1698 GI/2016

(1291)

fof/ vkSj U;k; ea=kky;

(fof/ dk;Z foHkkx)

(U;kf;d vuqHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 643-—dsaæh; ljdkj] flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908

(1908 dk 5) dh izFke vuqlwph ds vkns'k la[;k XXVII ds

fu;e 8&[k ds [akM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

,rn~}kjk Jh xqy vlukuh] vij ljdkjh vf/oDrk vkSj Jh okbZ-

ds- xksroky] lgk;d fof/ lykgdkj dks eqacbZ fLFkr cacbZ mPp

U;k;ky; (ewy vkSj vihy vf/dkfjrk) esa ljdkjh IyhMj fu;qDr

djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- ts&11024@1@2016&U;k-º

lqjs'k paæ] vij lfpo

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 16]

ubZ fnYyh] vizSy 10—vizSy 16] 2016] 'kfuokj@pS=k 21—pS=k 27] 1938

No. 16]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 10—APRIL 16, 2016, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 21—CHAITRA 27, 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)

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Department of Legal Affairs)

(JUDICIAL SECTION)

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2016

S.O. 643.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of rule 8B of Order XXVII of the First

Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of

1908), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Gul

Asnani, Additional Government Advocate, and Shri Y. K.

Gotwal, Assistant Legal Adviser as Government Pleader’s

in the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai (original and

appellate jurisdiction).

[F. No. J-11024/1/2016-Judl.]

SURESH CHANDRA, Addl. Secy.

1292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 644 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dSaVksuesaV ,XthD;wfVo

viQlj] dSaVksuesaV cksMZ] Egks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@63@2006) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&13012@5@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 644 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/63/2006) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mhow

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-13012/5/2005-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/63/2006

General Secretary,

Suraksha Asainik Karmchari Sangh,

Garden No.19, Peat Road,

Mhow

...Workman/Union

Versus

Cantonment Executive Officer,

Cantonment Board,

Mhow

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 21-9-06 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-13012/

5/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board,

Mhow in terminating the services of Shri Firoz Khan

w.e.f. 4-9-2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 4/2 to 4/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

appointed as skilled labour on the job of blacksmith

Welder on 21-8-96 in workshop of the Cantonment Board

Mhow. He was not given appointment letter. He was paid

out of monthly muster rolls. Certificate was given to him

by Vice President and Corporator of Cantonment Board.

He was continuously working in workshop of cantonment

board w.e.f. 21-8-96 to 4-9-2000 for period of 4 years as

per statement submitted before RLC, Bhopal. He was

shown continuously working during above said period.

His services were orally terminated as 2nd party wanted

to fix up another person of their choice by favour. On his

repeated request, he was given false assurances and

reconsideration. Workman reiterates that his services are

terminated malafidely without reasons. He worked for a

560 days within a period of 4 years. He was denied

regularisatiuon. His services were terminated without

giving opportunity for his defence. Termination of his

service is without notice. He claims reinstatement with

backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement on 3-7-08

opposing claim of workman. As per 2nd party management,

workman was engaged purely on daily wage basis as per

need basis. Workman was not given appointment letter.

Certificate issued by Vice President or corporator of

Cantonment Board cannot be considered as appointment

letter. It is denied that workman was continuously working

from 21-8-96 to 4-9-2000. It is reiterated that workman was

engaged on daily wages on need basis. When there was

no work, he was not engaged. Workman has not

mentioned details of other person favoured by the

Cantonment Board for appointment in his place. 2nd party

denies that workman was continuously working for 4

years. Rather it is pleaded that workman was engaged on

daily wages. On such ground, 2nd party submits that

workman is not entitled to any relief.

Ist party workman submitted rejoinder on 24-9-08

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the

Both parties not

management of Cantonment

adduced evidence,

Executive Officer, Cantonment

the dispute under

Board, Mhow in terminating

reference could

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1293

the services of Shri Firoz Khan

not be decided on

w.e.f. 4-9-2000 is legal and

merit.

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

No dispute award

is entitled to?”

is passed.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of

termination of service of workman in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act. Ist party workman failed to adduce evidence

in support of his claim. His evidence is closed on

7-10-2014. Management also failed to participate in

reference. Evidence of management is closed on 7-4-2015.

As both parties failed to participate in reference

and adduced evidence, the dispute under reference could

not be decided on merit. Accordingly I record my finding

in Point No.1.

In the result, No Dispute Award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 645-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y- ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

xksnkojh[kkUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 22@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O.645 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/22/

2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016-IR (C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI

ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI

Present :

SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 22 OF 2015

Friday, the 26th day of February, 2016

Between :

Namala Chandraiah, S/o. Rajaiah,

Age 50 years, Occ: Ex.Employee,

R/o.Singapuram, Mandal Mancherial,

Dist.Adilabad

...Petitioner

And

The General Manager,

SC Co.Ltd., Srirampoor Projects,

Post Srirampoor, Dist.

Adilabad.

The Chief General Manager,

SC Co.Ltd., Srirampoor Projects,

Post Srirampoor,

Dist.Adilabad

...Respondents

This case coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

respondents; and having been heard and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered

the following :-

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act

challenging the dismissal of the petitioner by the

respondents praying for his reinstatement into service with

continuity of service, all attendant benefits and full back

wages.

Petitioner was dismissed from service by the

respondents vide office order dt.01-05-2006 with the

following charge.

CHARGE:-

“Habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause”.

Petitioner challenges his punishment as follows. He

was appointed on 3-5-1986 as Badli Filler. The petitioner

has got 15 more years of service. The charge of absenteeism

was foisted and petitioner was dismissed from service

w.e.f., 1-5-2006. He rendered 20 years service and put in

more than 100 musters per year. The punishment of

dismissal is arbitrary and illegal. He represented several

times for his reinstatement but it was not considered by

the respondents. His family has fallen on the road due to

his unjust dismissal from service. Hence, the petitioner

prays to allow the petition.

In response to this challenge, respondents filed

counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The

petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 2006.

Petitioner kept quiet for all these years and filed this

petition after lapse of 9 years which is barred by limitation

1294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

U/Sec.2A(3) of Industrial Disputes Amendment Act,

2010. Petitioner was appointed in the respondents

company as Badli Filler on 17-05-1991. Petitioner was

irregular to his duties. According to Section 52(2) of

the Mines Act, 1952 an underground employee is required

to put in minimum musters of 190 and surface employee

is expected to put in minimum of 240 musters. Petitioner

was a chronic absentee, had put in only 68 musters in the

year 2004. The following attendance particulars of the

petitioner indicate the fact that the petitioner was not

regular to his duties.

Sl.No.

Year

No. of musters.

2001

144

2002

109

2003

121

2004

2005

During the period from January, 2004 to

December, 2004, the petitioner had put in only 68

musters. As the above act amounted to misconduct under

Standing Orders Clause No.25.25 of the company, the

petitioner was charge sheeted. Petitioner participated

in the enquiry proceedings and stated that due to ill-

health, he could not attend his duties, he remained absent

from duties and voluntarily accepted the charge levelled

against him. The petitioner was paid all the terminal

benefits after his dismissal i.e., Gratuity of Rs.83,650/-

, CMPF of Rs.82,716/-, FBIS of Rs.2,190/- and (Pension

of Rs.925/- per month). Enquiry officer submitted his

unbiased report holding that the petitioner is guilty of

misconduct under company standing orders.

Respondents company after considering the past

record of the petitioner and on findings that there were no

extenuating circumstances for taking a lenient view was

constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service. The

respondent’s company conducted the enquiry proceedings

duly in accordance with the principles of natural justice

and law giving full opportunity to the petitioner who

participated in the enquiry. Therefore, the respondents

pray to dismiss the petition without granting any relief to

the petitioner.

During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-3 and

Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-7 are marked.

Counsel for the petitioner filed Memo U/Sec. 11-A

of I.D., Act stating that he is not challenging the validity

of domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent and

prayed this Tribunal to decide the quantum of relief to

which the petitioner is entitled.

Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on

record.

Respondents have filed written arguments.

10.

The point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated

into service?

11.

POINT:- The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler

on 17-5-1991. He never put in the required 190 musters in

a calendar year. During the charge sheeted year of 2004,

he had put in 68 musters only. The petitioner was issued

charge sheet dt.18-5-2005 marked as Ex.M-1. It shows that

he remained absent unauthorisedly and attended to duty

only for 68 days during the year 2004. The petitioner did

not offer any explanation to the charge sheet. In the

enquiry proceedings under Ex.M-3, the petitioner admitted

that from January, 2004 to December, 2004, he remained

absent to his duty and pleaded that due to ill-health he

was unable to attend for duty regularly. The enquiry report

marked as Ex.M-4 shows that the charge levelled against

the petitioner is proved. Petitioner was dismissed from

service by order dt.24-5-2006 under Ex.M-6. After 9 years

period, he raised the Industrial Dispute before this court

assailing the dismissal order. The petitioner took all the

terminal benefits from the respondents company. He is

not diligent to raise the dispute and the delay in

approaching this Tribunal is not properly explained.

Further as can be seen from the record produced before

this court, the petitioner was born in the year 1960 and

being aware of his age, he should have approached this

Tribunal soon after his dismissal from service. According

to the counter averments, the petitioner could not be

considered for reinstatement into the company as he did

not fulfill the requirements laid down by the company

regarding age and minimum number of musters during the

previous years.

12.

In view of the above discussion and the evidence

placed before this court, this court is of the considered

opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service

imposed on the petitioner is justified; and there are no

mitigating circumstances to interfere with the same.

Therefore, I hold that this is not a fit case to exercise the

discretionary powers vested U/Sec.11-A of ID Act. Under

those circumstances, this petition is liable to be dismissed

for want of merits. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed,

but without any costs.

13.

In the result, the petition is dismissed, but without

any costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of

February, 2016.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman:-

For Management:-

-Nil-

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1295

EXHIBITS

For workman:-

Ex.W-1 Dt. 31-05-2010 Demand letter

Ex.W-2 Dt. 03-05-1986 Office order appointment

order as Badli Filler

Ex.W-3 Dt. 28-04-2006 Removal letter from the rolls

For Management:-

Ex.M-1 Dt. 18-05-2005 Charge sheet with ack.,

Ex.M-2 Dt. 06-01-2006 Enquiry notice

Ex.M-3 Dt. 11-01-2006 Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-4 Dt. 17-01-2006 Enquiry report

Ex.M-5 Dt. 18/19-1-2006

Show cause notice

Ex.M-6 Dt. 25-04-2006 Dismissal order

Ex.M-7 Dt. 02-09-2011 Circular for review of the

cases of the workmen

dismissed on the ground of

absenteeism.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 646-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds izcaèkra=k

ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 02@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@262@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/

2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/262/2007-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 02 OF 2008

PARTIES :

The management of Girmint (R) Colliery, ECL

Vs.

Sri Brahamadeo Bhuiya

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

: Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman) : None

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated: 03.03.2016

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of

India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.

L-22012/262/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 03.01.2008 has

been pleased to refer the following dispute for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

ECL in denying employment to Shri Bradhamadeo

Bhuiya husband of the deceased employee (Late

Genia Bhuiya) is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the dependent of the workman entitled?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/262/

2007-IR(CM-II) dated 03.01.2008 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference

case No. 02 of 2008 was registered on 16.01.2008 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the registered post to the parties

concerned directing them to appear in the court on the

date fixed and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support

of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices

by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record I find that my

predecessor (Late J. K. Sen, the then Presiding Officer)

had reserved an award in this case because the workman

is neither appearing nor taking any step since long. Several

opportunities were given but to no effect. It seems that

the workman is not at all interested to proceed with the

case. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with

the case I think it reasonable to close the case. As such

the case is closed and a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby

passed accordingly.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute

existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

1296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 647-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds izcaèkra=k

ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 41@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@46@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2002) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Lacchipur Colliery,

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/46/2002-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 41 OF 2002

PARTIES :

The management of Lacchipur Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Budhu Paswan

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management : Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld.

