are still in
the employment of the bank. After dispensation of his
service the workman made repeated requests oral as well
as in writing for his employment before the management
but all the times he was verbally assured by the concerned
authorities of the bank but no written reply was ever given
to him by the bank.
5.
It is alleged by the workman that the dispensation
of his services by the opposite party is wholly illegal and
improper. The entire action of the opposite party is against
the provisions of the Act. After termination of his services
the workman could not get any employment despite of his
best efforts and he is unemployed.
6.
In the last on the basis of above it has been prayed
by the workman that he is entitled to be reinstated in the
service of the bank with continuity, full back wage and
with all consequential benefits.
7.
The opposite party has filed the reply refuting the
entire claim of the workman on the ground that the opposite
party bank is a public sector nationalized bank and is having
its own recruitment rules and no person can be allowed to
seek the employment without qualifying the recruitment
process.
8.
It is alleged by the opposite party that the workman
was engaged purely on temporary basis to meet the
exigencies as and when required. His engagement was for
a specific work and for a specific period and the work
entrusted to him when completed his engagement
automatically came to an end and non renewal of the same
is not retrenchment. As the workman was a daily wager
hence the question of termination of his service or
compliance of provisions of section 25 F of the Act does
not arise.
9.
The workman was engaged intermittently during the
period from 06.05.2000 to 08.09.2004, purely on casual basis
therefore, there does not exist any cause of action or alleged
termination on 04.11.2006. He is not a workman as defined
under section 2(s) of the Act. Workman has not worked
continuously for 240 days in any calendar year; therefore,
the workman is not entitled for any relief.
10.
The workman was never the employee of the bank
because he was neither appointed by the bank on any
regular post, therefore, the claim of the workman is not
maintainable and he is not entitled for any relief.
11.
Rejoinder has also been filed by the workman but
nothing new has been alleged therein.
12.
Worker Mohd. Wazid has examined himself as w.w.1
and management examined Ram Palat as M.W.1 and Sri
Manglesh Dubey as M.W.2.
13.
Both the parties have filed documents which will be
discussed at the appropriate stage.
14.
After hearing both the parties my predecessor has
passed an award on 31.12.13 against the workman with the
observation that the worker has failed to prove his
continuous working of 240- days.
15.
Aggrieved by the award worker ha preferred writ (C)
no.46759 of 14 before the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad,
Mohd. Wazid versus Presiding Officer and others which
1126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 19, 2016/PHALGUNA 29, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was decided by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated
23.2.15 and the award of the tribunal was set aside and the
matter was remitted to the tribunal to decide it afresh
according to law.
16.
I have heard the parties representatives at length
and have also examined the record carefully.
17.
A perusal of the judgment dated 23.2.14 of the
Hon’ble High Court reveals that the writ was decided after
hearing counsel of the petitioner and none appeared on
behalf of respondents. Hon’ble High Court has held that
the worker has moved an application dated 26.10.09 before
this tribunal for summoning certain documents. Despite
moving of application by the worker documents were not
summoned. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Court
that the petitioner has pressed his application for
summoning of records. However. Respondent no.1 did not
pass any orders on the said application. It was also held
that the respondent no.1 should have directed the
management to produce the records in evidence.
18.
It appears from the records of this case that the worker
has moved application for summoning of certain
documents from the management on 26.10.09 against which
management filed objection. The application for summoning
the records was decided by predecessor on 25.08.10 in
favor of the worker and management was directed to file
payment scroll register for the year 2005-06 and vouchers
for the period 2003-04. Considering the fact that the
management has only filed some vouchers and did not file
payment scroll register my predecessor has passed a
detailed order on 02.08.11 observing that proper inference
will be drawn at the time of arguments if any malafide is
found and fixed a date for recording evidence of the parties.
19.
Perhaps that these facts were not brought to the
notice of the Hon’ble High Court by the counsel of the
petitioner or rather wrong facts were placed before the
Hon’ble Court that summoning application has not been
decided by the tribunal while from the discussion it is clear
that summoning application of the worker was decided by
my learned predecessor in favor of the worker and when
the management failed to file payment scroll register my
predecessor has passed a specific order for taking proper
inference to the time of arguments, if any malafide is found.
20.
Now coming to the merit of the case it has to be seen
whether worker has been able to prove his case and further
it is also to be seen whether non filing of payment scroll
register any prejudice has been caused to the worker.
21.
Briefly, the case of the worker is that he started on
the post of messenger w..f. April 04 at Bank’s Nani Branch
at Allahabad under the control and supervision of Assistant
General Manager, Bank of Baroda and the branch manager
of Naini Branch, Allahabad without any reason stopped
worker to work and terminated his services orally. He was
not paid any retrenchment compensation or notice. While
management in its reply refuted the entire claim of the
worker and alleged that the worker was engaged
temporarily to meet the exigencies as and when required.
