1246 GI/2016
(1129)
fons'k ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 549-—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] fons'k ea=kky; ds v/huLFk dk;kZy; ¶{ks=kh;
ikliksVZ dk;kZy;] cjsyh¸ dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d
deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr
djrh gS A
¹la- D;w@¯gnh@621@18@2015º
gjds'k ehuk] mi funs'kd (jk-Hkk-)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 549.—In pursuance of sub-rules (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose of the
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- 13]
ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 20—ekpZ 26] 2016] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 30] 1937—pS=k 6] 1938
No. 13]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 20—MARCH 26, 2016, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 30, 1937—CHAITRA 6, 1938
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)
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies
the Subordinate Office “Regional Passport Office, Bareli”
of the Ministry of External Affairs the 80% staff whereof
have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. Q/Hindi/621/18/2015]
HARKESH MEENA, Dy. Director (OL)
Hkkjh m|ksx vkSj yksd m|e ea=kky;
(Hkkjh m|ksx foHkkx)
(,bZvkbZ vuqHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 550-—fnukad 19 vxLr] 2013 ds dk-vk-
3403(v) }kjk Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa izdkf'kr Hkkjh m|ksx foHkkx
}kjk tkjh vkns'k ds Øe esa l{ke izkf/dkjh us vkWVkseksckby vkSj
lac¼ m|ksx fodkl ifj"kn~ (Mhlh,,vkbZ) ds lnL;ksa ds fu;qfDr
1130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ds dk;Zdky dks vkSj ,d o"kZ dh vof/ vFkkZr~ 19 vxLr] 2015
ls 18 vxLr] 2016 rd ds fy, c<+k fn;k gS A
¹iQk- la- 7(6)@2007&,bZvkbZ (3888)º
vt; dqekj xkSM+] voj lfpo (,bZvkbZ)
MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC
ENTERPRISES
(Department of Heavy Industry)
(AEI SECTION)
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 550.—In continuation of order issued by
Department of Heavy Industry as published in the Gazette
of India vide S.O. 3403(E) dated 19th August 2013, the
competent authority has further extended the tenure of
appointment of members of the Development Council for
Automobile & Allied Industries (DCAAI) for a period of
another one year i.e. from 19th August, 2015 to
18th August, 2016.
[F. No. 7(6)/2007-AEI (3888)]
AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Under Secy. (AEI)
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 551-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vky bafM;k
jsfM;ks izlkj Hkkjrh ,aM vnlZ 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;&1] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 171@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@77@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 171/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the All India Radio, Prasar Bharti
and Others and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42011/77/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO.1, DELHI
ID No. 171/2015
Shri Aneesh & 11 others,
Through Bhartiya Bhawan
Nirman Labour Union,
H-II/1,2, Main Road Tigri( DSIDC),
New Delhi 110 062
...Workman
Versus
1.
Civil Construction Wing,
All India Radio, Prasar Bharti,
Soochna Bhawan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003
2.
M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd.,
C-56/41, Sector 62, NOIDA
Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh 201 309
3.
Shri Munif, Sub-contractor,
M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd.,
C-56/41, Sector 62, NOIDA
Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh 201 309
...Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/77/2015-
IR(DU) dated 21.07.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether termination of Shri Aneesh & 11 others (list
enclosed with original application ) without compliance of
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act by Era Infra
Engineering Ltd.,/Mr.Munif (Sub-Contractor) is just, fair
and legal? If not what relief the workmen concerned are
entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, claimants opted not
to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent
to the claimants as well as the management at the address
provided by the appropriate Government. Notice was again
sent to the claimant. However, the postal articles sent to
the claimants were received back on both the occasions
with the remarks ’No such Address’ and ‘Left’. Hence,
this Tribunal is left with no other option, except to pass a
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1131
‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be sent to the
appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : March 2, 2016
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 552-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iksLV ekLVj
tujy ukFkZ fcgkj l£dy ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k] iVuk ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- 17 (lh)@2014)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@03@2016 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@78@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 552.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.
17(C) of 2014) of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna now as shown
in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Post Master
General, North Bihar Circle and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 03/03/2016.
[No. L-40011/78/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No. 17 (C) of 2014
04 of 2014
The management of Post Master General, North Bihar
Circle, Muzaffarpur and their workman National Life
Insurance Employees Association through Sri B.N.P.
Srivastava, General Secretary, J.P. Colony, Chandwara,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
For the management
:
Sri Nagdeo Paswan, Public
Relation Inspector (Postal),
Head Post Office, Muzaffarpur
(Bihar )
Sri Sone Lal Ram, Public
Relation Inspector ( Postal
Asst.), Head Post Office,
Muzaffarpur (Bihar )
For the workman
:
Sri B.N.P. Srivastava, General
Secretary
Present
:
Bipin Dutta Pathak, Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, the 24th February, 2016
By notification order No. L-40011/78/2013-IR(DU)
New Delhi, dated- 06.02.2014 Govt. of India, Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi referred
under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)
of section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) the following
dispute between The management of Post Master General,
North Bihar Circle, Muzaffarpur and their workman
National Life Insurance Employees Association through
Sri B.N.P. Srivastava, General Secretary, J.P.Colony,
Chandwara, Muzaffarpur, Bihar for adjudication to the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Ttribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-2,
Dhanbad. However, in the light of Govt. of India,// Bharat
Sarkar Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi,
letter vide order no.- Z-25025/4/2014-CLS-II dated- 07th
May, 2014 the Cent. Govt. Indus. Ttribunal-cum-Labour
Court No.-2, Dhanbad transferred this Industrial Dispute
vide letter no.- LCT/2014/902 dated- 15 Septemebr, 2014 to
State Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the workman has earned right of
absorption having been enegaged for a considerable
period of time regularly even though on daily wages?
And whether the management of Post Master
General, Northern Region should give him a
permanent regular employees status with immediate
effect?
2.
Written statement has been filed on behalf of the
workman stating therein workman concerned, Sri Umesh
Kumar has been and is in continuous service under the
respondent at its Head Post Office, Muzaffarpur since
December 1999 against permanent perennial vacant post
of Sweeper, on daily wage basis. There has been never
been any complain, whatsoever it may be, against him and
his discipline, conduct, working culture and work
knowledge, etc, rather all these have all along been
appreciable at all times upto the entire satisfaction of all
concerned. Sri Kumar’s deals and performance, as a token
of recognition, the then Senior Post Master granted
temporary status to three such daily wager workmen
including this concerned workman Sri Umesh Kumar, vide
order no.- Sr. P.M./Misc/2002, dated- 09.08.2002. Document
has been annexed with written statement and in serial no.-
1 serial no.- 4 one workman was immediately given the
temporary status; whereas 2 workmen including the
concerned workman, Sri Kumar, were not offered the same,
as yet, for the reason best known to the respondent and
for certain undue considerations. The concerned workman
has been requested representing before the authorities
1132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
concerned from time to time to make his services
permanent, but in vain. Representations has been enclosed
with the written statement.
This weakest section of the workman has had to
knock the door of Labour Forum, wherein also the
respondent did not come to a judiciously justified and
reasonable solutions in the ends of justice and adopted
quite unfair labour practices with certain vested interests.
This reference for adjudication to meet the ends of justice
and fair labour practices by granting permanent status to
the concerned workman. List of documents and name of
witnesses submitted and prayer has been made (a) to
absorb i.e make the services permanent of the workman
concerned without any condition and delay whatsoever it
may be, with retrospective effect. (b) to order for the entire
benefits & notional benefits with time bound promotions,
etc. (c) to restore all the reliefs etc. with retrospective effect.
(d) to order for maintaining the status-quo in the
meanwhile.
3.
It appears that a petition has been filed on 25.08.2014
by Senior Post Master, Muzaffarpur in which it has been
stated that Sri Umesh Kumar is working in daily wages
basis in the in permanent post of sweeper excluding Sunday
and holiday. Sri Umesh Kumar is working in daily wages
basis not as permanent incumbent. Hence, there is no
question regarding satisfaction/dissatisfaction as per
departmental conduct rules.
Then senior Postmaster issued memo no.- Sr. PM/
Misc/2002 dated- 09.08.2002 but no copy receipted by
concerned branches. Hence, the wages are not drawn in
regular bill of establishment. He is getting his wages on
ACG-17 voucher prescribed by the departmental of Posts
for contigent payment daily. His request cannot accepted
as he is working as daily wages. His requested is not
acceptable. Sri Umesh Kumar has been paid his wages at
enhanced rate @ Rs. 220/- fixed by Government of India.
4.
It appears that general secretary of the union filed
rejoinder to the written statement dated- 26.08.2014
submitted by the respondent management.
5.
It appears on 09.01.2015 written statement has been
on behalf of the respondent ( management ). It has been
stated since the person was engaged as daily wager not
on regular term, the correct date and month is not
confirmed. It has been stated that in respect of the matter
that Sri Umesh Kumar was engaged from 1999. Correct
date and months is not confined. It has further been stated
that complainant Sri Umesh Kumar was to be paid on
prorate basis of minimum of scale admissible to the SAFAI
KARAMCHARI. As per order of the court and consent of
Umesh Kumar the wages as per notification was paid with
back arrear and he is receiving agreed wages as such.
There is no dispute as to the rate between the employer
and daily wager. In absence of any dispute in respect of
the payable wages a proceeding instituted with reference
to such order dated- 09.08.2002 is not maintainable under
section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
It has been stated that matter regarding conferment
of temporary status to Sri Umesh Kumar. It has been
admitted above that he has been working as daily wager
from 1999. Department of posts, Govt. of India ordered
vide 66-52/92-SPB-01 dated- 01.11.1995 amended by letter
dated- 08.11.1995 that any engagement like casual labourers
after 01.09.1993 is not subjected to be regularized in the
department. Thus, therefore, the employer has no liability
of conferment of Temporary Status to Sri Umesh Kumar.
In regard absorption in permanent status of Sri Umesh
Kumar. It has been stated that person on daily wages in
department of post are not subject to recruitment for work
of regular nature and it is not possible to give him
employment in permanent status. The number of hours of
work shall constitute a normal working day for an adult on
daily wages is nine hours as per section 24 of Minimum
Wages Act, 1948. Sri Umesh Kumar’s service hours is less
than eight hours. Moreover, he is engaged as SAFAI
KARAMCHARI ( excluding activities prohibited under
the employment of manual scavengers and construction
of dry latrines prohibition Act, 1993/ Notification no.-4991
dated 01.10.2008 issued under minimum rates of wages in
scheduled employment 2009) and his service is utilised on
payment of approved and agreed wage. It has further been
submitted that once the daily wages is fixed at a certain
figure it is no longer retains its character of being prorate
of the monthly wages of otherwise. Now the claim of
temporary status or regular employment is not concerned
to the instant case as the matter of wages has already
been settled and there exists no dispute.
6.