Advocate

For the union

: Sri S. K. Bandopadhyay,

(Workman)

Ld. Advocate

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated: 09.03.2016

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012 /

46/2002–IR(CM-II) dated 02.09.2002 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Lacchipur

Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in not accepting the date of birth in respect

of Shri Bodhu Paswan, Onsetter as 03.02.1954 in

place of 01.07.1942 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief is the workman entitled?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/46/2002–

IR(CM-II) dated 02.09.2002 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 41 of 2002

was registered on 27.09.2002. Accordingly an order to that

effect was passed to issue notices through the registered

post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in

the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements

along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses

in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order

notices by the registered post were sent to the parties

concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal,

through their representative.

The workman Sri Bodhu Paswan has stated in his

written statement that he was a permanent workman as

Onseter of Lachipur Colliery under Coal Mines Authority

Limited and after change of name of the same Management

now it is known as Eastern Coalfields Limited. Coal Mines

Authority appointed Sri Bodhu Paswan in the year 1973.

At that time photo Identity card was issued to the workman

where date of birth was entered as 03.02.1954 duly signed

by the competent authority of the management.

Accordingly all records including Form “B” register as

per Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 were maintained by

the management and as such those records cannot be

changed. Thereafter the said management converted the

name of their establishments as Eastern Coalfields Limited

from Coal Mines Authority to run coal mines smoothly.

At that time the management of Lachipur Colliery have

changed the year of birth of Sri Bodhu Paswan, Onsetter

and mentioned his year of birth as 32 years in 1974 without

information or knowledge of the workman, which is

arbitrary and illegal. Sri Bodhu Paswan came to know

from some source that on the basis of fictitious and false

maintained records of management, Sri Bodhu Paswan

may be superannuated from his service with effect from

01.07.2002 illegally.

He raised objection before the A.L.C(C), Raniganj.

During conciliation proceeding one Mr. Rao, Dy. P M,

Lachipur colliery called Sri Bodhu Paswan in his office on

15.12.2001 and has obtained L.T.I of Bodhu Paswan on

Form “B” register of the colliery. Mr. Rao threatened the

concerned workman to stop his duty with immediate effect

if Bodhu Paswan refuses to put his L.T.I. on the register

as desired by Mr. Rao, Dy. P.M. of Lachipur Colliery. Thus

Bodhu Paswan was forced to put his L.T.I. on the “B”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1297

Form register. Sri Bodhu Paswan being afraid for his

duty was compelled to put his L.T.I. on the so-called record

of the management. Bodhu Paswan lodged a G.D. at Andal

P.S. on 17.12.2001 as G.D. Entry No. 815 dated

17.12.2001. Sri Bodhu Paswan sent copy of his diary to

the A.L.C.(C) Raniganj, R.L.C.(C) Asansol, and Addl. S.P.

Durgapur for their information. Due to adamant attitude

of management, conciliation proceeding failed and

Ministry referred this dispute for reference. He has been

forcefully terminated from his service by the management

with effect from 01.07.2002.

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed written

statement. It has been stated that Sri Bodhu Paswan was

an employee designated as Onsetter posted at Lachipur

colliery. His date of birth/age was recorded in all official

records including in the Form “B” register of the

management as 32 years in the year 1974 and an

appointment was recorded in February 1971. That on the

basis of record his service has already been terminated

on 01.07.2002. Mr. Kishore Chatterjee, the President of

Union, National Coal Workers Congress raised a dispute

which has come for adjudication. The management issued

S.R.E. to concerned workman in the year 1987 informing

all the dates entered into the Form “B” register. The

concerned workman was aware about the data which was

supplied through S.R.E. Mr. Paswan never raised any

dispute during his service period; as such his service was

duly terminated with effect from 01.07.2002. He is no

more an employee of the M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

The present dispute is not maintainable. The workman is

not entitled to any relief.

The workman has filed rejoinder written statement.

In brief he has stated that written statement of employer

is absolutely false, baseless and motivated, hence it is

denied. The concerned workman requested several times

before management for rectification of his date of birth

which was wrongly recorded in the record of management.

The workman has been illegally victimized and terminated

from his service before 60 years of age. The date of birth

of workman has been accepted as 03.02.1954 which has

been recorded in photo identity card issued by the previous

Coal Mines Authority Limited duly signed by the

competent Officer. The concerned workman has been

illegally terminated. The date of birth of Sri Bodhu Paswan

has been accepted by C.M.A. Limited as 03.02.1954 which

cannot be changed as per Mines Act. The workman has

prayed that tribunal may kindly pass an order for

reinstatement of Sri Bodhu Paswan, Onseter of Lachipur

Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited with full back

wages with all other legal dues with effect from

01.07.2002.

The workman has filed affidavit in his oral evidence.

He has been cross examined by the learned Advocate of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited has not filed any oral or documentary evidence.

The workman has also filed the following

documents in support of his claim:-

i. Photo identity Card issued by the “COAL MINES

AUTHORITY LTD” towards Sri Bodhu Paswan

of this instant case.

ii. Dispute raised by the Workman/Union before the

A.L.C.(C ) Raniganj in connection with Non-

recording of actual year of Birth in the Record of

the Management of “EASTERN COALFIELDS

LTD” Vide the Letter No of the Union Ref. NCWC/

President,RC-ECL/ALC dated 03.09.2001.

iii. General Diary No. 815 dated 17.12.01 has been

Lodged by Sri Bodhu Paswan at Andal P.S in

connection with Forceful obtaining his L.T.I. on

Form ‘B’ Register by Mr. Rao Dy. P.M. Lachhipur

Colliery.

iv. The Union informed before the A.L.C.(C)

Raniganj, R.L.C ( C ) Asansol, The Addl.

Superintendent of Police, Durgapur vide letter Ref

No. NCWC/President,RC-ECL/LC/2001 dated

18.12.2001 regarding forceful obtaining of L.T.I

on the Records of Sri Bodhu Paswan by Mr. Rao,

Dy. P.M Lachhipur Colliery.

v. Sri Bodhu Paswan informed in writing before the

Agent, Lachhipur colliery regarding Illegal and

Forceful Termination of his service without any

Notice with effect from 01.07.2002.

vi. Letter from Sri Bodhu Paswan addressed to the

Agent, Lachhipur Colliery under Registered post

with A/D dated 13.02.2002.

vii. Letter from Sri Bodhu Paswan addressed to the

Agent, Lachhipur Colliery dated 16.08.2002.

viii. Letter from Mr. Ranjit Roy, advocate, Kolkata High

Court addressed to the Post Master, Kajoragram

Sub-Post Office where he wanted to know actual

date of receiving letter by Sri Bodhu Paswan from

Kajoragram Post Office which was sent by the

Manager of Lachhipur Colliery related with

Superannuation Notice.

ix. Reply from the Post Master of Kajoragram Post

Office to the Advocate Kolkata High Court in

response to his letter.

I have heard Sri S. K. Bandyopadhyay, Learned

Advocate on behalf of workman and Sri P. K. Goswami,

learned Advocate on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited.

Sri S. K. Bandyopadhyay has argued that the date of

birth of Sri Bodhu Paswan before nationalization was

recorded as 03.02.1954 in the record of Coal Mines Authority

and this date of birth was recorded in his photo identity

card. But after nationalization M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd

suo moto has wrongly entered his date of birth as 01.07.1942

without intimation to the workman. His service has been

1298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

wrongly terminated and he ought to be continued from

01.07.2002 with all back wages and consequential

benefits. Whereas the learned Advocate of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited has argued that the workman has not

produced any documentary evidence regarding his age.

As per record he has been rightfully terminated at the age

of his superannuation. The workman very well aware about

the fact of his date of birth recorded in the record of M/s.

E.C.L. He has already informed in the year 1987 regarding

his date of birth and other particulars of his service. But

till retirement he never raised this fact before M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited. The contention of workman is totally

false.

10.

The contention of workman is that his date of birth

was recorded as 03.02.1954 at the time of joining his

service in Coal Mines Authority. But after nationalization

when new company M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited was

constituted his date of birth was wrongly entered. After

raising dispute before A.L.C.(C), he was forcibly ordered

to put his L.T.I. on official record of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited. He lodged F.I.R. to that effect which

was registered as G.D No. 815 dated 17.12.2001. He has

been wrongly terminated by M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited on 01.07.2002 before his actual age of 60 years

as described in the Model Standing Order. Whereas the

contention of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is that the

concerned workman Sri Bodhu Paswan was issued S.R.E.

in the year 1987 informing all the data recorded in the

Form ‘B’. The concerned workman was fully aware about

his date of birth and all other relevant facts, but he never

raised any dispute.

11.

It is admitted fact that the concerned workman

Sri Bodhu Paswan is an ex-employee of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited. It is also not disputed that his service was

terminated by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited on

01.07.2002. Now the question arises for consideration

is when the concerned workman was aware about his

change of date of birth and when he raised the dispute.

The concerned workman Sri Bodhu Paswan has filed copy

of letter addressed to A.L.C.( C ) dated 03.09.2001 and

18.12.2001. He has filed copy of his identity card as Ext-

A. In this photo identity card his date of birth was recorded

as 03.02.1954. His date of birth was changed by M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Ltd in 1987. But he never raised any

dispute or put his objection before M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Ltd. In para-5 of the written statement of the concerned

workman it has been stated that he came to know from

some source that on the basis of fictitious and false

maintained record of the management, Sri Paswan may

be superannuated from his service with effect from

01.07.2002 illegally.

12.

Sri Bodhu Paswan has not disclosed that on which

particular date and from which source he came to know

about his probable date of retirement. It appears that this

fact has been concealed by the concerned workman. As

per letter addressed to A.L.C., he raised the dispute before

A.L.C. on 03.09.2001 just ten months prior to his retirement.

Though as per copy of photo identity card issued by M/s.

Coal Mines Authority the date of birth is recorded as

03.02.1954. Sri Bodhu Paswan has stated in his cross-

examination on page-2 that “I have no document with me

in support of my date of birth as 03.02.1954.” There is

no basis for recording of his date of birth as 03.02.1954.

Therefore if there was no basis for recording his age as

03.02.1954 then M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited was

solely justified to correct the date of birth under proper

intimation to concerned workman. Even if for the sake of

argument if it is assumed that M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited has wrongly entered his date of birth then he ought

to have raised this dispute at the first instance when he

gained that knowledge. Without disclosing the date and

source regarding his correction of date of birth, it cannot

be assumed that the workman was aware only before ten

months prior to his retirement. Whereas the allegation

of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in their written

statement is that the concerned workman was informed

about his date of birth in 1987. So if the concerned

workman was informed in 1987 then Sri Bodhu Paswan

ought to have raised this dispute in 1987. But being aware

of his date of birth he raised this dispute in September,

2001 just ten months prior to his retirement. This

circumstance does not inspire confidence. It is settled

law that the date of birth, as recorded in the service book

cannot be changed after a long period particularly at the

fag end or nearer to the date of retirement or

superannuation.

13.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. & Anr. v/s

Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (2005) 6 SCC 49 reported in

A.I.R. 2005 SC 4192 has held that the date of birth as

recorded in the Service Book cannot be changed after a

long period, particularly at the fag end or nearer to the

date of retirement or superannuation. . This view has been

reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar General,

High Court of Madras v/s M. Manickam and others (2011)

9 SCC 245: reported in A.I.R. 2011 SC 3658.

14.

In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex court

since Sri Bodhu Paswan has raises the dispute of his age

at the fag end of his retirement being very well aware of

this fact cannot be accepted.

15.