His engagement was for specific work and for specific
period and work was entrusted to him and when it was
completed his engagement automatically came to an end.It
is further alleged that the worker was engaged
intermittently during the period from 06.5.2000 to
08.09.04 purely on casual basis, therefore, there does not
exist any relationship of employer and employee between
the bank and the worker and also there dos not exist any
cause of action or alleged termination on 04.11.06. He is
not a workman nor has ever work for 240 days of
continuous service in any calendar year.
22.
Worker Mohd. Wazid in his evidence has deposed
different version by stating that he was appointed in the
bank at Naini Branch on 24.4.2000 as peon but was not
given any appointment letter. He has worked in the bank
till November 06 continuously. It is strange tht the worker
has not disclosed the mode of payment of wages in his
claim petition and for the first time in his evidence he has
alleged that he was being paid his wages through voucher
which were entered in payment scroll register. Bank has
not furnished payment scroll register in the tribunal on his
demand. He has admitted his signatures on the vouchers
filed by the management paper no. 15/2-11. He further
alleged that at the time of his termination he was receiving
at the rate of Rs.1200 or 1300 per month.
23.
In his cross examination he has deposed that he has
not given any application for his appointment nor was
interviewed nor is getting any benefit as is admissible to
the regular and permanent employees of the bank. He has
further admitted that he has not filed any document to
show his continuous working from 24.4.2000 to Nov. 06.
He had worked continuously for 240 days in every year
but has not filed any documentary evidence. He has further
admitted that he has not filed any documents to show his
working from 9.9.04 to November 06. His attendance was
not taken in bank. Firstly he was paid his wage weekly on
daily basis and thereafter after 15 days. Worker has filed
paper no.8/3-7 through list 8/1 wherein it is shown that it is
photocopy of saving bank pass book in which entries of
receiving wages through cheque are entered but this fact
has not been disclosed either in claim petition nor this
photocopy[py of pass book is proved by worker in his
evidence. Moreover by perusal of this pass book it reveals
that this paper is fake as no number of account is shown in
pass book and on paper no.8/4 only entries of withdrawal
are mentioned and on paper no. 8/5-6 only entries of
deposits are mentioned and on paper no.8/7 only entries of
balance are mentioned and on this paper 5 last entries
shown in correct figures which create a doubt that pass
book furnished by worker is a fake paper. As he has stated
in his evidence that he was receiving his payment through
vouchers it cannot be believed that simultaneously worker
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 19] 2016@iQkYxqu 29] 1937
1127
will receive his wages through cheque also. Worker has
also filed copies of vouchers which are pap-er no.8/9-12 of
different dates from 2001 to 2005 and also admitted vouchers
filed by the bank which makes it clear that worker was
receiving payment through vouchers only. Worker has also
filed vouchers of different dates which are paper no.8/16-
31. I all these vouchers the signature of the worker is
appearing on the back of it. A perusal of all these clearly
establishes that the worker was never paid any amount of
wages. These voucher related to the payment of different
work like stationery charges, sundry charges and repairs
etc. Worker has not filed any voucher to show that he had
received any payment of wages through vouchers.
Therefore, under these circumstances the version of the
management is acceptable that worker was engaged for
intermittent period only purely on temporary basis to meet
the exigencies of work as and when required.
24.
In this regard management examined two witnesses
M.W.1 Ram Palat and M.W.2 Manglesh Dubey.
25.
M.W.2 has stated that during his working period
from 21.07.98 to August 05 as cashier worker was taken
work of bringing stationery and for other work as and when
required. He has not worked for 240 days in any calendar
year and after 8.9.04 his services were not utilized for any
work as daily wager.
26.
M.W.1 Ram Palat has stated that he was posted in
bank from 24.05.06 to 14.08.09 and during his posting he
came to know that Mohd. Wazid was never appointed by
the bank and his services were taken for bridging stationery
and supplying water to the staff and customer of the bank
and he was engaged for intermittent period and has never
worked for 240 days in any calendar year. Worker has also
admitted in his cross examination that he has not filed any
documentary evidence to show his continuously working
from 24.04.2000 to Nov.06.
27.
Learned representative for management has argued
that payment scroll register could not be traced out and
filed before the tribunal. He further contended that as
worker has admitted to have received wages through
vouchers therefore, worker could not get any benefit if
management would have filed payment scroll register. He
further impressed that in entries in payment scroll registered
are entered only where cash payments are made after issue
of token and there cannot be any entry of amount paid
through vouchers. Therefore, the tribunal is of the view
non filing of payment scroll register is not fatal on the case
of the management and also no prejudice is caused to
worker.
28.
From the above discussions, tribunal is of the view
that the worker hs palpably failed in establishing is
continuous working of 240 ays in any calendar year.
Therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.
29.
Reference is therefore, decided against the workman
and in favor of the management.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, 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.