It appears that one document Ext.-M has been
exhibited on behalf of the management from which it
appears that in the list of daily rated Mazdoors working of
the vacant post of grade IV has been allowed to get
minimum scale of pay of group “D” plus usual allowances
admissible to the post with immediate effect. In this list
name of Sri Umesh Kumar appear as sweeper, Muzaffarpur
Head Office.
7.
Ext.-W has been exhibited on behalf of the workman/
union which is the petition filed by the management before
Industrial Tribunal. In which it has been stated that Umesh
Kumar is working as daily wages basis not in the permanent
post of sweeper.
8.
Four witnesses has been examined on behalf of the
management M.W-1 Binay Kumar Verma, M.W-2 Sone Lal
Ram, M.W-3 Om Prakash Srivastava and M.W-4 Hari
Chandra Lal Karan.
9.
Single witness has been examined on behalf of the
workman who is Umesh Kumar, concerned workman.
10.
M.W-1 Binay Kumar Verma is A.P.M Account (A/C).
He has stated that he does not know workman Umesh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1133
Kumar and no record is available of Umesh Kumar with
him. This witness is working in his office at present post
since 2009. Further he has stated that one safai karmi
Umesh Kumar is working in his office and there is no
complain against him.
In cross-examination he has stated that he was
working in the department since 1982. In 1982 he was on
the post of Assistant in divisional office, Muzaffarpur and
from the year 2009 he is APM account in head office. In
the year 2009 he was posted as accountant in head office
and since then he APM accounts up till now. At present
no sweeper is working in post office but safai work is
done by daily wager. Prior to that one sweeper was working
and name is of which not remembered by this witness.
He further stated that there was permanent sweeper
working in the his office when he retired, may be stated
after perusal of record. At present no sweeper is working,
at present daily who is working as sweeper on daily wage
is not known to this witness. This witness further stated
that he maintains the account of payment and payment
order is passed by officer and payment is made through
treasury. Payment bill is sent by this witness to divisional
office. One copy of the bill is kept by this witness and
other bill is sent to the divisional office. Payment voucher
is prepared by the person who receives payment. He does
not see that who has prepared the voucher and whether
voucher is correct or not. To avoid double payment this
witness maintains this.
Further he has stated that order of payment is passed,
then he calculate and compares the amount of voucher
and Senior Post Master passes order to send it to treasury.
Public relation inspector checks voucher thereafter Dy.
Post Master also checks and counter signs the voucher.
Officer of the concerned branch checks the voucher
whether it is correct or not. This witness has no knowledge
from which record concerned officer checks and verifies
the voucher. Officers of the concerned branch sends all
the voucher to Dy. Post Master who sends it to the treasury
for payment and after payment voucher is sent to the this
witness from treasury which is sent to divisional office by
to this witness.
11.
M.W-2 Sone Lal Ram is Assistant in account section
in Head Post Office, Muzaffarpur. He has stated that letter
dated- 09.08.2002 marked as Ext.-M was never seen by
him.
In cross examination he has stated that he is posted
in Head Post Office since 16.12.2014. Prior to that he was
posted at kalwari post office. He worked in APM/Misc in
head post office and since 21.02.2015 he is Assistant
Accountant. Further he stated that in account office work
of APM/Misc is done. Further he has stated that APM ,
Misc is separate section. Prior to 2014 what was
correspondence is not known to him. Witness has no
knowledge of earlier order or memo. Sweeper work is done
by daily wages sweeper who are Umesh Kumar and Raju
Kumar. This witness was knowing J. Singh Senior Post
Master. He further stated that the facts “The following
daily wages mazdoor who are working on the vacant post
of Gr. “D” are hereby allowed to get minimum scale of pay
of a group “D” plus usual allowances admissible to the
post with immediate effect” in this memo name of Umesh
Kumar sweeper is mentioned. This witness further stated
that the remained in head post office in 2-3-4 tenure and
since then he is seeing Umesh Kumar. Further he stated
that pay means salary and wages means mazdoori.
12.
M.W-3 is Om Prakash Srivastava who was Assistant
Post Master in Head Post Office, Muzaffarpur for the period
from April-2013 to April-2015. Now he is Dy. Post Master
no.-1. This witness has no knowledge about memo dated
09.08.2003 which has been marked as Ext.-M.
In cross-examination he has stated that he was
appointed in head post office in 1978. He was public
relation inspector from 2002 to 2004. This witness cann’t
tell the name of post master who was posted in the year
2002. Later on he has stated that Jamadar Singh was Head
Post Master. He further stated that Umesh Kumar is working
since about 2000 in post office as a coolie and he works as
a sweeper. He does not get benefit of the Govt. leave also
of Sunday and National holyday. He get wages @
morethan 200/- per day. When Jamadar Singh was post
master, then this witness was PRI. This witness has stated
that on Ext.-M J.Singh, Senior Post Master, Muzaffarpur
HO has written but this witness cannot say whether it was
issued by Jamadar Singh or not. Another officer may not
issue letter of an officer. This witness has no knowledge
about this Ext. Further he has stated that he does not
know the two persons named in Ext. why have not been
permanent while one has been one permanent. This
witness has further no knowledge that to make permanent
of the workman amount is taken. This witness has further
stated that 3-4 years before news was published that CBI
has lodged case against some officer and some workers.
The reality is not know to him.
13.
M.W-4 is Hari Chandra Lal Karan who is working in
Head Post Office, Muzaffarpur on the post of Postal
Assistant. He has stated that he is working since 2nd
December, 1987 and he is posted in head post office since
7th September, 2011 and at present he is working in staff
section. Further he has stated that Umesh Kumar is working
in his office on daily wages. This witness has no
knowledge that Jamadar Singh issued memo to make him
permanent.
In cross-examination he has stated that in staff
section register is maintained for payment of daily wages.
Daily wage’s payment attendance of daily wager is
maintained in mail office. He further stated that Umesh
Kumar is working on daily wages. This witness is seeing
him since 2011, prior to 2011 this witness has no
1134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
knowledge. This witness has heard the name of Jamadar
Singh who has retired from post of superintendent from
Motihari. Jamadar Singh was posted at Senior Post Master
in Muzaffarpur. This witness has also stated about the
application given by Senior Post Master T. K. Roy in
Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad on 25.08.2014 which has been
marked as Ext.-W and in para-4 it has been stated that the
then Senior Post Master had issue memo no.- PM/Misc/
2002 dated- 09.08.2002 on 25.08.2014. This memo was not
received in his section. In this memo name of three workers
Sri Umesh Kumar, Sri Vishwa Vijay Kumar, Sri Brij Bhushan
Prasad has been mentioned. Brij Bhushan Prasad is posted
in store at present. This witness has no knowledge that
prior to Umesh Kumar any one had given application in
his office to make his permanent or not.
14.
W.W-1 Sri Umesh Kumar is the workman Umesh
Kumar who has stated that he passed eight class. He joined
the service when he was studying in class-9. He is working
in Head Post Office since 1999 as daily wager sweeper.
Prior to him Gopal Ram was permanent sweeper who has
retired. After his retirement there is no permanent sweeper
uptill now and this witness is working all those work of
permanent sweeper. This witness does not get leave of
Sunday and Govt. holiday or national holiday. This witness
has stated about Ext.-M which was given to him from
department. Name of three person has been mentioned
but uptill now, this witness have not been permanent. He
gave several application in make permanent. In the mean
time one person has been made permanent. There is no
complaint about his work and duties.
In cross-examination he has stated that out of three
persons mentioned in the memo Bhushan Prasad has been
made permanent and he is working in postal store depot.
15.
Written argument has been filed on behalf of the
workman and reply of that has been filed on behalf of the
management.
16.
It has been stated that on behalf of the management
that Umesh Kumar is working on daily wages mazdoor for
last seven years as sweeper excluding Sunday and
holidays. The question of date of joining of Shri Umesh
Kumar in Head Post Office doesn’t arise. He is working at
daily wages mazdoor and when required. The period of
work is occasional as and when required. The nature of
work is sweeping and office premises. Hour of work in
accordance with the actual requirement is not exceeding
seven (7) hours a day. The rate of payment is allowed as
fixed by the state Govt. time to time. The payment of wages
paid by the forms ACG-17 prescribed by the Deptt. The
question of maintenance of register doesn’t arise. The
matter regarding conforment of temporary status to Sri
Umesh Kumar has been raised. It has been admitted that
he has been working as daily wages mazdoor from 1999.
The Deptt. Of Posts Govt. of India ordered vide 66-52/92-
SPB-I dated- 01.11.1995 amended by letter dated-
08.11.1995 that any engagement like casual labours after
01.09.1993 is not subjected to be regularized in the
department. Thus therefore employer has no liability of
conferment of temporary status to Sri Umesh Kumar. He
was never appointed in Gr-D cadre, hence question of
payment of pay and allowance of Gr-D does not arise.
Letter dated- 01.11.1995 and 08.11.1995 has been annexed.
17.
In the written argument filed on behalf of the
deposition of the witness of all the witness has been dealt.
It has been stated that Umesh Kumar is in continuous
service since 1999 and no complaint against his working
culture, discipline & conducted as admitted Umesh Kumar
is working sweeper on daily wages. It has also been stated
that according to the order no.- L-40011/78/2013-IR(DU)
dated- 06.02.2014 “ Whether the workman has earned right
of absorption having been engaged for a considerable
period of time regularly even though on daily wages? And
whether the management of Post Master General, Northern
Region should give him a permanent regular employees
status with immediate effect.” has been dealt. It has also
been stated that Umesh Kumar is working in continues
service since 1999 and particularly from 2000 i.e the year in
which the permanent sweeper retired from the services of
management. Proving that Umesh Kumar is working on
perennial permanent vacant post of sweeper since then,
who is completed more than 240 days in each & every
year continuously without any break. Ext.M-1 and W/1
has been dealt and some decision has been cited which
will be dealt letter on.
FINDINGS
18.
Matter in adjudication is “ Whether the workman
has earned right of absorption having been enegaged for
a considerable period of time regularly even though on
daily wages? And whether the management of Post Master
General, Northern Region should give him a permanent
regular employees status with immediate effect?
In written statement it has been stated that Umesh
Kumar is in continuous service since December, 1999
against permanent perennial vacant post of sweeper, on
daily wages basis. There was no complain against him.
Senior Post Mater granted temporary status to three such
daily-wager. Out of them one was given temporary status
and other were not offered the same. Which is apparented
from Ext.-M in which it has been stated that by Mr. J.
Singh, Senior Post Master, Muzaffarpur, Head Post Office
that the following daily rated mazdoor who was working
on the vacant post of Gr.-D are hereby allowed to get
minimum wages of scale of Gr.-D + ususal allowance
admissible to the post with immediate effect. The name of
Umesh Kumar appears on the top of list. This order came
into effect from 09.08.2002 which cann’t be denied.