Considering the whole facts and circumstances,

discussed above, I come to the conclusion that the action

of the management of Lachipur Colliery under Kajora

Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in not accepting

the date of birth in respect of Sri Bodhu Paswan, Onsetter

as 03.02.1954 in place of 01.07.1942 is legal and

justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information

and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1299

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 648 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ulh,y ds

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 51@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@59@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 648 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2010) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Northern Coalfields

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/59/2009-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 51 of 2010

Between-

Sri Suremdra Nath Singh, Secretary,

(in relation to Shanker Lal)

Koyla Udyog Kamgar Sanghthan,

Branch Office B 49

NCL Khadia Project,

Sonebhadhra.

And

The Chief General Manager (P),

Northern Coalfield Limited,

Head Quarter,

Singrauli, (M.P.)

AWARD

Central Government by notification No.L-22012/

59/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 31.05.2010, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

Whether the demand of the Union that the workman

Sri Shanker Lal Fitter working at NCL Khadia be given

promotion from the date of DPC is legal and justified?

To what relief is the workman entitled for?

The instant case has been raised by the union

working under the opposite party on behalf of Sri Shanker

Lal alleging that the worker was appointed as Craftsman

Trainee on 16.2.91 and his work and conduct always

remained commendable and he was never issued either

any warning or charge sheet. Considering his efficiency

and good behavior he was granted promotion at the Post

of Machenic Fitter Gr.1 to Gr.9th and in this category he is

working since 2003. There is orders in the opposite party

that for promotion employee has to appear for interview

before DPC and if he qualifies then he will be given

promotion from the date of DPC. It is lastly alleged that

had he been given promotion from the date of DPC i.e.

20.11.97 he would have been given further promotion and

would have also become entitled for revised pay scale

and since it was not done in the case of the worker, his

juniors became senior to him.

In this way it is claimed by the union that the worker

would be deemed to have been promoted from the date of

holding of DPC i.e. 20.11.97 and he be allowed difference

of salary and allowances.

The claim of the worker is contested by the opposite

party on the ground that as per circular dated 12.12.97 the

effective date of promotion would be the date on which

the incumbent joins the higher post hence the claim of the

worker is denied. It is admitted by the opposite party that

the worker was promoted as Helper Cat.2 from the post of

Craftsman Trainee Cat-1and thereafter he was promoted

Mechanical Cat.4, thereafter to category 5 and lastly to

category 6 as per vacancy and directives of Coal India

Limited. The reference produced by worker regarding

promotion of other employees in the case of other project,

while the vacancy seniority etc. of each project are

different, hence the alleged reference of different projects

are not applicable in the case of the worker. The facilities

and benefits has rightly been provided to the worker from

21.1.98 in compliance of circular dated 12.12.97.

On the basis of above the management has denied

the claim of the worker in its entirety alleging that he is not

entitled for the relief claimed by him.

The Union along with his claim petition has filed

paper no.7/6-13 and also filed documents paper no. 6/6-

15. Again vide list dated 21.7.15 worker has filed 10

documents. In support of his case worker has also filed

his affidavit.

Management has not filed any document in support

of its claim.

Neither the union nor the worker is attending the

proceedings of the case for last several dates therefore,

it is clear that the union is not interested in prosecuting

his case.

1300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

None of the parties have adduced oral evidence and

worker also failed to prove the documents filed by him in

support of his case by adducing cogent evidence.

11.

Therefore, from the records of the case it is quite

clear that it is a case of no evidence. Under the facts and

circumstances of the case the tribunal is of the view that

the reference is bound to be decided against the union /

worker for want of proof.

12.

Accordingly it is held that the worker is not entitled

for any relief as claimed by him for want of proof. Reference

is answered against the union / worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 649-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ulh,y ds

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 63@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@11@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/

2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Northern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/11/2010-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 63 of 2010

The Regional Secretary,

Koyla Shramik Sabha,

IC 42, PO Singrauli,

Sidhi (M.P.).

And

The Chief General Manager,

Northern Coal Field Limited,

Khadia Project,

Sonebhadra U.P.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide

notification No.L-22012/11/2010-IR(CM-II) dated

29.07.2010, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of NCL

Khadia Project Distt. Sonebhadra in not considering the

case of Sri A K Dwivedi for promotion and seniority is just

fair and legal? To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled for?

In brief the case of the worker as set up by the union

raising the present dispute is that the worker was appointed

under the opposite party at the post of electrician category

1 craftsman training. Considering his satisfactory service,

he was given promotion from time to time by the

management and as such for the first time he was promoted

at the post of EPH Gr.1 in 1990 and was further given

promotion as Grade D, Grade C with effect from 1.1.2000

and 1.09.06 respectively and at present worker is working

as electrician grade B. It is further alleged that his some

colleagues were given promotion without holding DPC

with effect from 10.6.05 ignoring the claim of the worker.

Therefore, the worker has claimed his promotion at the

same post on which his juniors were promoted with effect

from 10.6.05 instead of 01.09.06 when he was given

promotion at par to his juniors.

The management filed written statement denying

the claim of the worker on a number of grounds interalia

stating that the reference order suffers from delay and

latches inasmuch as the cause of action is of date 10.06.05

whereas the dispute has been raised after lapse of 5 years

hence reference is not maintainable. Worker is not entitled

for any relief as no cause of action accrued in his favor on

any date whatsoever. In fact promotion letter is issued to

Sri A K Dwivedi late as he had submitted the wireman

permit late to the management and after submission of

wireman permit his case was considered by DPC held on

12.08.06 and accordingly he was promoted to EP Electrician

Grade 1 with effect from 01.09.06. Worker is not entitled for

promotion with effect from 10.6.05 nor he is entitled for

any arrears as alleged by him.

On the basis of above it has been prayed that the

claim of the worker is devoid of merit and is liable to be

rejected.

After exchange of pleadings between the parties

both sides have filed documents.

Neither the worker nor the union raising the dispute

appeared in the case for the last several dates despite

providing sufficient opportunity through registered post,

therefore, on 5.1.16 representative for the management

made an endorsement on the order sheet that since the

worker has not adduced any evidence, they will also not

adduce any evidence in the case.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1301

Therefore, from the above, it is quite clear that it

is a case of no evidence and the tribunal is of the opinion

that the union/worker has failed to substantiate their claim

by adducing cogent and relevant evidence in support of

their claim.

Accordingly, I am of the view that the reference is

bound to be answered against the union / worker for want

of proof and evidence holding that the worker is not

entitled for any relief as claimed by him pursuant to the

present reference order.

10.

Reference is answered accordingly in favor of the

management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 650 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 43@1998) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@330@1997&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 650 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/

1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Western Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/330/1997-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 43 of 98

In the matter of dispute between-

The Chief General Secretary,

Bhartiya Khan Mazdoor Sangh,

P.O. -Pathakhera,

District- Betul (MP).

And

General Manager,

WCL,

Pathakhera,

Betul (MP).

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide notification

No. L-22012/330/97/IR (CM-II) dated 22.07.98, has referred

the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Chief

Manager, WCL in terminating the services of Sri Trilok

Chand w.e.f. 20.06.96 is justified? If not, to what relief is the

workman entitled?

In short the case of the workman as set up by the

Union raising the dispute is that worker was appointed on

09.10.73, at Regional Workshop of WCL, of Pathakhera

area at the post of Heavy vehicle driver in grade ‘c’ under

the control of opposite party. The work and conduct of the

worker remained loyal faithful and unblemished. Worker

was placed under suspension vide order dated 01.09.95

stating therein that charge sheet will be issued separately.

He was issued charge sheet dated 05.09.95 to which the

worker submitted his reply on 11.09.95 and 20.09.95 wherein

he denied the charges by stating correct and true facts.

After going through the reply to the charge sheet the

opposite party decided to hold departmental inquiry against

the worker by order dated 22.09.95 and Sri S K Gupta

Engineer of Shobhapur common services as enquiry officer.

During the inquiry the allegation of misconduct as well as

charges could not be established and the witnesses

produced by the prosecution did not support the

allegations brought against the workman and the

management failed to establish the charges brought against

the workman.

It is further pleaded by the worker that despite the

fact that the workman was not found guilty of charges of

misconduct as per documentary and oral evidence lead

before enquiry officer, the enquiry officer gave his finding

against the worker. Thus the finding of the enquiry officer

is perverse and the enquiry finding is vague, ambiguous

and suffering from mala fide and prejudicial intention of

the enquiry officer. Based on the report of the enquiry

officer, the Manager of Regional Workshop of WCL

Pathakehra passed order of termination from service vide

order dated 20.06.96 in arbitrary, malafide, illegal and

capricious manner. The authority to appoint Heavy Vehicle

Driver is the General Manager and the order terminating

the services of the workman was issued by Manager,

Regional Workshop Pathakhera. It is also pleaded that

according to the settled legal position an authority below

the rank of an appointing authority is not empowered to

pass punishment order, therefore, the order terminating

the services of the workman is beyond the jurisdiction of

the authority passing the termination order. Likewise

manager of Regional Workshop of WCL Pathakhera was

1302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not competent to issue charge sheet to the worker. Lastly

it is alleged that as per the charge sheet the assistant Chief

Security Officer, Mr. A. Mathew, Chief Security Officer,

Mahendra Singh and Bharat Singh Security Guards were

the co accused of such matter as per charge sheet. It is

quite clear that they were equally participated in such type

of conduct. At any rate it is very strangeful that both of the

security guards and Assistant Security Officer are smoothly

working with the opposite party and the oly concerned

worker of the above noted case is awarded the major

punishment i.e. termination from service. Appeal preferred

by the worker did not find favor at the hands of the appellate

authority.

On the basis of above pleadings it is prayed that the

order of punishment be set aside being illegal and malafide

and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service

of the opposite party with full back wages, continuity of

service and with all consequential benefits.

Opposite party denied the claim of the worker on a

number of grounds viz; considering the complaint against

the worker he was placed under suspension prior to issue

of charge sheet; that the explosive van was driven by Sri

Trilok Chand and he carried the wooden planks

unauthorisedly in the explosive van in contravention of

the provisions of law and no other material except explosive

can be carried in the explosive van as per the extent rules;

the explosive van in question seized by the Forest

Department was in the custody of said department for

several month and this caused heavy financial loss to the

management; considering the reply to the charge sheet

given by the workman a departmental inquiry was ordered

against him by the management; the enquiry officer

conducted the inquiry strictly in accordance with the rules

of natural justice; full fair and reasonable opportunity was

given to the worker to prove his innocence but he failed to

do so and the article of charges were found proved; the

enquiry officer submitted his report dated 17.04.96 to the

competent disciplinary authority who after going through

the report passed the punishment order dt. 20.06.96

terminating the services of the workman after obtaining

the approval of the competent authority; the appeal

preferred by the worker was also dismissed by the appellate

authority; it is denied that any prejudice has been caused

to the worker during conduct of inquiry; it is also denied

that inquiry report suffers from infirmity; Charges were

found proved in the inquiry; the worker was given full

opportunity of his defense by the inquiry officer;

punishment awarded to the worker on the basis of proved

misconduct which are grave in nature fully commensurate

with the proved misconduct.

I would like to mention here that the opposite party

has filed a very lengthy written statement running into

248 paragraphs, therefore, only facts touching the merit

of the case has been mentioned and rest is ignored.

On the basis of pleadings it has been prayed by the

opposite party that the claim of the worker is liable to be

rejected being devoid of merit.

Worker has also filed rejoinder but nothing new

therein has been stated except reiterating the facts already

pleaded in the claim petition.

10.

On 25.09.2000, my learned predecessor had framed

preliminary issue regarding fairness of domestic inquiry

and fixed date for arguments on preliminary issue and

thereafter, on 19.05 2003 fixed 28.07.03 for evidence of

parties. On 28.07.2003 worker was debarred from adducing

evidence as he did not turn up on that date. The worker

moved application for recalling the order which was rejected

by my learned predecessor on 27.05.2004. These both the

order dated 28.07.03 and 27.05.04 were challenged by worker

before Hon’ble High Court in writ petition No.25162 of 06

Sri Trilok Chand versus Union of India wherein Hon’ble

High Court vide order dated 10.05.06 directed this tribal

not to pass final award. Meanwhile management produced

M.W.1 Sri P K Ganguly on 1.9.04, M.W.2 Sri Sunil Kumar

Gupta on 01.09.04 and M.W.3 Sri P Balakrishan Pillai on

15.12.04. The writ filed by the worker as above was finally

disposed of by Hon’ble High Court on 03.09.14 in which

order of the tribunal dated 28.07.03 and 27.05.2004 were set

aside and this court was directed to proceed to decide the

preliminary issue after giving opportunity to both the parties

to lead evidence. It is further directed that the evidence led

by the management shall be taken into consideration.

11.

In compliance of order of the Hon’ble High Court,

management was directed to produce M.W.1 and M.W.2

for cross examination as M.W.3 has already been cross-

examined, but authorized representative for the

management has moved an application showing his

inability to produce M.W.1 and M.W.3 and moved

application for discharging M.W.1 and M.W.3 which was

allowed and cross-examination of .W.2 Sri Sunil Kumar

Gupta was conducted. There appears no need of

summoning M.W.1 Sri P Balakrishnan Pillay as he was earlier

cross examined by worker.

12.

In rebuttal worker Trilok Chand has examined himself

as w.w.1.

13.

At the time of hearing of preliminary issue relating

to fairness of domestic inquiry worker has admitted that

inquiry conducted against him was fair and proper and as

there appears no procedural defect in the domestic inquiry,

the domestic inquiry was held to be fair and proper.

14.

I have heard the arguments of both the parties at

length and have also perused the whole record carefully.

15.

Learned representative for the workman contended

that the worker had not carried scooter no. MH-31-4239

and 97 wooden sleepers of his own, but he was forcefully

pressurized by In-charge Security Officer of the opposite

party to carry the articles from the house of Security Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1303

and the articles were loaded in explosive van on his

directions which were not checked by the security at the

main exit gate of the company. He has only carried out the

orders of his superiors under pressure who are actually

responsible for taking illegal act from the worker under

dures.

16.

Learned representative for the management

contended that the worker was the driver of the explosive

van who is directly responsible for carrying scooter and

wooden sleeper in the explosive van to which he was not

authorized.

17.

On perusal of domestic inquiry file at page 27/42 it

appears that Sri Solekar has stated that Assistant Chief

Security Officer Sri Mathew has directed him on 28.08.95 at

6.00 p.m. at his residence that he is going on leave for 2 or

three days and whenever Mahendra demand any person

you give him one person. He further deposed that in the

absence of Sri Mathew he was in-charge of security. He

further admitted that in Patakhera Area there are two check

posts where vehicles are checked and they are under his

charge. He has shown his ignorance why explosive van

No. MOB-9939 was not checked in check post. He further

admitted that Mr. Mathew Assistant Security Officer has

given orders in writing to worker Trilok Chandra that

explosive van No. MOB 9939 be not checked in the way

of check post. He further deposed that he has not given

direction to Trilok Chandra to load wooden sleepers in the

van. He does not know whether any orders were given by

Mr. Mathew or not.

18.

From the evidence given by Sri Solekar who was in-

charge Security Officer, it is clear that Mr. Mathew while

proceeding on leave has directed him to give one person

to Mahendra Singh on demand and Mr. Mathew has given

order in writing not to check the explosive van at the check

posts.

19.

Sri Trilok Chandra concerned worker at page 27/56

has stated that on 31.08.95 when he took out explosive van

it was not empty. He was called by Mr. Solekar who gave

him gate pass of 76 sleepers in the name of ACSO and also

given him letter mentioning that vehicle should not be

stopped in sensitive places and lock of the van should not

be opened. He further deposed that Mr. Mathew asked

him a day before to carry out some luggage in the van and

when he refused, he was asked to carry out wooden

sleepers from the residence of Mr. Mathew. He further

deposed that on the direction of Sri Solekar took the van

at th residence of Mr. Mathew, where two security guards

Bharat Singh and Mahendra Singh were standing.

20.

This fact was admitted by witness Bharat Singh who

stated that on 31.08.95 he was on rest. At about 10.30 a.m.

Sri Mahendra Singh came and told him that Mr. Solekar has

called you. Then he met Mr. Solekar who asked them to

load packing luggage and scooter in the explosive fan from

the residence of Mr. Mathew and asked them to go to Nagpur

after loading the luggage. He further told him that he is

sending Trilok Chandra with explosive van. When he

asked what articles are to be loaded, he told him that packed

articles are to be loaded from the residence of Mr. Mthew

and at about 12.30 Sri Trilok Chandra came with the and

they loaded the articles and scooter from the residence of

Mr. Mathew.

21.

At about 3.30 p.m. Trilok Chandra came to Shobhapur

bus stop with the van and they all sat in the van for Nagpur.

He further admitted that he was directed by Mr. Solekar to

load the articles and scooter.

22.

The case of the worker is further supported by

witness Mahendra Singh who was examined in the inquiry

who stated on 31.08.95, he went to the office of security

where Mr. Solekar asked him that Trilok Chandra is also

coming and directd him to load packing articles and scooter

no. MH-31-4239 in the explosive van from the residence of

Mr. Mathew and asked him to take the help of Bharat Singh.

At about 12.30 p.m. Bharat Singh also came at the residence

of Mr. Mathew and Trilok Chandra concerned worker came

with the explosive van where both loaded packed pieces of

wooden sleepers and scooter. He further admitted in the

cross-examination that they were going on explosive van

by order of Mr. Solekar. He further says that Trilok Chandra

has not loaded any article. Sri Solekar gave 2-4 thousand

rupees.

23.

Besides this management examined M.W.2 Sri Sunil

Kumar Gupta, before the tribunal who has stated in cross

examination that he does not know about the scooter

mentioned in the charge sheet. He further stated that if any

vehicles goes out or enters in Western Coal Field it is

checked by security. He has only submitted the inquiry

report to the competent authority.

24.

Worker Trilok Chandra examined himself as w.w.1.

He stated in his examination in chief that he was working

as driver of explosive van of the company. He had to go to

Bandhara to take detonator on 31.08.95. Meanwhile his

security chief Mr. Mathew asked him to take wooden

sleepers and scooter from the residence which were loaded

in explosive van by Mahender Singh and Bharat Singh.

They asked him to carry out the loaded articles to the office

of Coal India Nagpur which belong to Mr. Mathew. He

admitted the fact that his van used to be checked at check

post while van exit from the company and on its return.

25.

This check post was under the Security Chief Mr.

Mathew on 31.08.95 and when he cross the check post his

van was not checked and both the guards Mahender Singh

and Bharat Singh were in his van. When he reached near

Gora Dongari Check pot, he was asked by the Forest

Department to open the lock of the vn and when he refused

guard Bharat Singh was sent to Patakhera where after Mr.

Solekar Assistant Chief Security Officer of Mr. Mathew

came with the key and opened the lock of the van then it

was found that wooden sleepers were side the van and

1304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

then the van was ceased by the Forest Department. He

informed the matter to the senior officers of the company

where after both the guards, conductor and he was placed

under suspension and charge sheet was given. After inquiry

suspension orders of all of them was revoked and they

were allowed to resume their duties and thereafter after

three months the services of the worker were terminated

and no action was taken against other three persons.

Thereafter he attained the age of superannuation and retired

from the service. He further stated tht he had taken the

articles I the van on the directions of Mr Mathew Chief

Security Officer and he could not refuse the directions

given by his superior and o their directions Bharat Singh

and Mahender Singh loaded the items in the explosive

van.

26.

In his cross-examination he stated that he was not

given any written order to load the item in the van. He

further admitted that no other items can be loaded in the

explosive van except detonator.He further deposed that

when Mr. Mathew asked him to load the articles he refused.

Mr. Mathew told him that this vehicle is under him and he

is the Security Officer and you have to take these articles

in van and he is giving two security guards who will also

go with you.

27.

From the above discussion it is clear that Trilok

Chandra driver of the explosive van on 31.08.95 was given

direction to load wooden sleepers and scooter from the

residence of Mr. Mathew . It has further come in evidence

that Mr. Mathew was on leave on 31.08.95 and his assistant

Mr. Solekar in-charge security officer, with the help of two

security guards Mahendra Singh and Bharat Sngh got

loaded wooden sleepers and scooter in the explosive van

from the residence of Mr. Mathew and gave the some money

and a slip ensuring that the vehicle should not be checked

at the check post and the vehicle through security check

post within its checking and it was detained at the Forest

Check Post by Forest Department.

28.

As the worker Trilok Chand himself admitted in his

cross examination that no other article can be loaded in the

explosive van, it is proved wooden sleeper and scooter

were found loaded in explosive van. Therefore, charges

leveled against the worker Trilok Chandra is found proved

for carrying wooden sleeper and scooter in explosive van

which he was not authorized under the Certified Standing

Order and Mines Act provisions of which are applicable

on the employees of Western Coal Field.

29.

From the evidence recorded in domestic inquiry it is

very much clear that not only the worker was responsible

for load woodn sleeper and scooter in explosive can from

the residence of Mr. Mathew, but those articles were loaded

on the directions of Mr. Mathew who proceeded on leave

on 31.08.95 and his Assistant Mr. Solekar directed worker

to load these articles and provided help of two other

security guards by name Mahender Singh and Bharat Singh

who got loaded the articles from the residence of Mr.

Mathew in the presence and direction of Mr. Solekar,

Assistant Security Officer. Mr. Solekar also gave them

slip that van will not be checked at security check posts

and also gave them some money.

30.

Therefore, the provisions of Certified Standing

Orders ar applicable equally on all the employees of

Western Coal Field including Mr. Mathew, Chief Security

Officer, Mr. Solekar, Assistant Security Officer and other

security personnel.

31.

It also appears that by suspending all the four person

sitting on the vehicle, management has only taken action

against the worker Trilok Chand by revoking suspension

order against all the four persons and thereafter terminating

the services of the worker after three months.

32.

As Mr. Mathew, Chief Security Officer and Mr.

Solekar, Assistant Security Officer of the company are also

responsible of illegal act, there should be a separate inquiry

against these two officers who deliberately and knowingly

the fact that no other item except detonator can be loaded

in the explosive van forced the poor worker Trilok Chand

to carry out their illegal orders and action.

33.

Management could not show any document to

establish that except worker any other armed guard and

officers named above are punished.

34.

Considering to the above evidence and circumstances

of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case

where the tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction under section

11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which clearly

empowers the Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the

punishment order passed by the management in the nature

of dismissal, termination or discharge from service on

proved misconduct, if it is found by the tribunal that the

punishment order is discriminatory or by way of colorable

use of managerial power or is shockingly disproportionate

considering the gravity of charges.

35.

As worker Trilok Chand has been held guilty of the

charges, in my view he should have raised his hands in

denying not to follow illegal orders of his superiors or he

should have reported the matter to the General Manager

of the Company or other higher officers. Therefore, he is

also found negligent in discharge of his duties.

36.

In the present case as discussed above, it has been

found that no disciplinary actions have been taken against

the two responsible security officer of the company against

whom the same charge were found to be proved and the

management has not taken any action nor punished both

the security guards Mahender Singh and Bharat Singh who

loaded wooden sleepers and scooter in the explosive van

on 31.08.95 from the residence of Mr. Mathew, Chief

Security Officer, of the Company, therefore, punishment of

economic death of the worker in the name of termination of

service cannot be allowed to sustain and therefore, it is

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1305

modified up to the extent of withholding of three

increments permanently instead of termination from

service as awarded to the worker.

37.

As it has been submitted by the representative for

the worker that the worker attained the age of 60 years

during the pendency of this dispute, therefore, ordering

reinstatement of the worker in the service is not possible

and accordingly in lieu of reinstatement, tribunal is giving

following directions-

Worker will be deemed as if he was never

terminated from the service of the management.