Ext.-W is the petition filed by Senior Post Master,
Muzaffarpur in CGIT No.-2 Dhanbad and in para-4 it has
been stated that the then Senior Post Master issued memo
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1135
no.- Sr. PM/Misc/2002 dated- 09.08.2002 as such Ext.-M
have not been denied by the respondent management.
Several voucher of ACG-17 has been filed to demonstrates
the payment of workman. In written statement filed on
behalf of the respondent management, only stated that
Umesh Kumar was engaged as daily wager at not on
regular term. In respect of Ext.-M only it has been stated
that as per notification wages were paid to Sri Umesh
Kumar. Management has stated about the circular dated-
01.11.1995 amended by letter dated- 08.11.1995 that any
engagement like casual labourers after 01.09.1993 is not
subjected to be regularized in the department. This is not
a case of casual labour but a daily wager from whom. Work
has been taken since 1999 against vacant perennial post
which is apparent of from deposition of management.
MW-1 has stated that one Umesh Kumar safaikarmi is
working in his office. Further he stated that in his office
permanent sweeper was working who has retired. As such
it is apparent that Sri Umesh Kumar was working against
the vacant permanent post. M.W-2 has stated that in cross-
examination in para-5 that he was posted in head post
office for 2-3 tenure and since then he is seeing Sri Umesh
Kumar. In para-4 he has stated that daily wages sweeper
Sri Umesh Kumar and Raju Kumar is working in department.
So it cann’t be denied that Sri Umesh Kumar is not working
since long. M.W-3 is assistant post master in Head Post
Office, Muzaffarpur. He has stated that Jamadar Singh was
Head Post Master. He has further stated that Sri Umesh
Kumar is working since the year 2000 as a collie and as a
sweeper. He is not getting benefits of Govt. holiday and
national holiday. Jamadar Singh had not been called as a
witness by the management.
M.W-4 is working in Head Post Office, Muzaffarpur.
He has stated that Sri Umesh Kumar is working on daily
wages. This witness also admitted this facts in para-4 of
his cross-examination. As such facts stated in Ext.-M is
written statement of the workman could not be controverted
by the management.
Even the statement made in examination-in-chief have
not been challenged in cross-examination of the evidence
of workman. Three person were named in Ext.-M and name
of Sri Umesh Kumar was on the top. One person has been
made permanent and why Sri Umesh Kumar who is working
against the permanent post have not been permanent.
19.
Vol.-V of Supreme Court Labour and Services Digest
[ 1986 (July)- 1990(December) has been filed. In this daily
rated casual labour in P & T Department doing work similar
to that of regular workers of the Department- Scheme
directed to be made for absorption of the casual labourers
continuously working in the Department for more than
one year. This was in view of (1988) 1SCC 872.
There is decision reported in AIR 1990 SC 371 in
which it has been stated that workers not possessing initial
minimum prescribed educational qualification at the time
of appointment- Gaining sufficient experience after many
years of service- Confirmation cannot be refused to them
on ground that they did not possess requisite
qualification- they would be entitled to pay equal to persons
appointed in regular basis. There is decision reported in
2001 IAD(S.C) 327 daily wager working for long period –
regularisation of – observations made and continuing ad-
hocism for long depricated and it has been held that it has
also well settled, if the work is taken by the employer
continuously from daily wage workers for a long number
of years without considering their regularisation for its
financial gain as against employees legitimately claim, has
been held by this court repeatedly as an unfair labour
practice. Pattem shows work is to keep such persons
hanging as daily rate workers. In such situation a legal
obligation is cast on an employer if there be vacant post
to fill it up with such workers in accordance with rules if
any. As such Umesh Kumar is entitled to be regularised.
Similar view has been expressed in 1996 (1) LLJ 1223. In
1992 (4) SCC 118 deals with long continuing in service
gives rise to a presumption about the need for a regular
post. In 2004(3) PLJR it has been held that daily wager
working for long period on sanctioned post but have not
been regularized depicts a sad picture of harassment to
the inferior service employees- direction issued for
regularization.
20.
Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and law cited in this case it is very clear that workman
Sri Umesh Kumar is in continuous service and workman
has right to absorption having been engaged for the
considerable period of time and regularisation even though
working on daily wages and management of post master
general, northern region should give him (the workman ) a
permanent regular employees status with immediate
effects.
In view of this matter, answer is that workman
Sri Umesh Kumar has earned right of absorbtion having
been engaged for a considerable period of time regularly
even though on daily wages and he was working against
a permanent post from the date 09.08.2002 when he was
granted temporary status. Management (Post Master
General, North Bihar Circle, Muzaffarpur ) is directed to
give him a permanent status of a permanent regular
employees with immediate effect with all consequential
benefits after 09.08.2002.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
24-02-2016
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 553-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bysDVªkWfuDl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼
1136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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]
/uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 71@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@159@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 71/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Electronics Corporation of India
Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/159/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947
REFERENCE NO. 71 OF 2015
PARTIES
:
Shri Prabhat Ranjan,
C/o Sh.Nawal Kishor Pd. Gupta,
Vill & PO: Karubigha,Gaya -803116.
Vs.
The CMD,
M/s Electronics Corp. of India Ltd.,
A Govt. of India Enterprises
(Dept. of Atomic Energy)
PO: ECIL, Hyderabad.-500062
The Chairman & CEO
M/s. ECIL- Rapiscan Ltd.,
(A Govt. of India undertaking Joint
Venture)
8-1-305 & 306, 3rd Floor,
Anand Silcionchip,
Shaikpet, Tolichowki,
Hyderabad-500008
Order No.L-42012/159/2015-IR(DU)
dt.06.10.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the Workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Atomic Energy
Dhanbad, Dated the 1st Feb., 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-42012/159/2015-IR (DU) dt.06.10.2015.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of ECIL to
terminate the services of Shri Prabhat Ranjan in
contrary to the mandatory provisions is valid? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
Neither the workman nor the Representative from
the Management side appeared since its registration and
subsequently issued first formal Notice dt. 22.12.2015 for
appearances in the case to both litigant parties on the
addresses emerged out in the said Reference. But in a
sudden change, the workman Prabhat Ranjan by filing a
petition dt.03.11.2015 stated that the said dispute has
also been filed before Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Patna
as per provisions of Sec.2A (1 & 2) of the I.D. Amendment
Act, 2010 and the same is running for adjudication at
Patna. So in view of the said dispute running in the Patna
Tribunal, it will be proper to close the dispute. So with the
filing of such petition, the Tribunal has no role further to
play but to ask for closure the case in the natural interest
of the workman and the Management too. The case is
related to termination of services in violation of the
mandatory provisions seeking reliefs .
From perusal of the case record, it has been
apparently clear the dispute does not have any meaning
as long as for this Tribunal while the same is for
adjudication before the Hon’ble Tribunal Patna as stated
by the workman. Accordingly the Tribunal will go ahead
for closure as it is no longer a dispute so far as this Tribunal
is concerned. Under the circumstances, the case is closed
and, accordingly passed an order of ‘No Dispute Award’
in real terms.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 554-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bysDVªkWfuDl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ 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]
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1137
/uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 77@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@163@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 77/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Electronics Corporation of India
Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/163/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947
REFERENCE NO. 77 OF 2015
PARTIES
:
Shri Mohinish Chandra,
S/O Sri Prakash Chandra,
Vishweshraiya Nagar,
Near Bailey Road,
West Canal Road,
Near Pharmacy College,
Patna-801503
Vs.
The CMD,
M/s Electronics Corp. of India Ltd.,
A Govt. of India Enterprises
(Dept. of Atomic Energy)
PO: ECIL, Hyderabad.-500062
The Chairman & CEO
M/s. ECIL- Rapiscan Ltd.,
(A Govt. of India undertaking
Joint Venture)
8-1-305 & 306, 3rd Floor,
Anand Silcionchip,
Shaikpet, Tolichowki,
Hyderabad
Order No. L-42012/163/2015-IR(DU)
dt.06.10.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the Workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Atomic Energy
Dhanbad, Dated the 8th Feb., 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-42012/163/2015-IR (DU) dt.06.10.2015.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of ECIL to
terminate the services of Shri Mohinish Chandra in
contrary to the mandatory provisions is valid? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
Neither the workman nor the Representative from
the Management side appeared since its registration and
subsequently issued first formal Notice dt. 22.12.2015 for
appearances in the case to both litigant parties on the
addresses emerged out in the said Reference. But in a
sudden change, the workman Mohinish Chandra by filing
a petition dt.03.11.2015 stated that the said dispute has
also been filed before Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Patna
as per provisions of Sec.2A (1 & 2) of the I.D. Amendment
Act,2010 and the same is running for adjudication at Patna.
So in view of the said dispute running in the Patna Tribunal,
it will be proper to close the dispute. So with the filing of
such petition, the Tribunal has no role further to play but
to ask for closure the case in the natural interest of the
workman and the Management too. The case is related to
termination of services in violation of the mandatory
provisions seeking reliefs
From perusal of the case record, it has been
apparently clear the dispute does not have any meaning
as long as for this Tribunal while the same is for
adjudication before the Hon’ble Tribunal Patna as stated
by the workman. Accordingly the Tribunal will go ahead
for closure as it is no longer a dispute so far as this Tribunal
is concerned. Under the circumstances, the case is closed
and, accordingly, passed an order of ‘No Dispute Award’
in real terms.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 555-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bysDVªkWfuDl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ 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]
1138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
/uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 78@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@151@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 78/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Electronics Corporation of India
Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/151/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947
REFERENCE NO. 78 OF 2015
PARTIES
:
Shri Rakesh Kumar,
S/o Late N.K.Sharan,
Nirmala Kunj, North Mandiri,
Patna-800001
Vs.
The CMD,
M/s Electronics Corp. of India Ltd.,
A Govt. of India Enterprises
(Dept. of Atomic Energy)
PO: ECIL, Hyderabad
The Chairman & CEO
M/s. ECIL- Rapiscan Ltd.,
(A Govt. of India undertaking
Joint Venture)
8-1-305 & 306, 3rd Floor,
Anand Silcion Chip,
Shaikpet, Tolichowki,
Hyderabad
Order No. L-42012/151/2015-IR(DU)
dt. 23.09.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Atomic Energy
Dhanbad, Dated the 8th Feb., 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-42012/151/2015-IR (DU) dt.23.09.2015.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of ECIL to
terminate the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar in
contrary to the mandatory provisions is valid? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
Neither the workman nor the Representative from
the Management side appeared since its registration and
subsequently issued first formal Notice dt. 22.12.2015 for
appearances in the case to both litigant parties on the
addresses emerged out in the said Reference .But in a
sudden change, the workman Rakesh Kumar by filing a
petition dt.03.11.2015 stated that the said dispute has
also been filed before Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Patna
as per provisions of Sec.2A (1 & 2) of the I.D. Amendment
Act,2010 and the same is running for adjudication at Patna.