Management is directed to with hold his three

increments permanently for his proved

misconduct.

Management is further directed to pay the entire

arrears of his salary from the date of his removal

till the date of his retirement taking into

consideration the revision of pay from time to

time.

To make payment of pension if admissible under

rules and arrears thereof.

Any other consequential benefits attached with

the post should also be allowed to the worker.

38.

Reference is answered in the above terms in favor of

the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 651-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ ds

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 51@2007) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@59@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 651 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/

2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/59/2007-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 51 of 2007

Between-

The General Secretary,

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam

Mazdoor Sangathan,

47, Block Shiv Katra,

Krishna Nagar,

G.T. Road,

Kanpur

AND

The Sr. Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

3-C/T-V Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification no.L-22012/59/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 18.09.07,

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India, in not correcting the date of birth of

Sri Umesh Paswan as 01.10.56 instead of 01.10.50 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?

The case of the union on behalf of the worker is that

the worker at the time of joining the services under the

opposite party, recorded his date of birth as 01.11.56, but

with malafide intention the opposite party by making

interpolation in the date of birth got it recorded as 01.11.50

which is a glaring example of unfair labor practice. It is

further alleged that the form which was forwarded to the

Provident Fund Office by the opposite party his date of

birth is recorded as 01.10.56. It is also pleaded by the

union that in the history record of the worker against the

column of date of birth, by making over writing in his date

of birth it was made to read as 01.11.56 instead of

01.11.50. According to the provisions of certified

standing orders one date of birth is recorded in the

records of the opposite party and such records are in the

sole possession over which the worker has no control.

Lastly it is alleged that making change in the date of birth

of the worker is unfair labor practice, illegal, unnatural,

against principles of natural justice therefore, it is prayed

that by declaring the entire action of the opposite party

as illegal his date of birth be treated as 01.10.56 by

issuing appropriate directions to the opposite party.

1306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The opposite party denied the entire claim of the

worker in its entirety by alleging that the worker got his

date of birth entered at the time of appointment as 01.11.56

and it is also false to allege that the opposite party No.1

and 2 maliciously or malafidely interpolated the date of

birth of the worker as 01.11.50 in place 01.10.56. The worker

himself is not sure about his actual date of birth, so much

so, that at one place, it is alleged that the date of birth of

worker entered is 01.10.56 at the time of appointment, while

at other place date of birth has been changed as 01.10.56.

It is further alleged by the opposite party that it seems

that the date of birth in the returns submitted to the

Provident Fund Office has been inadvertently wrongly

written. It is to be mentioned that Provident Fund returns

submitted to the Provident Fund office are later process

and there are chances of committing mistake. But the

original record has to be seen and the worker cannot take

any advantage of the said typing error and according to

the Standing Order once th date of birth is recorded and

entered in the service record of the establishment, the

sole evidence of his age in relation to all his matter relating

his service including fixation of his date of retirement from

the establishment and all formalities regarding recording

the date of birth shall be finalized with three months of the

appointment of the worker. It is also provided in the

standing order that in case where the date of birth of any

workman had already been decided on the date of these

orders came into force i.e. 31.08.99, shall not be reopened.

In the present case the workman was appointed in 1984

and his date of birth had been decided at that time. The

matter cannot be reopened now. The workman has been

sleeping over the matter from 1984 to 2001. Opposite party

has also denied that interpolation or over writing in the

record has been done malafidely by the opposite party.

There was no motive or reason with the opposite party to

change the date of birth of the workman. It seems that the

workman in collusion with the office staff at Hapur got hi

date of birth changed to gain advantage by extension of

the service period. The perusal of the original service

record will show that in history card figure “10” in the

column of month has been changed to “11” and figure

“0” at the end of the column of years has been changed

to “6”. Further in the proforma submitted by the worker

through Union containing his photo and other Bio-data

is also in the custody of Hapur Depot where the worker

was originally appointed also contain the date of birth as

01.11.50 which has also been got changed in collusion

with the staff as 01.10.56 and a close scrutiny by microscope

would show the difference in the ink of the original writing

and over writing. The worker is relying on nomination

form an Provident fund and return form which have been

wrongly typed by over sight and the worker cannot take

any advantage of the said return. The claimant has not

filed any document in support of his date of birth nor has

any medical evidence been given when the dispute was

raised and in this connection the worker had ample

opportunity. It is admitted by the opposite party that

original records remain in the custody of the opposite

party but at the same time there is always scope for the

worker to approach and collude with the staff in getting

the date of birth changed. The opposite party denied

having committed any unfair labor practice in the case of

the worker.

By way of additional plea it is alleged by the opposite

party that in the register date of birth of the worker is

entered as 01.11.50 at serial no.120 and this register was

maintained at Hapur Depot of FCI. Accordingly date of

retirement was also recorded as 01.11.08, as at that time

the retirement age was 58 years. Fortunately the workman

could not reach that Bio-data register and could not get

any manipulation. A list of workers containing the entire

Bio-data was sent on 19.09.93 by District Manager FCI,

Hapur by Asstt. Manager (Labor) FSD Hapur. A copy of

this Bio-data was also sent to District Manager, FCI,

Kanpur on 09.01.2001 and the name of the worker is at serial

No.118 and date of birth of the worker is recorded as

01.10.50 on the basis of original card signed by the

representative of FCI Workers Union. The worker was

very well aware of his recorded date of birth since very

beginning but he had been sleeping over the matter and it

was only in 2001 when he was on the verge of retirement

that he sought he sought to get his date of birth changed

and in his efforts he any how managed to get changed the

date of birth and succeeded in getting the over writing

done. Therefore his effort for correction of the date of

birth is malafide in order to have wrongful gain by

extension of period of service by 6 years.

The present matter of the correction of age is not

an industrial dispute and is a personal right regarding the

terms of the contract of the service, therefore, union

cannot take up this matter in the present manner.

Lastly it is stated that in view of the circumstances

the petition is liable to be rejected.

The worker with his claim statement has filed paper

bearing no.4/4-7. The opposite party vide list of

documents dated 23.10.08 has filed 5 documents. Again

worker vide list of document dated 10.05.10 has filed 3

documents. All these documents filed by both the parties

are photocopies.

Worker vide application dated 14.09.11 has filed

carbon copy of the employees family pension scheme

declaration form.

10.

The opposite parties along with evidence on

affidavit of Sri Prem Chandra have also filed certain

documents out of which some are in original and some

are photocopies, relevancy of these documents will be

examined at appropriate stage.

11.

Worker with his affidavit has also filed photocopies

of certain documents which will also be examined at

appropriate stage.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1307

12.

On behalf of the Union one Tarni Kumar Paswan

examined himself as w.w.1 and worker examined himself as

w.w.2. On the other hand on behalf of the management

one Sri Prem Chand was examined as M.W.1.

13.

Tarni Kumar Paswan w.w.1 has simply stated about

the union and nothing has been stated by him regarding

merit of the case.

14.

W.W.2 worker Umesh Paswan in his evidence has

stated that at the time of appointment he has filled date of

birth as 1.10.56 on the application form and the same is in

the records of PF Office. But in his cross examination he

has admitted that there is cutting in the date of birth in his

form and history card wherein at place “0” figure “6” is

written by over writing. He was transferred from Hapur to

Kanpur. In the list of labors prepared by the department at

Hapur, he does not know that his date of birth is 1.10.50

and in other papers also his date of retirement is written

31.10.08/1.11.08. He has filed a paper of Provident Fund

which is paper no.4/6 wherein his date of birth is mentioned

as 1.10.56, which also bears his thumb impression. He has

denied that this paper was prepared in connivance with

other clerks of the department.

15.

On behalf of management Sri Prem Chand M.W.1

has filed affidavit and stated that at the time of appointment

of worker his date of birth was entered as 1.10.50 in history

card which was tempered later on and 1.10.56 was written

by over writing. In this regard in the list of labors filed by

the department his date of birth is mentioned as 1.10.50 at

serial no.120.

16.

I have heard the arguments of the parties at length

and have gone through the whole file carefully.

17.

Annexure-1 is the application for allotment of CPF

A/c number prepared by the department where date of

birth of Umesh Paswan is written clearly as 1.10.50. Original

History Card annexure 2 filed by M.W.2 and also admitted

by w.w.2 wherein date of birth of the worker is mentioned

as 1.10.50, but there appears some over writing at figure

“0”. Annexure 3 is proforma application form of worker

dated 21.08.84 wherein it clearly appears that in figure

date of birth is tempered in figure “6” is written by over

writing by figure “0”. It was held by Assistant Manager

that actual date of birth of Umesh Paswan is 1.10.50 and

over writing is done in his history card and bio-date.

Annexure-6 is statement showing bio-date of departmental

labors wherein at serial no.118 date of birth of the worker

is mentioned as 1.10.50. Besides this paper no.25/7 is

copy of register of department clearly establishes that

date of retirement of Umesh Paswan is 31.10.08/1.11.08

and his date of birth is to be 1.11.50.

18.

Worker has only placed reliance on paper no.24/2

which is carbon copy of declaration form of family pension

scheme relating to worker wherein date of birth of worker

is mentioned as 1.10.56. This paper is not admitted by the

management and it is contended that it got prepared by

worker in connivance with other clerks. Besides this no

reliance can be placed on this document as it is not very

material document specially in the circumstances

management has placed reliance on very material

documents discussed above, which establishes the date

of birth of worker to be 1.10.50.

19.

There is another aspect of the matter that annexure

4 letter of Assistant Manager dated 06.1.2001 clearly states

date of birth of worker to be 1.10.50 and annexure 6 the

statement is dated 30.09.93 wherein the date of birth of

Umesh Paswan at serial no.118 is mentioned as 01.10.50.

20.

Despite these papers worker kept silent for years

together and did not challenge these documents and at

the verge of retirement he raised the issue thus there

appears delay and latches on the part of the worker which

makes the case of the worker very doubtful as to why he

has not raised the issue within a reasonable period.

21.

In view of above discussions, I find that the worker

has palpably failed to establish his date of birth to be

1.10.56. Besides this his date of birth as proved from the

records is to be 1.10.50.

22.

Accordingly my answer to the reference order is

that the action of the management in not correcting the

date of birth of Sri Umesh Paswan as 1.10.56 instead of

01.10.50 is legal and justified. Therefore, worker cannot be

granted any relief pursuant to the reference order.

23.

Reference is answered accordingly against the

worker/union and in favor of management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 652 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ulh,y ds

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 64@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@13@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 652 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/

2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Northern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/13/2010-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

1308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 64 of 2010

Between-

The Secretary,

Koyla Udyog Kamgar Sanghthan,

Branch Office MQ 1, NCL Khadia Project,

Shakti Nagar,

Sonebhadhra

And

The General Manager,

Northern Coalfield Limited,

PO Singrauli,

Sindhi (M.P.)

AWARD

Central Government by notification no.L-22012/13/

2010-IR(CM-II) dated 02.08.2010, has referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

Whether the action of the management in issuing

promotion order of claimant (Non Diploma Holder) later

than the issuance of promotion order of Diploma Holders

through the DPC of claimant were held earlier, is legal and

justified? To what relief is the claimants entitled for?

In the instant case the statement of claim has been

filed on behalf of 31 effected workers by the Secretary of

the Sanghthan. The concerned workers are working at

different projects situate at different places in U.P. and

M.P. and service conditions of the workers are governed

by the management. The concerned workers were

appointed as non diploma holders and the promotion

policies are decided through bipartite settlement from time

to time. According to the promotion policy for granting

promotions to the worker, management constitute DPC from

time to time and the workers are selected and promoted

on the basis of interview and considering the performance

after preparing a list on the basis of seniority. Secretary

has also filed a list of workers along with his affidavit and

on the basis of that it has been alleged that the management

held interview through DPC of the workers 29.10.01 to

promote them as Foreman. It is further alleged that according

to rules of promotion policy result of interview should

be declared within a month from the date of interview and

in case suitable incumbents could not be appointed and

subsequently appointed then it will be presumed that they

have been given promotion from the date of DPC held.