So in view of the said dispute running in the Patna Tribunal,
it will be proper to close the dispute. So with the filing of
such petition, the Tribunal has no role further to play but
to ask for closure the case in the natural interest of the
workman and the Management too. The case is related to
termination of services in violation of the mandatory
provisions seeking reliefs.
From perusal of the case record, it has been
apparently clear the dispute does not have any meaning
as long as for this Tribunal while the same is for
adjudication before the Hon’ble Tribunal Patna as stated
by the workman. Accordingly the Tribunal will go ahead
for closure as it is no longer a dispute so far as this Tribunal
is concerned. Under the circumstances, the case is closed
and, accordingly, passed an order of ‘No Dispute Award’
in real terms.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 556-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bysDVªkWfuDl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1139
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]
/uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 72@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@160@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 72/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Electronics Corporation of India
Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/160/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947
REFERENCE NO. 72 OF 2015
PARTIES
:
Shri Abhishekh Kumar,
C/o Sh.Ashok Kumar Mishra,
At Shekhpura (SRK Nagar),
PO: Dhelwan, Patna
Vs.
The CMD,
M/s Electronics Corp. of India Ltd.,
A Govt. of India Enterprises
(Dept. of Atomic Energy)
PO: ECIL, Hyderabad-500062
The Chairman & CEO
M/s. ECIL- Rapiscan Ltd.,
(A Govt. of India undertaking
Joint Venture)
8-1-305 & 306, 3rd Floor,
Anand Silcion Chip,
Shaikpet, Tolichowki,
Hyderabad
Order No. L-42012/160/2015-IR(DU)
dt. 06.10.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Atomic Energy
Dhanbad, Dated the 3rd Feb., 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L- 42012/160/2015-IR (DU) dt.06.10.2015.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of ECIL to
terminate the services of Shri Abhishekh Kumar in
contrary to the mandatory provisions is valid? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
Neither the workman nor the Representative from
the Management side appeared since its registration and
subsequently issued first formal Notice dt. 22.12.2015 for
appearances in the case to both litigant parties on the
addresses emerged out in the said Reference. But in a
sudden change, the workman Abhishek Kumar by filing a
petition dt.03.11.2015 stated that the said dispute has
also been filed before Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Patna
as per provisions of Sec.2A (1 & 2) of the I.D. Amendment
Act,2010 and the same is running for adjudication at Patna.
So in view of the said dispute running in the Patna Tribunal,
it will be proper to close the dispute. So with the filing of
such petition, the Tribunal has no role further to play but
to ask for closure the case in the natural interest of the
workman and the Management too. The case is related to
termination of services in violation of the mandatory
provisions seeking reliefs.
From perusal of the case record, it has been
apparently clear the dispute does not have any meaning
as long as for this Tribunal while the same is for
adjudication before the Hon’ble Tribunal Patna as stated
by the workman. Accordingly the Tribunal will go ahead
for closure as it is no longer a dispute so far as this Tribunal
is concerned. Under the circumstances, the case is closed
and, accordingly, passed an order of ‘No Dispute Award’
in real terms.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 557-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bysDVªkWfuDl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
1140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]
/uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 73@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@161@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 73/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Electronics Corporation of India
Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/161/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947
REFERENCE NO. 73 OF 2015
PARTIES
:
Shri Gaurav Gunjan,
S/o Late C.N. Singh, 113,
S.K.Puri, Boring Road,
Patna -804453
Vs.
The CMD,
M/s Electronics Corp. of India Ltd.,
A Govt. of India Enterprises
(Dept. of Atomic Energy)
PO: ECIL, Hyderabad-500062
The Chairman & CEO
M/s. ECIL- Rapiscan Ltd.,
(A Govt. of India undertaking
Joint Venture)
8-1-305 & 306, 3rd Floor,
Anand Silcion Chip,
Shaikpet, Tolichowki,
Hyderabad-500008
Order No. L-42012/161/2015-IR(DU)
dt. 06.10.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Atomic Energy
Dhanbad, Dated the 1st Feb., 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-42012/161/2015-IR (DU) dt.06.10.2015.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of ECIL to
terminate the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar in
contrary to the mandatory provisions is valid? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
Neither the workman nor the Representative from
the Management side appeared since its registration and
subsequently issued first formal Notice dt. 22.12.2015 for
filing rejoinder and appearance in the case to both litigant
parties on the addresses emerged out in the said Reference.
But in a sudden change, the workman concerned Gaurav
Gunjan, though discrepancy spotted in workman’s name
in schedule and workman’s address , by filing a petition
dt.03.11.2015 stated that the said dispute has also been
filed before Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Patna as per
provisions of Sec.2A (1 & 2) of the I.D. Amendment
Act,2010 and the same is running for adjudication at Patna.
So in view of the said dispute running in the Patna Tribunal,
it will be proper to close the dispute. So with the filing of
such petition, the Tribunal has no role further to play but
to ask for closure the case in the natural interest of the
workman and the Management too. The case is related to
termination of services in violation of the mandatory
provisions seeking reliefs.
From perusal of the case record, it has been
apparently clear the dispute does not have any meaning
as long as for this Tribunal while the same is for
adjudication before the Hon’ble Tribunal Patna as stated
by the workman. Accordingly the Tribunal will go ahead
for closure as it is no longer a dispute so far as this Tribunal
is concerned. Under the circumstances, the case is closed
and, accordingly passed an order of ‘No Dispute Award’
in real terms.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 558-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bysDVªkWfuDl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1141
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]
/uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 74@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@162@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 74/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Electronics Corporation of India
Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/162/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947
REFERENCE NO. 74 OF 2015
PARTIES
:
Shri Mukesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Sarvanand Singh,
Vill. Khaprail Chak,
PO : Parsa Bazar,
Patna -804453
Vs.
The CMD,
M/s. Electronics Corp. of India Ltd.,
A Govt. of India Enterprises
(Dept. of Atomic Energy)
PO: ECIL, Hyderabad-500062
The Chairman & CEO
M/s. ECIL- Rapiscan Ltd.,
(A Govt. of India undertaking
Joint Venture)
8-1-305 & 306, 3rd Floor,
Anand Silcion Chip,
Shaikpet, Tolichowki,
Hyderabad
Order No. L-42012/162/2015-IR(DU)
dt. 06.10.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Atomic Energy
Dhanbad, Dated the 8th Feb., 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-42012/162/2015-IR (DU) dt.06.10.2015.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of ECIL to
terminate the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar in
contrary to the mandatory provisions is valid? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
Neither the workman nor the Representative from
the Management side appeared since its registration and
subsequently issued first formal Notice dt. 22.12.2015 for
appearances in the case to both litigant parties on the
addresses emerged out in the said Reference .But in a
sudden change, the workman Mukesh Kumar by filing a
petition dt.03.11.2015 stated that the said dispute has
also been filed before Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Patna
as per provisions of Sec.2A (1 & 2) of the I.D. Amendment
Act, 2010 and the same is running for adjudication at
Patna .So in view of the said dispute running in the Patna
Tribunal, it will be proper to close the dispute. So with the
filing of such petition, the Tribunal has no role further to
play but to ask for closure the case in the natural interest
of the workman and the Management too. The case is
related to termination of services in violation of the
mandatory provisions seeking reliefs
From perusal of the case record, it has been
apparently clear the dispute does not have any meaning
as long as for this Tribunal while the same is for
adjudication before the Hon’ble Tribunal Patna as stated
by the workman. Accordingly the Tribunal will go ahead
for closure as it is no longer a dispute so far as this Tribunal
is concerned .Under the circumstances, the case is closed,
and accordingly passed an order of ‘No Dispute Award’ in
real terms.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 559-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bysDVªkWfuDl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
1142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]
/uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 75@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@164@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 75/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Electronics Corporation of India
Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/164/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947
REFERENCE NO. 75 OF 2015
PARTIES
:
Shri Devyanshu Pandey,
C/o Sri Sarat Chandra Pandey
Vill- Manikpur,
Dhansoi,
Distt-Buxar,
Patna (Bihar) 802128
Vs.
The CMD,
M/s. Electronics Corp. of India Ltd.,
A Govt. of India Enterprises
(Dept. of Atomic Energy)
PO: ECIL, Hyderabad-500062
The Chairman & CEO
M/s. ECIL- Rapiscan Ltd.,
(A Govt. of India undertaking
Joint Venture)
8-1-305 & 306, 3rd Floor,
Anand Silcion Chip,
Shaikpet, Tolichowki,
Hyderabad-500008
Order No. L-42012/164/2015-IR(DU)
dt. 06.10.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Atomic Energy
Dhanbad, Dated the 8th Feb., 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-42012/164/2015-IR (DU) dt.06.10.2015.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of ECIL to
terminate the services of Shri Devyanshu Pandey
in contrary to the mandatory provisions is valid? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
Neither the workman nor the Representative from
the Management side appeared since its registration and
subsequently issued first formal Notice dt. 22.12.2015 for
appearances in the case to both litigant parties on the
addresses emerged out in the said Reference .But in a
sudden change, the workman Devyanshu Pandey by filing
a petition dt.03.11.2015 stated that the said dispute has
also been filed before Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Patna
as per provisions of Sec.2A (1 & 2) of the I.D. Amendment
Act, 2010 and the same is running for adjudication at
Patna .So in view of the said dispute running in the Patna
Tribunal, it will be proper to close the dispute. So with the
filing of such petition, the Tribunal has no role further to
play but to ask for closure the case in the natural interest
of the workman and the Management too. The case is
related to termination of services in violation of the
mandatory provisions seeking reliefs
From perusal of the case record, it has been
apparently clear the dispute does not have any meaning
as long as for this Tribunal while the same is for
adjudication before the Hon’ble Tribunal Patna as stated
by the workman. Accordingly the Tribunal will go ahead
for closure as it is no longer a dispute so far as this Tribunal
is concerned .Under the circumstances, the case is closed
and, accordingly, passed an order of “No Dispute Award”
in real terms.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 560-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bysDVªkWfuDl
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1143
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]
/uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 76@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@165@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 76/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Electronics Corporation of India
Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/165/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947
REFERENCE NO. 76 OF 2015
PARTIES
:
Shri Sunil Kumar,
S/O Sh.Rameshwar Pd.,
C/o Sri Satyendra Kumar,
Gautam Nagar, Janta Road,
Patna -800001
Vs.
The CMD,
M/s. Electronics Corp. of India Ltd.,
A Govt. of India Enterprises
(Dept. of Atomic Energy)
PO: ECIL, Hyderabad-500062
The Chairman & CEO
M/s. ECIL- Rapiscan Ltd.,
(A Govt. of India undertaking
Joint Venture)
8-1-305 & 306, 3rd Floor,
Anand Silcion Chip,
Shaikpet, Tolichowki,
Hyderabad-500008
Order No. L-42012/165/2015-IR(DU)
dt. 06.10.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Atomic Energy
Dhanbad, Dated the 8th Feb., 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-42012/165/2015-IR (DU) dt.06.10.2015.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of ECIL to
terminate the services of Shri Sunil Kumar in
contrary to the mandatory provisions is valid? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
Neither the workman nor the Representative from
the Management side appeared since its registration and
subsequently issued first formal Notice dt. 22.12.2015 for
appearances in the case to both litigant parties on the
addresses emerged out in the said Reference .But in a
sudden change, the workman Sunil Kumar by filing a
petition dt.03.11.2015 stated that the said dispute has
also been filed before Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Patna
as per provisions of Sec.2A (1 & 2) of the I.D. Amendment
Act,2010 and the same is running for adjudication at Patna
.So in view of the said dispute running in the Patna
Tribunal, it will be proper to close the dispute. So with the
filing of such petition, the Tribunal has no role further to
play but to ask for closure the case in the natural interest
of the workman and the Management too. The case is
related to termination of services in violation of the
mandatory provisions seeking reliefs
From perusal of the case record, it has been
apparently clear the dispute does not have any meaning
as long as for this Tribunal while the same is for
adjudication before the Hon’ble Tribunal Patna as stated
by the workman. Accordingly the Tribunal will go ahead
for closure as it is no longer a dispute so far as this Tribunal
is concerned .Under the circumstances, the case is closed
and, accordingly, passed an order of ‘No Dispute Award’
in real terms.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 561-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vksojukbZV
,Dlizsl fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh 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;] t;iqj ds
1144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
iapkV (lanHkZ la- 36@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@64@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 36/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Overnite Express Ltd., New Delhi
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-40012/64/2009-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
vuqca/
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 36@2014
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/dkjh
jsiQjsUl ua- L-40012/64/2009–IR (DU) fnukad 15@04@2014
Shri Kaushal Chandel S/o Shri Gangaram Chandel,
through Joint General Manager, Hind Mazdoor Sabha,
Bangali Colony, Chhawani,
Kota Rajasthan
V/s.
The Chief Development Officer,
M/s. Overnite Express Ltd., Overnite House,
00199-C, East Park Road,
New Delhi- 110005
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh ujsUnz frokMh &,MoksdsV
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh vkj- ds- ‘kekZ & ,MoksdsV
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
fnukad % 28-01-2016
1-
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 10
mi&/kkjk 1 [k.M ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 15@04@2014 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-
“Whether the action of the M/s Overnite Express
Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Kaushal Chandel
w.e.f. 25-08-2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
concerned workmen is entitled to?
3-
LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa fn;s x;s rF; ds vuqlkj laf{kIr% izkFkhZ dk
dFku gS fd og fnukad 25-6-2007 ls vkWijs’ku ,DthD;wVho ds in ij dksVk
esa izkscs’ku ij fu;qDr gqvk FkkA izkFkhZ us N% ekg dk izkscs’ku lQyrkiwoZd
lEiUu fd;k ftlds ifj.kkeLo:Ik fu;ksDrk us fnukad 1-12-2007 ls izkFkhZ
dks lsok esa dUQeZ fd;kA vkxs izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku gS fd dksVk esa mlds
}kjk lQyrkiwoZd dk;Z lEikfnr djus ds dkj.k dksVk ,oa t;iqj fLFkr
vf/kdkjhx.k izkFkhZ ls jaft’k j[kus yxs vkSj vius pgsrs yksxksa dks dk;Z ij
j[kus dh dksf’k’k esa izkFkhZ dks ijs’kku djus yxs ftlds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ us
fu;kstd rFkk vU; vf/kdkfj;ksa dks i= fy[kdj voxr djk;kA mDr
dkj.k ls eSustj ¼,p-vkj-½ us izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k t;iqj dj fn;kA
eSustj ¼,p-vkj-½ izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k djus ds fy, vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh ugha
gS D;ksafd og izkFkhZ ds fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
4-
vkxs ;g dFku gS fd dksVk vkSj t;iqj ds vf/kdkfj;ksa us vkilh
feyhHkxr ls izkFkhZ dks ijs’kku fd;kA izkFkhZ }kjk ;fn dksbZ okmpj cukdj
fn;k tkrk Fkk rks mldh fyf[kr jkf’k dks de djds Lohdkj fd;k tkrk
Fkk tcfd izkFkhZ ds lkfFk;ksa }kjk izLrqr mlh izdkj ds okmpj fcuk dVkSrh
fd;s ikl dj nh tkrh FkhA t;iqj vkSj dksVk ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk
feyhHkxr ls ijs’kku djus ds dkj.k ncko esa vkdj Jh latho dqekj xkSM+]
Jh iwj.key eh.kk] Jh iou [k.Msyoky vkSj Jh g”kZo/kZu flag vkfn
deZpkfj;ksa us ukSdjh NksM+ nhA izkFkhZ ij Hkh ncko cukdj ukSdjh NksMus ds
fy, etcwj fd;k x;k ysfdu izkFkhZ ukSdjh NksMus ds fy, rS;kj ugha gqvkA
izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k Hkh blhfy;s fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ ukSdjh NksM+ nsA
izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd b.MfLVª;y ,Eiyk;esUV ,.M LVSfUMax vkMlZ :Yl
ds vUrxZr cuk;s x;s ekWMy LVSfUMx vkMlZ ds :Yk ds vuqlkj deZpkjh dk
LFkkukUrj.k mldh lgefr ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS c’krZsa deZpkjh
dh fu;qfDr i= esa LFkkukUrj.k dk izkfo/kku u gksA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr i= esa
LFkkukUrj.k dk izkfo/kku ugha Fkk blfy;s izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k voS/k ,oa
vukf/kd`r gSA dksVk vkSj t;iqj ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk feyhHkxr ls ijs’kku
gksdj fnukad 4-10-2007 dks izkFkhZ fMizs’ku ls xzflr gks x;k Fkk vkSj orZeku
esa fnukad 1-8-2008 ls fMizs’ku ls xzflr gSA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd ;fn
;gh gky jgk rks og fdlh vU; fcekjh ls Hkh xzflr gks ldrk gS ftldh
ftEesnkjh fu;kstd ds v/khuLFk dksVk fLFkr ,fj;k eSustj Jh fnus’k dqekj
vkSj t;iqj fLFkr vf/kdkjh Jh vkSe ‘kadj JhokLro dh gksxhA
5-
izLrj 7 esa izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd tc og chekjh ls Bhd gksdj
fnukad 25-8-2008 dks M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gqvk vkSj mifLFkfr iaftdk esas
gLrk{kj dj viuh mifLFkfr ntZ dh rks mldh mifLFkfr dks dkV fn;k
x;k vkSj M~;wVh ugha djus nh x;h rFkk LVkQ dks funsZf’kr fd;k x;k fd
os izkFkhZ dks dk;kZy; esa ugha ?kqlus nsaA bl izdkj 25-8-2008 ls izkFkhZ dks
lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k tks voS/k gSA izkFkhZ us fnukad 25-6-2007 ls 24-8-2008
rd fu;kstd ds ;gka fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh
vofèk rd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dk ekeyk /kkjk 2 ¼vks-vks-½ ds vUrxZr NaVuh
dh ifjHkk”kk esa vkrk gSA fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks uksdjh ls gVk;s tkus ds iwoZ
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1145
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds vuqlkj ,d ekg dk
uksfVl ugha fn;k vkSj u blds cnys esa ,d ekg dk osru fn;k vkSj u gh
NaVuh eqvkotk fn;k x;kA
6-
foi{k }kjk uksdjh ls gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ ofj”Brk lwph ugha cuk;h
x;h ftlls vkS|ksfxd fookn fu;e 1957 ds fu;e 77 dk mYya?ku gqvkA
izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVkrs le; mlls dfu”B Jfed lsok esa ekStwn Fks bl
izdkj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 th dk mYya?ku gqvkA izkFkhZ
dks gVk;s tkus ds ckn mls lsok esa iqu% vkus dk volj fn;s fcuk foi{k us
u;s Jfed fu;ksftr fd;s ftlls vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk
25 ,p lifBr vkS|ksfxd fookn fu;e 1957 ds fu;e 78 dk mYya?ku gqvk
vr% izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj mls iqu% leLr foxr osru ykHk lfgr
lsok dh fujUrjrk lfgr fu;kstd dh lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd;k tk;A
7-
;kph dh ;kfpdk ds fo:) oknksRrj izLrqr dj izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr
i= tkjh djuk vkSj 25-6-2007 ls lsok esa ,DtD;wfVo vkWijs’ku ds in ij
fu;ksftr djuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 1-12-2007 ls lsok esa dUQeZ
djus ds rF; dks Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA ’ks”k leLr dFku dks vLohdkj
fd;k x;k gSA /kkjk 25 ,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku ds
lEcU/k esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd foi{kh ij ykxw ugha gksrs gSA /kkjk 25 th ds
lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd og izkfo/kku Hkh foi{k ij ykxw ugha gksrs gSA
;kfpdk esa izLrj 12 esa /kkjk 25 ,p vkSj fu;e 78 ds lEcU/k esa ;g dgk
x;k gS fd mDr dFku Lohdkj ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks izfri{kh }kjk lsok
ls i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k cfYd mldk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k vkSj LFkkukUrj.k
ds ckn foi{kh us M~;wVh TokWbu ugha dh ftlesa izkFkhZ dk Lo;a dk nks”k gSA
;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd foi{k ij izLrj 12 esa of.kZr izkfo/kku ykxw ugha
gksrs gS D;ksafd foi{k }kjk mDr dkuwuh izkfo/kkuksa dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k
x;k gS rFkk foi{k dk d`R; vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl dh ifjHkk”kk esa ugha vkrk
gSA
8-
vkxs ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dk dksVk ls t;iqj LFkkukUrj.k fd;k
tkuk Lohdkj gS rFkk fu;qfDr i= esa LFkkukUrj.k dk izkfo/kku vafdr gSA
izkFkhZ }kjk foi{k dks fcekjh ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fyf[kr lwpuk ugha nh xbZ
vkSj u gh fcekjh ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ izi= izLrqr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh
fcekjh ds fy;s foi{k fdlh Hkh izdkj ftEesnkj ugha gSA foi{k dk dFku gS
fd okLrfodrk ;g gS fd izkFkhZ dks izfri{kh }kjk fnukad 25-8-2008 dks lsok
ls i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k cfYd blds iwoZ fnukad 29-7-2008 dks izkFkhZ dk
LFkkukUrj.k dksVk ls t;iqj dj fn;k x;k Fkk ftldh lwpuk izkFkhZ dks
mlds fuokl LFkku ds irs ij jftLVMZ Mkd ls Hksth x;h Fkh vkSj bldh
tkudkjh dksVk dk;kZy; dks Hkh nh xbZ FkhA rRi’pkr tc izkFkhZ dk;Z ij
mifLFkr ugha gqvk rks iqu% vuqLekjd fnuakd 22-8-2008 dks izsf”kr fd;k
x;kA vuqLekjd ij Hkh izkFkhZ ds }kjk M~;wVh TokWbu ugha dh xbZA fnukad
02-9-2008 dks izkFkhZ }kjk M~;wVh TokWbu ugha dj ikus ds ckn ,d volj