But this policy have been violated by the employer and

the concerned workers were not given promotion from

the date DPC and interview held by the management.

Accordingly they are entitled to be treated to be promoted

from the date of DPC held. Accordingly relief may be granted.

The claim of the union has been resisted by the

Union on a number of grounds interalia the person raising

the dispute should prove that he is member and secretary

of the union. Sri Ram Prakash one of the claimant amongst

31 workers was initially appointed as Craftsman Trainee

Cat.1 electrician on 11.3.83 at Amlohri Project and later on

transferred to Khadia Project and is still working there. He

along with other 31 workers are non diploma holders who

are working at different projects of the management. All of

them have been promoted as Assistant Foreman Gr.B on

18.10.02 as per norms of the company. D.P.C. HQ Singrauli

met on 1.10.01 and 3.10.02 to consider the cases of Assistant

Foreman (E&M) Gr.C (non diploma holders) who have

completed the prescribed cadre scheme for the promotion

to the post of foreman (E&M) Gr.B and one other DPC met

on 29.10.01 to consider the cases of Assistant Foreman Gr.

C (Diploma Holders) who have completed the prescribed

cadre scheme for the promotion to the post of Foreman

(E&M) Gr. B. The assertion of the union that if promotion

order not issued within one month from the date of

interview the order should be effective from the date of

interview is not correct a it has already been modified

General Manager Manpower vide circular dated 14.06.93

and after the issue of promotion order dated 18.10.02 one

another order dated 3/5.12.02 was issued by the General

Manager in which national seniority of promotion given to

all the 31 foreman (non diploma holder from 24.04.2002.

Therefore, the case of the workers cannot be considered

for promotion with the interview date hence there is no

merit in the case and the industrial dispute is not

maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

The union filed paper no.3/3-19 along with paper

no.3/1-2. Sri Ram Gopal Gupta signatory of the claim petition

along with his affidavit has filed a list of workers and again

he filed list of 31 workers through paper no.8/1-2.

Management also have filed certain documents with their

reply.

Thereafter union stopped attending the proceedings

of the case for the last several dates which leads to one

and only one inference that union is not interested to

prosecute its claim.

None of the parties have adduced oral as well as

failed to prove documents filed in support of their

respective cases by adducing cogent evidence.

Thus it is a case of no evidence. Under the facts and

circumstances of the case the tribunal is of the view that

the reference is bound to be decided against the union for

want of proof.

Accordingly it is held that the union is not entitled

for any relief as claimed by it for want of proof. Reference is

answered accordingly against the union.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1309

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 653 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ulh,y ds

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

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 64@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@68@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 653 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/

2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Northern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/68/2008-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 64 of 08

Between-

The Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Shramik Sangh,

Joomde Bhawan, Sector B Colony,

Dudhichua District Sindhi (M.P.).

And

The Chief General Manager,

Northern Coalfield Limited,

Dudhichua Project,

Sonebhadra,

U.P.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide

notification no. L-22012/68/2008-IR (CM-II) dated

26.08.08, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the demand of Bhartiya Koyla Khadan

Shramik Sangh for promotion of Sri TND Pandey in Grade.1

w.e.f. 04.07.92 followed by Senior Grade w.e.f.4.07.95 and in

special grade w.e.f. 4.07.95 is legal and justified? If so to

what relief is the claimant entitled?

Case of the claimant in short is that he is worker in

the above dispute and he has been denied his promotion

on the post of Dumper Operator Gr.1 w.e.f. 04.07.92 as also

he has been declared promoted w.e.f. 3.3.94 violating the

promotion rules of Koyla Khadan Udyog in which it has

been clearly mentioned that operator grade II who has

completed his three years experience in this grade and in

this connection it is clarified that the worker concerned

was regularized on the post of dumper operator grade II

with effect from 04.07.89 vide order dated 15.12.89.

Accordingly the worker should have been promoted on

the post of operator grade 1 on 4.7.92 in conformity with

the promotion rules of the company. It is also alleged that

other workers of the same category who were junior to the

worker have been promoted prior to the promotion of the

workman as such worker has been denied to his rightful

claim of the pay scale equal to those who have been

promoted earlier. According to promotion rules applicable

to dumper operators clearly indicates that dumper operator

grade 1 who has completed 3 years service shall be

promoted on the post of senior dumper operator and since

the worker has completed three years service on the post

of operator grade 1 he should have been promoted to the

post of senior dumber operator w.e.f. 4.7.95 whereas worker

concerned has wrongly been promoted with effect from

5.5.98. Worker has been promoted to the post of dumper

operator special grade with effect from 20.03.04 instead

04.07.98 on the basis of promotion rules applicable to him.

Worker has also been denied the benefit of pay fixation in

higher pay scale at the time of his promotion as such he

has been deprived of benefit of Fundamental Rule 22(B),

therefore all pay fixations which is to be done at the time of

each promotion may be allowed one notional increment of

his burtantive post and next stage in the scale of promotion

post.

On the basis of above, the union has claimed that

worker be deemed to have been promoted on the post of

dumper operator grade 1 w.e.f. 4.07.92 followed by senior

dumper operator with effect from 04.07.95 and senior

dumper operator special grade 1 with effect from

04.07.98 with all benefits admissible to the post with

effect from the dates of promotion and order the opposite

party to pay arrears of the same along with suitable cost

to the authorized representative.

The claim of the union has been refuted by the

opposite party mainly on the ground that the reference

order is bad in law. Promotion is the administrative function

of the management and the union can have no say in such

matters and it can be hardly disputed before any court of

law or tribunal as also it is well settled law that promotion

cannot be claimed as a matter of right. For promotion

other factors such as work, conduct, merit, past records

and seniority are also considered and since the work and

conduct of the worker was not satisfactory hence the worker

had not been considered for promotion from the date as

1310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

alleged in the reference order but he had been promoted

later on when he became eligible as per the cadre scheme

of the employer. Worker has committed serious

misconduct on 21.09.99 and earlier also, he had been

involved in certain other illegal activities and accordingly

he was found habitual for committing misconduct and he

had been charge sheeted earlier also along with charge

sheet dated 7.10.99 and after due inquiry the services of

the worker had been terminated vide order dated 22.09.99

and the worker has been reinstated in the service in

compliance of order of the Hon’ble High Court passed

on 01.10.99 and the matter is still sub-judice before the

Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad, and in view of above

reference order is bad in law and the worker is not entitled

for promotion from the dates as alleged in the reference

order. The employees are promoted from the post of

Dumper Operator grade 2 to grade 1 after successful

working of three years in present grade under the cadre

scheme of the company and accordingly the service of

Sri Pandey became regularized on the post of dumper

operator grade 2 on 3.8.89. Work and conduct of Sri

Pandey was not found satisfactory and he was found unfit

for promotion by the competent authority as such, Sri

Pandey committed a serious misconduct and a disciplinary

proceedings became pending against the worker and he

was warned but when the chance of Sri Pandey came his

case for promotion had been considered by the

departmental promotion committee and on the

recommendation of the said committee Sri Pandey had

been promoted on the pot of dumper operator on 3.3.94

and the worker had again been promoted on the post of

senior duper operator on 5.5.98 on the recommendation

of departmental promotion committee and under the same

process he was promoted as dumper operator (special

grade) on 20.03.04.

On the basis of above it is prayed that the worker is

not entitled for any relief of promotion from the dates

mentioned in the reference order and the claim of the

worker is liable to be rejected.

Worker has also filed rejoinder but nothing new has

been mentioned therein except reiterating the facts

already pleaded in the claim petition.

Worker has examined himself as m.w.1 whereas

management has examined its officer K Ravindra as

M.W.1. Both parties have also filed documents which shall

be discussed at the appropriate stage.

I have heard the arguments of both sides and have

perused the records of the case.

10.

In brief contention of worker is that he had been

denied promotion on dumber operator grade 1 on 4.7.92

and wrongly promoted with effect from 3.3.94 violating

promotion rules. His services were regularized on the post

of dumper operator grade 2 with effect from 4.7.89

accordingly he should have been promoted on this post

on 4.7.92. It is also alleged that after completion of three

years of service he should have been promoted to the post

of senior dumper operator with effect from 4.7.95 whereas

he has been given promotion on this post with effect from

5.5.98. It is further alleged that he had been promoted as

dumper operator special grade 1 with effect from 20.03.04

instead 4.7.98. It is alleged that he promotion of the worker

should be made every after 3 years according to promotion

rules.

11.

Briefly stated facts as set up by the management is

that the worker has been given his due promotions s [per

his entitlement according to promotion rules and there is

no illegality or irregularity in the case of the worker in

granting promotions at various levels as dumper operator.

He had been awarded several adverse entries warning and

charge sheets and even his services were terminated vide

order dated 22.09.99 by the employer after following due

disciplinary action as per rules of the company. Being

aggrieved by this order the worker has filed writ petition

no.22311 of 99 before Hon’ble High Court Allahabad ad a

per interim stay order dated 1.10.93 worker has been

reinstated. As the matter is still sub-judice the reference

order is bad in law and secondly reference is bad as the

present dispute raised is highly belated.

12.

It is also contended by the employer that the worker

has deliberately concealed the fact of his termination and

his reinstatement on the basis of an interim order of the

Hon’ble High Court and the matter is still sub judice and

the worker has not come with clean hands before this

tribunal hence he is not entitled for any sympathy in his

favor. It is also contended by the representative for the

management that had the above facts been brought in the

knowledge of the conciliation officer by the union in that

event appropriate government would not have referred the

matter before this tribunal.

13.

It is admitted to both the parties that the worker TND

Pandey had been appointed as driver under the opposite

party in the year 1986 and had been promoted as dumper

operator grade2 on 4.7.89. Management has also filed

copy of certified standing orders of which paper no.7/15

provides that for promotion to the post of senior dumper

operator special grade 1, senior dumber operator category

A ad dumper operator grade 1, 10 years, 8 years and 5

years experience is required.

14.

It is necessary to point out that no employee can

claim promotion unless he attributes satisfactory service

and promotion cannot be granted or claimed as a matter

of right.

15.

M.W.1 Sri K Ravindran, Dy. Manager Personnel NCL

has stated on oath that TND pandey has joined as driver

on 20.06.86 and after having training he was regularized

as dumper operator grade 2 on 3.8.89 and his promotion

and his promotion was due after three years but due to

misconduct of worker several times he was warned orally

and in writing and was also given charge sheet and

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1311

therefore, he was promoted to dumper operator senior

on 5.5.98 and thereafter as dumper operator special grade

on 20.3.04. He has proved documents filed by the

management regarding misconduct of worker which are

paper nos 10/5, 10/8, 10/9, 10/12-13, 10/18-24, 10/27-28.

16.

On perusal of these papers it appears that worker

was given warning on 11.6.87 (paper no.10/5). His work

was found below average in the period 19.7.86 to 18.7.87

(paper no.10/6), worker was awarded warning on 13.2.88

(paper no. 16/8), again warned on 3.6.89 (paper no.10/9), he

was given charge sheet on 17.4.90 (paper no.10/12),

warning letter (paper no.1013), letter issued to improve his

working dated 6/19.10.90 (paper no. 10/16), he was found

unfit for promotion by entry dated 21.09.90 (paper no.10/

17), again given charge sheet dated 4.1.92 (paper no. 10/

18), warning letter (paper no. 10/19), again given charge

sheet dated 26.05.92 (paper no. 10/20), letter issued

assessing his work to be unsatisfactory by letter dated

12.9.93 (paper no.10/21), given charge sheet on 4.12.92

(paper no. 10/23), again give charge sheet on 16.10.95 (paper

no.10/24), again given charge sheet on 22.4.94 (paper no.10/

28), again given charge sheet on 31.3.96 (paper no.10/31),

letter issued to worker to operate dumper no. K-50 which is

kept on his record dated 4.4.96 (paper no.10/33), warning

letter dated 29.10.97 (paper no.10/35).