vkSj iznku djrs gq, rhu fnol esa M~;wVh TokWbu djus ds ckjs esa fy[kk
x;kA blds ckn oknksRrj dh izLrqfr rd izkFkhZ izfri{kh ds ;gkW M~;wVh ij
ugha vk;k gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk fd izfri{kh }kjk mls lsok ls i`Fkd dj
fn;k x;k gS] furkUr vlR; gSA vkxs ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk 25-6-2007
ls 24-8-2008 rd fujUrj dk;Z djus vkSj 240 fnu ls T;knk vof/k rd dk;Z
djus dk dFku vLohdkj gSA izkFkhZ dk izdj.k /kkjk 2¼vks-vks-½ vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds vUrxZr ugha vkrk gS D;ksafd mls lsok ls i`Fkd
ugha fd;k x;k gS cfYd fu;qfDr i= dh ‘krksZa ds vuqlkj LFkkukUrfjr fd;k
x;k gSA izkFkhZ dh vkosnu i= lO;; [kkfjt dh tk,A
9-
fnukad 21-7-2014 dks izkFkhZ mifLFkr Fkk rFkk mlus Dyse izLrqr dh
vkSj 22-9-2014 dks Dyse ds tokc gsrq rkjh[k fu;r dh x;hA fnukad
22-9-14 dks izkFkhZ i{k mifLFkr Fkk rFkk foi{k dh eqYroh Lohdkj dj
tokc gsrq 17-11-14 frfFk fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 17-11-14 ,oa vxyh frfFk
fnukad 15-1-15 dks ;kph i{k vuqifLFkr ,oa foi{k mifLFkr Fkk vkSj foi{k
dks tokc izLrqr djus gsrq vxyh frfFk fnukad 2-3-15 rd volj iznku
fd;k x;kA
10-
fnukad 2-3-15 dks foi{k us oknksRrj izLrqr fd;k ijUrq ;kph i{k
fnukad 2-3-15 dks Hkh mifLFkr ugha vk;kA fnukad 2-3-15 dks vxyh frfFk
fnukad 18-5-15 fu;r dj izkFkhZ i{k dks fjTok;UMj RkFkk vfHkys[k izLrqr
djus gsrq volj iznku fd;k x;k ,oa ;g vkns’k fd;k x;k fd ;kph i{k
tokc dh izfr izkIr djsaA
11-
fnukad 2-3-15 ds ckn 18-5-15] 17-8-15] 26-10-15] 30-11-15] 22-12-
15] 7-1-16 vkSj 20-1-16 rkjh[ksa fu;r dh x;h ijUrq ;kph i{k mifLFkr ugha
vk;kA ;g ns[krs gq, fd ;kph i{k fujUrj fnukad 17-11-14 ls vifLFkr ugha
vk jgk gS fnukad 30-11-15 vkSj 22-12-15 dks foi{k us fojks/k fd;k fd ;kph
dks dc rd volj fn;k tk;sxk] vr% fnukad 22-12-15 dks ;kph i{k ds
fo:) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k vkSj 7-1-16 dks
foi{k dh ,di{kh; lk{; ds fy, i=koyh fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 7-1-2016
dks foi{k us dksbZ lk{; u izLrqr djus dk vfHkdFku fd;k vr% foi{k dk
lk{; lekIr fd;k x;k vkSj fnukad 20-1-16 cgl ds fy, i=koyh fu;r
dh x;hA fnukad 20-1-16 dks mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgs vr% i=koyh iapkV
gsrq vkjf{kr dh x;hA
12-
i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g rF; izdk’k esa gS fd ;kph i{k }kjk
;kfpdk ds lkFk dksbZ izys[k fu;qfDr i= vkfn ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
lk{; esa dksbZ ’kiFk&i= Hkh ugha izLrqr gS vkSj u gh ;kph O;fDrxr :Ik ls
izfrijh{kk gsrq mifLFkr gqvk gSA foi{k us ;kph dks nh x;h fu;qfDr i=]
dUQesZ’ku i=] LFkkukUrj.k vkns’k vkSj LFkkukUrj.k vkns’k ds vuqikyu gsrq
nks vuqLekjd i=ksa dh QksVks izfr;ka izLrqr dh gSA ;kph i{k }kjk viuh
;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{; u izLrqr djus vkSj fujUrj vuqifLFkr jgus
ls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks bl ekeys dks vkxs pykus esa dksbZ :fp
ugha gSA izkFkhZ us dksbZ lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k gS ftlls ;g fl) gks lds fd
foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr dh dk;Zokgh vuqfpr vFkok fof/k fo:)
1146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
gSA vr% eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gwWa fd eSllZ vksojukbZV ,Dlizsl fyfeVsM }kjk
fnukad 25-8-2008 ls izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dh dk;Zokgh mfpr ,oa fof/k ds
vuqdwy gS rFkk izkFkhZ fdlh vuqrks”k dks ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh
;kfpdk ;kfpr vuqrks”k gsrq rn~uqlkj [kkfjt dh tkrh 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
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 562-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj viQlj
deka¯Mx 375 dkW; ,,llh 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;] t;iqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- 43@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 28@01@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14011@04@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 43/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the M/s. Officer Commanding, 375,
Coy ASC and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-14011/04/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 43/2015
Reference No. L-14011/04/2015-IR(DU) dated: 22.4.2015
The Secretary
M.E.S. Employees Union
Hanuman Hattha, Gali No.1,
Bikaner-334001.
V/s.
The Officer Commanding
375, Coy ASC (Sup) Type ‘C’ Pin 905375
C/o 56 APO, 56 A.P.O.
AWARD
22.2.2016
1.
The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
¶D;k izca/u 375] dkWa; , ,l lh (lIykbZ) VkbZi ^lh* }kjk
56 ,ihvks chdkusj dk deZdkj Jh fot; flag] etnwj dks
ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 17-06-2008 ds }kjk ukSdjh ls fudkyk
tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS \ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj
fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/dkjh gS\¸
2.
Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order,
registered notices were issued to the parties as per the
order of the tribunal fixing 23.11.2015 for filing statement
of claim. On 23.11.2015 none was present from applicant
side. Notice by registered post sent to the applicant was
served upon him for 23.11.2015 & acknowledgement
attached with the notice has been received back which is
available on record of the file. None was present from
opposite party. Case was adjourned by tribunal suo moto
fixing 8.12.2015 for filing statement of claim.
3.
On 8.12.2015 both the parties were absent. Statement
of claim was not filed. In the interest of justice case was
adjourned by tribunal on its own motion fixing 21.1.2016
for filing statement of claim. On 21.1.2016 also both the
parties were absent. Case was again adjourned by tribunal
furnishing last opportunity to the applicant for filing
statement of claim on 31.1.2016.
4.
31.1.2016 was holiday being Sunday, hence, case
was taken up on 1.2.2016. None appeared from both the
side on 1.2.2016 & again case was adjourned by the tribunal
again furnishing last opportunity to the applicant for filing
statement of claim on 11.2.2016. On 11.2.2016 none
appeared from both the side & statement of claim was not
filed. Looking into the fact that applicant does not appear
to be interested in filing statement of claim opportunity
for filing claim was closed & case was reserved for award.
5.
It is pertinent to note that reference order dated
22.4.2015 was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction
to file statement of claim within 15 days from the date of
receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement
of claim on the direction of Ministry nor on notice &
knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal.
It appears that applicant is not interested & willing in
submitting the claim for adjudication. In the circumstances
& in the absence of statement of claim & material evidence
brought on record, tribunal is unable to record the finding
on the reference sent to the tribunal for adjudication on
merit. Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is passed in this
matter. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1147
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 563-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osfYdu
VsyhdkWe baizQk izkbosV 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;] dksydkrk
ds iapkV (vkbZ-Mh- lanHkZ la- 28@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@18@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 28/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt.
Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-40011/18/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 28 of 2015
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management of
M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd.
A N D
Their workmen
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
On behalf of the
:
Mr. Suchindram Bhattacharjee,
Management
Ld. Counsel for M/s. Welkin
Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Basabjit Banerjee, Ld. Counsel
for M/s. Indus Towers Ltd.
On behalf of the
:
Mr. Partha Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel
Workman & Union
State : West Bengal
Industry : Telecommunication
Dated: 8th March, 2016.
AWARD
By Order No. L-40011/18/2015-IR(DU) dated
05.06.2015/11.06.2015 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 action of the management of
M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd. is justified in
terminating the service of Sri Milan Fouzdar is legal
and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
2.
When the case is taken up for hearing today, Ld.
Counsel appearing for the workman as well as the union
and the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of both the
managements submit that the matter has been settled
amicably between the parties out of the Tribunal and they
have filed a memorandum of settlement. They pray for an
Award in terms of the said joint petition of compromise/
settlement.
3.
On careful consideration of the said memorandum
of settlement it appears that the terms and conditions of
the settlement are fair, reasonable and the same are made
for the interest of the parties.
4.
Accordingly the said memorandum of settlement is
accepted and an Award is passed in terms of the said
memorandum of settlement which do form part of this Award
as Annexure-A.
Kolkata, Dated
the 8th March, 2016.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Annexure - A
Memorandum of Settlement
[U/s.2 (P) read with section 18(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947]
Name of the parties
: (1) M/s. Welkin Telecom
Infra Pvt. Ltd. 76/1,
Golaghata Road, VIP
Road, Kolkata- 700 048.
(2) Paschim Medinipur
Zilla security & Allied
Services Union, Mir
Bazar Mednipur, Dist-
Paschim Medinipur.
Representing the company
: (1) Mr. K.K. Roy Head
H.I.R & Administration
Representing the Union
: (1) Sri Manoj Dhar
General Secretary of the
Union .
(2) Sri Milan Fouzder, the
concerned workman.
1148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Short Recital of the case :
Whereas the company under reference is engaged
as contractor by M/s Indus Tower Ltd. for operation and
maintenance of Mobile Towers owned by said Indus Tower
Ltd; situated at Medinipur West District.
Whereas one contract labour Sri Milan Fouzder was
working under the contractor as named hereinabove and
he was terminated from service w.e.f. 1st July, 2014 Sri
Milan Fauzdar was working as M.T.A. in the company.
Whereas being aggrieved over the termination of
service the union under reference raised one Industrial
Dispute which has been referred by Ministry of Labour,
Govt. of India before the C.G.I.T. and the case has been
registered bearing reference No. 28 of 2015.
Whereas during the pendency of Dispute before
C.G.I.T. at Kolkata negotiations were held on the issue
pending before C.G.I.T. and after protected discussions it
is agreed between the parties as under
1.
That the contractor company has agreed and
accordingly the concerned workman has been reinstated
in service without any back wages on and from 1st May,
2015.
2.
That in view of instant agreement the concerned
workman and the union have no more dispute in the issue
pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal.
3.
That it has been agreed by and between the parties
to file the instant memorandum of settlement before C.G.I.T.
Kolkata with a prayer to pass necessary award in terms of
this settlement with a view to drop the proceeding fully
and finally since pending dispute does not exists further
in terms of this settlement.
In witness hereof, the parties have signed this
agreement on 15th September, 2015.
K.K. Ray
Sd. Manoj Dhar
Sd. Milan Fouzdar
For and on behalf of
For and on behalf of Union
M/s Welkin Telecom
as named hereinabove
Infra Pvt. Ltd.
WITNESSES:-
1.
Sd. Tirthankar Ghosh.
2.
Sd. Illegible.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 564-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dykorh cky
fpfdRlky; ,aM vnlZ 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;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 198@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@100@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 198/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kalawati Bal Chikitsalya and
Others and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42011/100/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO.1, DELHI
ID No. 198/2015
Shri Ram Nath Prasad,
S/o Shri Brinda Lal Prasad + 5 othrs,
C/o Bharitiya Engineering &
General Mazdoor Union,
Bharat Mill, Charkhi Gate Market,
Plot No.1, (near D Block), Karampura,
New Delhi-110 015
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
M/s. Kalawati Bal Chikitsalaya,
Bangla Sahib Road,
New Delhi-110 001
2.
M/s Vigilant Security Placement and
Detective Services Pvt. Ltd.,
P-23, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-110 024
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/100/2015-
IR(DU) dated 08.09.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the workmen, Shri Ram Nath Prasad and
five others, entitled for reinstatement with effect from
01.01.2012? If not to what relief are they entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1149
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, claimants opted not
to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent
to the claimants as well as the management. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it
observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every
presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice
was served upon the claimants. Despite service of the
notice, claimants opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf.
Thus, it is clear that the claimants are not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the claimants have neither put in their
appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove
their cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal
is left with no other alternative, except to pass a ‘No
Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be sent to the
appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
March 14, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 565-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy cksMZ
vkWiQ lsdsaMjh ,tqds'ku] fnYyh 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;&1] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 328@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@97@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 328/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Central Board of Education,
Delhi and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/97/2011-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO.1, DELHI
ID No. 328/2011
Shri Nawab Singh,
S/o Shri Sohan Pal,
Ghas Mandi Town & Post Bagpat,
Uttar Pradesh-201 101
...Workman
Versus
The Secretary,
Central Board of Secondary Education,
2, Samudain Centre, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110 092
...Management
AWARD
Reference under Clause (d) of Sub Section(1) and
sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 was received from the appropriate Government
vide letter No.L-42012/97/2011-IR(DU) dated 10.10.2011 to
the following effect:
“Whether the action of the management of Central
Board of Secondary Education in removing Shri
Nawab Singh S/o Shri Sohan Pal from the seniority
list and consequent his removal from employment
with effect from 28.04.2006 is legal and justified?
What relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Factual matrix as contained in the statement of claim
shows that Central Board of Secondary Education (in short
the management ) had employed Shri Nawab Singh, the
workman herein, as Daily Wage Junior Assistant and was
being paid wages of around Rs.6000.00 per month. He put
in more than 240 days and served the management most
sincerely, honestly and diligently and did not give any
chance of complaint during his entire tenure. He was
being deprived of statutory benefits despite his persistent
demands. His services were terminated illegally by the
management on 28.04.2006. No information regarding
regularization nor conducting of a test on 21.01.2011 was
conveyed to him.
3.
Pursuant to order dated 12.02.2004 of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi, management prepared seniority list
of daily wages workmen and the name of the workman
herein figured on page 2 at serial no.29 and it was
incumbent upon the management to have informed him
about the test conducted being conducted on 21.01.2011.
This act of the management amounts to violation of Article
156 and 157. Thereafter a fresh seniority list was prepared
by the management in which his name was deleted. This
action of the management is illegal, bad, unjust and
malafide as the workman herein is a regular employee
1150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
having worked for 240 days in each calendar year and is in
violation of Section 25F, G, H of the ID Act, 1947(in short
the Act). His services terminated orally without assigning
any reason, without service of charge sheet, memo, no
departmental enquiry was conducted and no opportunity
of being heard was given to him. He is unemployed since
the date of his termination. Finally, a prayer has been
made to reinstate him in service with all consequential
benefits.
4.
Demurral was made by the management taking
various preliminary objections, viz. CBSE is an autonomous
body, strict confidentiality is required to be maintained
by the employees and the reference is much belated and
suffers from delay and latches. The workman herein was
a daily wager employed by the management from time to
time as per the seniority list prepared by the management
in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble High
Court. In April 2006 claimant was assigned duties of Junior
Assistant in Regional Office, Delhi and was assigned duty
in Examination branch, where he was found indulging in
doubtful activity. Report to this effect was sent to the
Controller of Examinations that services of the workman
were no longer required and his services were discontinued
with effect from 28.04.2006. Further management has
denied the material averments contained in the statement
of claim. It has been prayed that the claim be dismissed
with costs.
5.
Against this factual background, my learned
predecessor vide order dated 28.02.2012, framed the
following issues:
(i)
Whether the claimant has rendered continuous
service of 240 days or more in preceding twelve
months from the date of termination of his
services, as contemplated by Section 25B of
the ID Act?
(ii)
Whether the act of terminating services of the
claimant amounts to retrenchment within the
meaning of section 2(oo) of the ID Act?
(iii)
Whether the act of the management in
terminating services of the claimant is violative
of provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of
the ID Act?
(iv)
As in terms of reference.
6.
Claimant entered the witness box to testify facts.
Ms.Dharini S. Arun, Deputy Secretary, unfolded facts on
behalf of the management. No other witness was examined
by either of the parties.
7.
I have heard Shri Mohd. Shawaz, authorized
representative for the claimant and Shri Sanjay Khanna,
authorized representative on behalf of the management
and my findings are as under:
Finding on Issue No.1
8.
The first and foremost question in the case in hand
is as to whether the workman herein has rendered 240
days of continuous service as required under Section 25B
of the Act. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the
pleadings of the parties. It is clear from the averments
made in the statement of claim that the workman has
specifically averred that he was employed in February 1996
as daily wage Junior Assistant and has rendered more
than 240 days since the date of his appointment, in a
calendar year. It is not out of place to mention here that
the workman herein, alongwith other workmen filed a writ
petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled
‘Bhoodev Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and
Others’, wherein direction was given by the Hon’ble High
Court for preparation of seniority list of daily wage peons
and Junior Assistants. There are also observations in
para 10 of the above judgement that, in fact, seniority list
was prepared without preparing a draft seniority list
without inviting objections from the concerned workmen.
It was against this background that the management was
ordered to invite fresh objections and prepare seniority
list in accordance with law and thereafter prepare final list
after hearing objections from the affected employees.
9.
Reply filed by the management in the present case
also shows that the workman herein was working with the
management as daily wager since 1998 as is evident from
para 1 of the reply. He was employed as Junior Assistant
on daily basis at Rs.143.00 per day. It is further averred
that in-between services were discontinued because his
credentials were found to be doubtful when he was
working in a sensitive branch, i.e. Examination branch of
Regional Office:Delhi. Resultantly, his services were
discontinued/terminated in the year 2006 as the workman
was found guilty of misconduct.
10.
Claimant herein, Shri Nawab Singh, has examined
himself as WW1 and stated that he was re-engaged in
February 1997 for a period of 6 months and was appointed
in 1998 on the strength of appointment letter Ex.WW1/2.
He has made reference to the writ petition filed in the year
2004, which was decided vide Ex.WW1/4. Thereafter,
management issued seniority list, copy of which is
Ex.WW1/5. He has specifically deposed that he has
worked for more than 240 days in 2000 and thereafter in
2002 and 2003. In 2003, he was issued fresh letter of
appointment Ex.WW1/6 and Ex.WW1/7. He was again re-
engaged in 2004 vide letter Ex,WW1/8. He has stated in
his cross examination that his services were terminated in
2006 and he is unemployed since 28.04.2006. He has
denied all other material suggestions put to him by the
management. During the course of arguments, it was not
disputed even on behalf of the management that after 1997,
the workman was in the employment of the management
and this fact has duly been admitted in para 1 of the written
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1151
statement also. When the workman has deposed that he
has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, in
that eventuality, it was incumbent upon the management
to have produced the relevant record pertaining to his
attendance. Since the workman, after 1997 has worked
with the management till the date of his termination with a
few breaks, as such, it is reasonable to hold that the
workman was in continuous services as required under
Section 25B of the Act. It is pertinent to note here that no
evidence has been led by the management to the contrary.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the workman
and against the management.
Finding on Issue No.2 and 3
11.
Both these issues are being taken up together for
the purpose of discussion and they are inter-related and
can be conveniently disposed of. It is clear from perusal
of the seniority list Ex.WW1/5 that the name of the workman
herein finds mention at serial number 39 of the said list
and in the last column of the said list, i.e. date of initial
engagement and period, it is mentioned ’05.02.1996 to
05.05.1996’. It is thus clear that the workman herein in fact
was initially employed in February 1996. Further
memorandum Ex.WW1/1 issued by Regional Office:Delhi
of Central Board of Secondary Education dated 05.01.1996
clearly shows that the name of the workman was sponsored
by the Employment Exchange and interview for the post
was held on 22.01.1996, as a result of which he was given
employment for 89 days only. It was not disputed during
the course of arguments that casual daily wagers, as per
practice, was given employment for 89 days and if his
conduct was found satisfactory, then such workmen would
be re-employed by the management. Vide letter Ex.WW1/
2 dated 03.01.1998, claimant herein was asked to give his
consent to the Section Officer at CBSE, Community Centre
for his appointment as Junior Assistant on daily wages.
Workman herein reported for duties on 16.01.1998 in
consequence to the above letter. Letter dated 16.01.1998
Ex.WW1/3 further shows that the workman was allotted
duty at PMT unit to work as daily wager junior assistant
with effect from 16.01.1998 till further orders. His
qualification was mentioned as intermediate. Not only
this, even thereafter, the workman was issued memorandum
dated 17.02.2003 for appointment as Junior Assistant on
daily wages and the workman herein joined duty in
response to the above letter. There is another
memorandum Ex.WW1/7 which shows that the workman
alongwith other employees were asked to join duty at
Preet Vihar within 10 days of receipt of the letter and the
workman gave his joining within the stipulated period.