17.

These are documents showing working of the worker

to be unsatisfactory for several years. Even then his

services were regularized as dumper operator grade 2 with

effect from 4.7.89 by the letter dated 15.12.89 (paper no. 10/

11) and the date of regularization was corrected with effect

from 3.8.89 by order 24.5.90 and his scale is found to be

revised which reveals that he was promoted to higher scale

and thereafter he was promoted dumper operator grade A

by letter dated 5.5.98 (paper no.10/36) and the worker was

promoted to senior dumper operator special grade by order

dated 20.3.04 (paper no. 10/46).

18.

From the above discussions, I come to the

conclusion that delay in promotion of worker TND Pandey

was due to his bad antecedent as stated above and the

demand of union for his promotion from the dates given

in the reference order appears to be unjustified.

19.

Moreover, the present dispute appears to have been

raised at highly belated stage with concealments of material

facts regarding his termination and his reinstatement in

compliance of interim orders of the High Court.

20.

With these observations the reference is decided

against the union and in favor of the management.

Reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 654 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ulh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 74@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@91@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 654 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of NCL

Khadia Project and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/91/2011-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 74 of 2011

Between-

Sri Chhatu Singh,

Regional Secretary Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

(In relation to worker Sri Amarjeet Singh)

Regional Office B-439, NCL Khadia,

District Sonebhadra

U. P.

And

The Chief General Manager,

NCL Khadia Project,

District Sonebhadra

U. P.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide

notification no.L-22012/91/2011-IR(CM-II) dated

28.07.2011, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, NCL Khadia Project District Sonebhadra

in refusing to amend the date of birth of Sri Amarjeet Singh,

Drugline Operator as 5.5.56 in their records is just fair

and legal? To what relief the workman is entitled to?

The case of the union as set by it on behalf of the

worker is that the worker was appointed by the opposite

1312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

party on 1.4.74 and his date of birth was recorded in all

statutory records as 5.5.56. The worker was unmarried

at the time of entry into the employment of the opposite

party and when he got married he moved an application

for change of nomination in the CMPF records and worker

became surprised to know that his date of birth in the

statutory records had been corrected as 25.03.52. He

coming to know about the said discrepancy made oral as

well as written representations for change in the date of

birth and the respondents assured that his date of birth

will be changed. Worker also submitted an affidavit for

change in date of birth as 28.03.52. It is further submitted

that when nothing has been done in the matter, union

raised a dispute before ALC© Allahabad and upon receipt

of failure of conciliation report the appropriate government

made the above reference to this tribunal.

On the basis of above it has been prayed that the

date of birth of the worker deserved to be corrected in the

official records of the company and he has every right to

continue in the service of the opposite party.

Opposite party has filed its reply vehemently

denying the claim of the worker. It is admitted by the

opposite party that the worker had joined as General

Mazdoor on 1.4.74. The management has denied that the

worker concerned at the time of his joining entered his

date of birth as 5.5.56 in all statutory records as alleged.

The hard fact is that at the time of appointment an initial

medical examination was done of the worker on 28.4.74

and his date of birth was recorded in medical report as 22

year i.e. 28.3.52. In all statutory and service records, which

have been duly acknowledged by the workman at the

relevant time. The date of birth of the worker is clearly

mentioned as 28.3.52 in service book. All the above records

had already been duly counter signed by the worker in

token of his acceptance. The master health check up is

not a statutory record and the date of birth mentioned on

that form is recorded as stated by the worker concerned

at the time of periodical health check up on 26.4.07, therefore,

it is wrong to say that while entering into service at Khadia

Project the date of birth of the worker was entered in all

statutory records as 5.5.56 as alleged. In the form PS-3

the date of birth was recorded 5.5.56 by the worker

concerned which was corrected as 28.3.52 as per office

records and the copy of the same was given to the worker.

The worker has submitted notarized affidavit dated 27.5.2010

at the fag end of his retirement in which he has stated his

date of birth 5.5.56 hence the affidavit for date of birth

at this highly belated stage is not acceptable. The worker

submitted Form A for change of nominee in CMPF record

on 5.5.10 and deliberately mentioned his date of birth as

5.5.56 which was brought to his notice that his date of

birth is 28.3.52, and thereafter the worker corrected his

date of birth in Form A in his own hand writing as 28.3.52

and put his signature where correction in date of birth

was made by him. It is emphatically denied that the employer

has interpolated behind his back the date of birth of the

worker in Form B as alleged. On the basis of above, it is

prayed that the claim of the worker is devoid of merit

and is liable to be rejected.

Worker Amarjeet Singh examined himself as w.w.1

and on behalf of management Vinayak Shanker, Assistant

Manager, was examined as M.W.1. Both the parties have

filed documents which shall be discussed at the relevant

stage.

I have heard the arguments of both the parties at

length and have also perused the records carefully.

Brief facts of the claim is that worker Amarjeet

Singh was appointed as Mazdoor on 1.4.74 in Northern

Coal Field Limited Khadia Project and at the time of entry

in service his date of birth in all the statutory records as

5.5.56 recorded and after his marriage when he made an

application for change of nomination he was surprised

to see that his date of birth was mentioned as 28.3.52.

Then he made oral as well as written representation for

change of his date of birth and he was assured that his

date of birth will be changed. He has filed copy of affidavit

date 27.5.2010 which was given to the management for

correction of his age and copy of application dated 5.3.11

given to the management for correction of his date of

birth.

The case of the management is that it is admitted

by the opposite party that the worker had joined as

General Mazdoor on 1.4.74. The management has denied

that the worker concerned at the time of his joining

entered his date of birth as 5.5.56 in all statutory records

as alleged. The hard fact is that at the time of appointment

an initial medical examination was done of the worker

on 28.4.74 and his date of birth was recorded in medical

report as 22 year i.e. 28.3.52. In all statutory and service

records, which have been duly acknowledged by the

workman at the relevant time. The date of birth of the

worker is clearly mentioned as 28.3.52 in service book.

All the above records had already been duly counter signed

by the worker in token of his acceptance. The master

health check up is not a statutory record and the date of

birth mentioned on that form is recorded as stated by the

worker concerned at the time of periodical health check

up on 26.4.07, therefore, it is wrong to say that while

entering into service at Khadia Project the date of birth

of the worker was entered in all statutory records as

5.5.56 as alleged. In the form PS-3 the date of birth was

recorded 5.5.56 by the worker concerned which was

corrected as 28.3.52 as per office records and the copy

of the same was given to the worker. The worker has

submitted notarized affidavit dated 27.5.2010 at the fag

end of his retirement in which he has stated his date of

birth 5.5.56 hence the affidavit for date of birth at this

highly belated stage is not acceptable. The worker

submitted Form A for change of nominee in CMPF record

on 5.5.10 and deliberately mentioned his date of birth as

5.5.56 which was brought to his notice that his date of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1313

birth is 28.3.52, and thereafter the worker corrected his

date of birth in Form A in his own hand writing as 28.3.52

and put his signature where correction in date of birth

was made by him. It is emphatically denied that the

employer has interpolated behind his back the date of

birth of the worker in Form B as alleged.

10.

W.W.1 worker has admitted that at the time of his

appointment no document regarding his date of birth was

given by him and orally he has told about his age to 19-

20 years. He was medically examined. He has admitted

that he has signed his service book and has also admitted

that he came to know about his date of birth in 2010 and

thereafter he raised his objection. He further admitted

that he had not raised any dispute with regard to his date

of birth till 27.5.2010 as he presumed is date of birth

must be written correctly.

11.

M.W.1 Sri Vinayak Shanker Assistant Manager of

management has also supported the versions of the

management that at the time of appointment of worker

his date of birth was mentioned as 28.3.52 on the basis

of medical report and he has not given any certificate of

his educational qualification showing his date of birth

and after the medical examination he also made his

signature over the medical record. He has cleverly filled

up application for change of nomination mentioning his

date of birth as 5.5.56.

12.

Worker has relied upon the circular of management

paper no. 20-24 wherein it is written that in the case of

appointment who had pursued studies in the recognized

educational institutions the date of birth recorded in the

school leaving certificate shall be treated as correct and

the same will not be altered. It is also given that in case

of illiterate persons the date of birth will be determined

by the medical officer.

13.

Paper no. 13/13-14 is medical examination report

of worker conducted at the time of appointment I which

his age is recorded 22 years and the worker has also

made his signature on this medical report and on the basis

of this report his date of birth was mentioned in his

service book as 28.3.52 which is also said to have been

signed by the worker and in all the other relevant

documents made available by the management his date

of birth is mentioned as 28.3.52 and on the representation

of worker report of staff officer paper no. 13/6 was

prepared and filed in the case where it has been clearly

mentioned that on the basis of medical report his date of

birth was recorded as 28.3.52 and worker has made his

signature over it and the worker has submitted his

representation after expiry of 37 years of service, which

cannot be accepted.

14.

In other document paper no.14/7-8 by which he was

given promotion his date of birth was mentioned as

28.3.52.

15.

From the above discussions, I come to the

conclusion that worker has not submitted any proof of his

age at the time of his appointment and therefore, his age

was ascertained by is medical examination which was

accepted by making his signature and same age mentioned

in his service book and in all the other records. Worker

has filled up few forms by mentioning his wrong date of

birth but he could not succeed and made his representation

for correcting his age as 5.5.56 after 37 years of his service

when he was at the verge of his retirement which was

turned down by the management.

16.

Hon’ble Apex Court in 1993-11 CLR page 193

Union of India versus Harnam Singh has held that just

before a few months before superannuation seeking

correction in date of birth, his inaction for all the period

of 35 years precludes him from showing that entry of

his date of birth in records is not correct.

17.

In another case of Hon’ble Apex Court in 1996 LLR

585, Union of India Versus Ram Sua Sharma has held that

court of tribunal at the belated stage cannot entertain claim

for correction of date of birth duly entered in the service

records.

18.

Therefore, from the above, worker has failed to prove

his case that the management has not recorded his date of

birth correctly or has made alteration in the recorded date

of birth or has not recorded his date of birth correctly as

5.5.56 because his long silence for 37 years in accepting

his date of birth as 28.3.52 and not raising any hue and cry

or not making any representation for correction in his date

of birth precludes himself for raising his objection at the

verge of his retirement is sufficient ground to hold that

the action of the management in refusing to amend the

date of birth of the worker as 5.5.56 in their records is just

fair and legal. Union or worker is therefore, not entitled for

any relief pursuant to the present reference order.

Reference is answered accordingly against the

worker/union and in favor of the management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 655 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

xksnkojh[kkUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 17@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 655 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial

1314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/17/

2011) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016-IR (C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI

ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI

Present : SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.17 OF 2011

Friday, the 26th day of February, 2016

Between:-

Budida Gattaiah,

S/o. Ramulu (died),

per L.Rs.,

Budida Swaroopa,

W/o. Late Gattaiah,

Age 41 years, Occ: House wife.

Budida Manjula Devi,

D/o. Late Gattaiah,

Age 27 years

Budida Keerthi Priya,

D/o. Late Gattaiah,

Age 13 years.

All are R/o.Chandrashekhar Nagar,

Godavarikhani

...Petitioners

And

The Chief General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.,

Ramagundam Area-I,

PO: Godavarikhani,

Dist.Karimnagar.

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.,

PO. Kothagudem,

Dist.Khammam

...Respondents

This case coming before me for final hearing in

the presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

respondents; and having been heard and having stood over

for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the

following:-

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A) (2) of I.D. Act

praying to set aside the dismissal order dt.04-5-2000

passed by the Respondent No.1 and grant all consequential

benefits to the petitioners 2 to 4 who are the L.Rs., of

the deceased 1st petitioner.