Letter WW1/8 shows that the workman was employed as
daily wager junior Assistant with effect from 06.02.2004 to
30.06.2004. There is another letter Ex.WW1/9 which shows
that the workman herein, Shri Nawab Singh alongwith
others was deputed in the office of Controller of
Examinations on daily wage basis. This memorandum
WW1/10 dated 18.01.2005 again shows that the workman
was in the employment of the management at Preet Vihar
during the year 2005 and he joined duty in 2005 within 10
days as ordered by the management. Thus, it is clear from
the documents discussed above that the workman herein
was doing the job as daily wager junior Assistant in
Examination department and lastly he was deputed for the
job at Preet Vihar and remained there till his termination in
2006. It is clear from the reply filed by the management
that the workman herein was employed as daily wager by
Central Board of Secondary Education from time to time
and appeared in the seniority list prepared in accordance
with directions of the Hon’ble High Court and in April
2006 the workman was assigned duty as Junior Assistant
at Regional Office:Delhi, Examination branch. It is clear
from para 4 and 5 of the written statement that since the
workman did not maintain secrecy and confidentiality in
the ongoing work of preparing results of Class X and Class
XII during the examination conducted by CBSE, the Joint
Secretary, Regional Office informed the Controller of
Examinations vide his note dated 26.04.2006 that services
of the workman were no longer required in Regional
Office:Delhi. Based on the said report, Controller of
Examinations also recommended for discontinuation of
services of the workman vide order dated 27.04.2006, which
was confirmed by the competent authority. Accordingly,
services of the workman were discontinued with effect
from 28.04.2006.
12.
It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that before order
of termination or discontinuation of the job of the workman
herein vide order dated 28.04.2006 no show cause notice
was issued to the workman herein nor any explanation
from him, in writing, regarding any kind of misconduct
was sought by the officials of the management.
13.
Shri Nawab Singh has stated in his cross examination
that no notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to him , no
memo was served or enquiry was conducted by the
management nor any retrenchment compensation was
paid. He has sought his reinstatement by moving a letter
Ex.WW1/11. Thereafter, another letter Ex.WW1/12 was
given to the management. It is clear from contents of the
above two letters that service of the workman was
terminated and his name was removed from the seniority
list by the management.
14.
Management, in order to rebut the case of the
workman herein, examined Ms.Dharini S Arun, Deputy
Secretary, CBSE, Regional Office:Delhi as MW1. She has
tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.MW1/A. The
affidavit is on similar lines as the stand taken in the written
statement. She has admitted that as per official record, the
workman herein was initially engaged on 05.02.1996 and
in that year, he was not engaged thereafter. Thereafter, he
was engaged for a short period from 16.01.1997 to
18.02.1998. He served the management from 11.01.1999 to
1152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31.03.1999. In the year 2004, the claimant was engaged
from 06.02.2004 to 30.06.2004. Lastly he served the
management from 04.01.2006 to 27.06.2006 and he was not
engaged thereafter. To a question she has admitted that
there is no document available on record as to what action
was initiated on letter Ex.WW1/9. It is not out of place to
mention here that vide letter dated 29.01.2004, Ex.WW1/9
it was desired by the Personal Assistant of Controller of
Examinations that due to ongoing pressure of the
compartment examination and other activities for
preparation of next year’s examinations, term of Shri Nawab
Singh Junior Assistant alongwith two other workmen be
extended for 3 months. This letter further proves that
there was need to engage workmen on account of holding
examinations etc. She has deposed in her cross examination
that on account of doubtful credentials, workman herein
was removed from service . She has made a further vital
admission that the workman herein was not issued any
notice before his termination. She was not knowing with
whom he was talking. Further , she could not say whether
any complaint was received against the workman during
the period 1996 to 28.04.2006. It is pertinent to mention
here the workman herein was personally known to
Ms.Dharini S Arun, MW1. Though she stated that a note
was received from Controller of Examination Shri Pawan
Kumar regarding his conduct , but the said note is not
produced on the file nor mentioned in the written statement.
She further admitted that when some irregularity is
committed by a daily wager, normally a memo is issued.
15.
It is clear from the resume of evidence on record that
no memo was issued to the workman herein before order
of termination in April 2006 nor any explanation in writing
was sought from the said workman. Admittedly, no enquiry
of any kind was conducted before termination of services
of the workman herein.
16.
To my mind, gross violation of principles of natural
justice has been caused to him. It is not the case of the
management that no work was available with the
management as a result of which services of the workman
was dispensed with. Rather, due to pressure of work there
was always need to deploy more workmen during conduct
of examinations. Workman has not been paid any kind of
retrenchment compensation or one month pay in lieu
thereof before ordering his termination in April 2006.
17.
Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of cases has
highlighted the need for following principles of natural
justice while taking detrimental action against employees
or daily wagers. Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of AK Kraipak & Othrs vs. Union of
India & Ors. (AIR 1970 SC 150), held as under:
‘The concept of natural justice has undergone a
great deal of change in recent years.. In the past it
was thought that it included just two rules namely
(1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo
debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision
shall be given against a party without affording him
a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very
soon there- after a third rule was envisaged and that
is that quasi- judicial enquiries must be held in good
faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or
unreasonably. But in the course of years many more
subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of
natural justice.
The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court
in K.I. Shephard & Othrs. Vs. Union of India & Othrs.
(AIR 1988 SC 686) vide paras 12-15). It was held in
this decision that even administrative acts have to
be in accordance with natural justice if they have
civil consequences. It was also held that natural
justice has various facets and acting fairly is one of
them.’
18.
It is further clear that rules of natural justice are not
codified nor they are unvarying in all circumstances.
Rather, they are flexible. They may however be summarized
in one word ‘fairness’. In other words, what they require
is fairness by the authority concerned. Of course, what is
fair would depend on situation and the facts and
circumstances of the case. Since no formal enquiry was
initiated nor any show cause notice/memo was served
issued to the workman, in such a situation, onus was upon
the management to justify the circumstances under which
services of the workman were dispensed with. In this
regard, reliance was placed on Sudershan Rajput vs UP
State Road Transport Corporation (2015) 2 SCC 317)
wherein services of a driver of the Corporation was
terminated on account of – accident. Labour Court held
termination amounts to retrenchment and there is non-
compliance of provisions of the Act. When no enquiry
has been conducted burden of proof lies on the employer,
i.e. the Corporation . On facts too, it was held that the
Corporation has failed to discharge the said burden in the
absence of any formal enquiry. Situation in the case in
hand is in no way different inasmuch as no show cause/
memo was issued to the workman regarding his doubtful
credentials. It is not even clear from the evidence adduced
by the management as to on what date, month and year he
has committed the misconduct by leaking confidentiality
and committed acts which amounts to act of doubtful
integrity. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is of the
considered opinion that there is gross violation of
principles of natural justice and section 2(oo) of the Act.
There is also violation of provisions of section 25F of the
Act as no notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof was
given to the workman before his retrenchment/termination.
Thus, there is violation of provisions of Section 25H of
the act, which deals with procedure for retrenchment.
Thus, issue No.2 and 3 are also answered in favour of the
workman herein and against the management.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1153
Relief
As a sequel to the aforementioned discussion, it is held
that action of the management in retrenching/terminating
services of the workman herein from 28.04.2006 is illegal,
unjustified and against principles of natural justice. The
same is also held to be in violation of provisions of section
25F and G of the Act. Necessary corollary to my above
discussion is that the workman is entitled to be taken back
in service with all consequential benefits from the date of
his termination. 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 : March 14, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 566-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dykorh cky
fpfdRlky; ,aM vnlZ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 201@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@102@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 566.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 201/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kalawati Bal Chikitsalya and
Others and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42011/102/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO.1, DELHI
ID No. 201/2015
Shri Sashi Kumar,
C/o Bharitiya Engineering &
General Mazdoor Union,
Bharat Mill, Charkhi Gate Market,
Plot No.1, (near D Block), Karampura,
New Delhi 110 015
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
M/s. Kalawati Bal Chikitsalaya,
Bangla Sahib Road,
New Delhi-110 001
2.
M/s. Vigilant Security Placement and
Detective Services Pvt. Ltd.,
P-23, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-110 024
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/102/2015-
IR(DU) dated 08.09.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the workman, Shri Sashi Kumar, entitled
for reinstatement with effect from 09.05.2012? If not
to what relief are they are entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant opted not
to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent
to the claimant as well as the management. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it
observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every
presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice
was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the
notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf.
Thus, it is clear that the claimant is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the claimant has neither put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with
no other alternative, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’
award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate
Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
March 14, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 567-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dykorh cky
1154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 26, 2016/CHAITRA 6, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fpfdRlky; ,aM vnlZ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 202@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@103@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 567.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 202/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kalawati Bal Chikitsalya and
Others and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42011/103/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO.1, DELHI
ID No. 202/2015
Shri Abdul Mahboob S/o Shri Gyasudin + 1
C/o Bharitiya Engineering &
General Mazdoor Union,
Bharat Mill, Charkhi Gate Market,
Plot No.1, (Near D Block), Karampura,
New Delhi-110 015
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
M/s. Kalawati Bal Chikitsalaya,
Bangla Sahib Road,
New Delhi-110 001
2.
M/s. Vigilant Security Placement and
Detective Services Pvt. Ltd.,
P-23, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-110 024
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/103/2015-
IR(DU) dated 08.09.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the workmen, Shri Abdul Maboob, S/o
Mohd. Gyasudin & Shri Srikant, S/o Shri Kalloo
Prajapati, entitled for reinstatement with effect from
01.06.2012 & 25.06.2012 respectively? If not to what
relief are they entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, claimants opted not
to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent
to the claimants as well as the management. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it
observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every
presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice
was served upon the claimants. Despite service of the
notice, claimants opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf.
Thus, it is clear that the claimants are not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the claimants have neither put in their
appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove
their cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal
is left with no other alternative, except to pass a ‘No
Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be sent to the
appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
March 14, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 568-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dykorh cky
fpfdRlky; ,aM vnlZ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 200@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 16@03@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@101@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2016
S.O. 568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 200/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Kalawati Bal Chikitsalya and
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 26] 2016@pS=k 6] 1938
1155
Others and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 16/03/2016.
[No. L-42011/101/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO.1, DELHI
ID No. 200/2015
Shri Shyam Sunder S/o Shri Vasant
C/o Bharitiya Engineering &
General Mazdoor Union,
Bharat Mill, Charkhi Gate Market,
Plot No.1, (Near D Block), Karampura,
New Delhi-110 015
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
M/s. Kalawati Bal Chikitsalaya,
Bangla Sahib Road,
New Delhi-110 001
2.
M/s. Vigilant Security Placement and
Detective Services Pvt. Ltd.,
P-23, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-110 024
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/101/2015-
IR(DU) dated 08.09.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the workman, Shri Shyam Sunder, entitled
for reinstatement with effect from 01.06.2012? If not
to what relief is he entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant opted not
to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent
to the claimant as well as the management. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it
observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every
presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice
was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the
notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf.
Thus, it is clear that the claimant is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the claimant has neither put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with
no other alternative, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’
award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate
Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
March 14, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.