Allegations in the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner No.2 to 4 are the Legal Heirs of

late Budida Gattaiah, ex-employee of the respondents’

company who was appointed in the year, 1980. He was

dismissed from service on 7-5-2000. His health was

not good, he used to remain absent in the year 1999 for

that Respondent No.1 issued charge sheet, he explained

his inability of his ill-health. The respondents’ company

initiated disciplinary action against Budida Gattaiah, ex-

employee under 25:25 of standing orders of company

and dismissed him from service. The said

Nagabhushanam, ex-employee had put in 20 years of

service. Because of ill-health, he could not attend his

duties in 1999. The respondents’ company did not

conduct a fair and proper enquiry. Respondents have

adopted unfair labour practice against Budida Gattaiah,

ex-employee. As per the advise of R-1, Budida Gattaiah,

ex-employee attended interview before the High Power

Committee,

Kothagudem

21-4-2005, but he was not given employment. Hence,

they pray to allow the petition.

In response to this challenge, respondents filed

counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The

respondents company being mining industry is a Central

Government subject and the petitioner ought to have

approached the CGIT, Hyderabad. This petition is not

maintainable before this Court and is liable to be

dismissed.

The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall

be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry

of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in sub-section (1). Budida Gattaiah, ex-

employee was dismissed from service in the year 2000.

The petitioner kept quiet for all these years and filed this

petition after lapse of 10 years which is barred by

limitation U/Sec.2A(3) of Industrial Disputes

Amendment Act, 2010. Budida Gattaiah, ex-employee

was initially appointed in the respondents company as

Badli Filler on 28-04-1980 and was dis-empanelled from

service in the year 1985 due to his poor performance

and absenteeism. Later he was appointed as afresh Badli

Filler vide office order dt. 26-6-1990 and re-appointed

as coal filler on 01-09-1995. The petitioner was

irregular to his duties. According to Section 52(2) of

the Mines Act, 1952 an underground employee is

required to put in minimum musters of 190 and surface

employee is expected to put in minimum of 240 musters.

The following attendance particulars of the petitioner

indicate the fact that the petitioner was not regular to his

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1315

duties and in no year he had put in 190 musters during

the period from 1996 to 2000.

Sl.No.

Year

No. of musters

1996

110

1997

1998

1999

May, 2000

During the period from January, 1998 to

December, 1998, the petitioner had put in only 49

musters. As the above act amounted to misconduct under

Standing Orders Clause No.25.25 of the company, the

petitioner was charge sheeted as under:-

“Clause 25.25 – Habitual late attendance or habitual

absence from duty without sufficient cause”.

After considering the documentary evidence and

other evidence on record, the enquiry officer submitted

his unbiased report holding that the petitioner is guilty

of misconduct under company standing orders. The

enquiry officer conducted the enquiry duly following the

principles of natural justice and the petitioner participated

in the enquiry. During the enquiry Budida Gattaiah, ex-

employee, ex-employee stated that due to ill-health, he

could not attend his duties and therefore he remained

absent to his duties and voluntarily accepted the charge

levelled against him. The respondents’ company, having

gone through the past record of Budida Gattaiah, ex-

employee, was constrained to dismiss him from service.

Hence, his case does not fall within the ambit of the

Memorandum of Settlements.

Therefore,

the

respondents pray to dismiss the petition without granting

any relief to the LRs., of the deceased Budida Gattaiah,

ex-employee.

During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-3

and Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-11 are marked.

Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on

record.

On a consideration of respective contentions of

the parties, the following points require to be

determined:-

1. “Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction?”

2. “Whether the petitioners (LRs of the deceased

workman) are entitled to any relief?”

POINT No:1. As per the Judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11 between

U. Chinnappa And Cotton Corporation of India, this Court

has got jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the

petitioner. Hence, the point is accordingly answered in

favour of the petitioners.

Point No. 2:- The petitioner No.1 was initially

appointed as Badli Filler and he was dis-empanelled from

service in the year 1985 due to poor performance and

absenteeism. He was again appointed as afresh Badli

Filler in the year 1990 and re-appointed as Coal Filler

on 1-9-1995. The attendance particulars from the year

1996 as furnished in the counter are:-

Sl.No.

Year

No. of musters

1996

110

1997

1998

1999

May, 2000

Charge sheet dt.10-3-1999 was issued for his

absenteeism during the year 1998 and for putting only 49

musters which is marked as Ex.M-1. Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-5 are

enquiry notices issued to the petitioner No.1. The enquiry

officer’s report marked as Ex.M-7 shows that the charge

levelled against the petitioner No.1 was proved and he

was dismissed from service by order dt.4-5-2000 under

Ex.M-11.

10.

As can be seen from the above record produced

before this court, the attendance of the deceased workman

was very poor from the year 1996 till 2000. Even prior to

that, he was dis-empanelled from service in the year 1985

due to poor performance and absenteeism. He was re-

appointed as afresh Badli Filler in the year 1990 and

re-appointed as Coal Filler w.e.f., 1-9-1995. He was

dismissed from service by order dt.4-5-2000. He raised

the Industrial Dispute assailing the above dismissal order

in the year 2011. After his death, his LRs., have come on

record. Considering the long delay of nearly 12 years

and also the long rope given by the respondents prior to

his dismissal i.e., reappointing him in the year 1990, his

failure to offer any explanation for his absenteeism

during charge sheeted year and during the previous years

from 1997 to 2000 as shown in the above tabular, this

court is of the considered opinion that there are no

mitigating circumstances to interfere with the

punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the

respondents; and I hold that this is not a fit case to exercise

the discretionary powers vested U/Sec.11-A of ID Act.

Under these circumstances, this petition is liable to be

dismissed for want of merits. Accordingly, the petition

is dismissed, but without any costs.

11.

In the result, the petition is dismissed, but without

any costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of

February, 2016.

SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

1316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman :

For Management :

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman:-

Ex.W-1 Dt. 13-07-2006 Demand letter, x.copy

Ex.W-2 Dt. 05-05-2000 Letter issued to petitioner

that his name was removed

from rolls, x.copy

Ex.W-3 Dt. 12-04-2005 Letter issued to petitioner to

attend interview before High

Power Committee

For Management:-

Ex.M-1

Dt. 10-03-1999

Charge sheet

Ex.M-2

Dt. 19-05-1999

Enquiry notice with ack.,

Ex.M-3

Dt. 20-09-1999

Enquiry notice along with

ack.,

Ex.M-4

Dt. 13-01-2000

Enquiry notice along with

ack.,

Ex.M-5

Dt. 18-01-2000

Enquiry notice along with

ack.,

Ex.M-6

Dt. 24-01-2000

Enquiry proceedings.

Ex.M-7

Dt. 03-02-2000

Enquiry report.

Ex.M-8 Dt. 10-03-2000 Show cause notice

Ex.M-9 Dt. 24-03-2000 Undelivered postal returned

cover with ack.,

Ex.M-10 Dt. 15-04-2000 Petitioner’s

name

was

published in Vaartha daily

newspaper

Ex.M-11 Dt. 04-05-2000 Dismissal order.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 656 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

xksnkojh[kkUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 21@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 656 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/21/2015) as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of SCCL and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016-IR (C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI

ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI

Present : SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21 OF 2015

Friday, the 26th day of February, 2016

Between:-

Erikilla Rajam, S/o. Yellaiah,

E.No.2823983, coal Filler,

RK NT Incline, R/o. Singapuram,

Mandal Mancherial,

Dist.Adilabad

...Petitioner

A n d

1. The General Manager, SC Co.Ltd.,

Srirampoor, Post Srirampoor,

Dist.Adilabad.

2. The Chief Managing Director,

SC Co.Ltd., Red Hills, Singareni Bhavan,

Lakdikapool, Hyderabad

...Respondents

This case coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

respondents; and having been heard and having stood over

for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the

following:-

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D., Act

challenging the dismissal of the petitioner by the

respondents praying for his reinstatement into service

with continuity of service, all attendant benefits and full

back wages or VRS, GHS or VRS LPE 2008.

Petitioner was dismissed from service by the

respondents vide office order dt.05-01-2007 with the

following charge.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1317

CHARGE:-

“Habitual absence from duty without sufficient

cause”.

Petitioner challenges his dismissal order as follows.

He was appointed on 1-1-1980. The petitioner discharged

his duties to the fullest satisfaction of his superiors till

2007. As the health of petitioner deteriorated in 2004 and

2005, he used to absent. The respondent issued charge

sheet and dismissed him from service on 5-1-2007. The

respondent conducted enquiry and the petitioner

participated in the enquiry. Petitioner requested the

management to consider the case under VRS, GHS of

company as he was fit person to claim benefits and the

company also initiated VRS LPE scheme of Rs.5.00 Lakhs

to each employee and the company considered the cases

of several persons, but in the instant case, the company

adopted unfair labour practice. Petitioner was getting

salary of Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of his dismissal

and he is going to retire on 15-12-2016. Punishment of

dismissal from service is extremely harsh, highly excessive

and shockingly disproportionate. Hence, the petitioner

prays to allow the petition.

In response to this challenge, respondents filed

counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The

petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 2007.

The petitioner kept quiet for all these years and filed this

petition after lapse of 8 years which is barred by limitation

U/Sec.2A(3) of Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 2010.

The petitioner was appointed in the respondents company

as Badli Filler on 10-04-1987. The petitioner was

irregular to his duties. According to Section 52(2) of

the Mines Act, 1952 an underground employee is required

to put in minimum musters of 190 and surface employee

is expected to put in minimum of 240 musters. The

petitioner was a chronic absentee, had put in only 71

musters in the year 2005. The following attendance

particulars of the petitioner indicate the fact that the

petitioner was not regular to his duties.

Sl.No.

Year No. of musters.

1998

1999

124

2000

107

2001

2002

2003

2004

125

2005

2006

During the period from January, 2005 to December,

2005, the petitioner had put in only 71 musters. As the

above act amounted to misconduct under Standing Orders

Clause No.25.25 of the company, the petitioner was

charge sheeted. After considering the documentary

evidence and other evidence on record, the enquiry officer

submitted his unbiased report holding that the petitioner

is guilty of misconduct under company standing orders.

The respondents company after considering the past

record of the petitioner and on findings that there were

no extenuating circumstances for taking a lenient view

was constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service.

The respondents’ company conducted the enquiry

proceedings duly in accordance with the principles of

natural justice and law giving full opportunity to the

petitioner who participated in the enquiry. Therefore,

the respondents pray to dismiss the petition without

granting any relief to the petitioner.

During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-5

and Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-9 are marked.

Counsel for the petitioner filed Memo U/Sec. 11-

A of I.D., Act stating that he is not challenging the validity

of domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent and

prayed this Tribunal to decide the quantum of relief to

which the petitioner is entitled.

Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on

record.

Written arguments are filed by respondents.

10.

The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the petition is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be

reinstated into service?

11.

POINT No.1:- Section 2 of ID Act as prevalent in

this State does not prescribe any limitation. Period of 3

years provided under Sub-Sec.3 of Central enactment is

not made applicable in this State. Further under Sec.5 of

Limitation Act, the delay if any can be condoned taking

into consideration the explanation offered by the

petitioner in the main petition itself and that filing of

formal application for condonation of delay is not sine

qua non for exercising the power to condone the delay

available to the authorities, as per the decision of the

Hon’ble High Court reported in 2015 (2) ALT 534

between Gadde Krishna Murthy and others Vs., Mandal

Revenue Officer, Seethanagaram, East Godavari District

& others. Further Sec.5 and Article 137 of Limitation

Act are not applications confined to CPC and the words

“any other applications” under Article 137 would be any

application under any Act made to a court, as per the

decision of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 2014 (6)

ALT 543 between Desam Venkateswara Reddy and others

Vs., Special Deputy Collector & Competent Authority

(Land Acquisition), Gas Authority of India Ltd., Vijayawada

and another. Considering all the above facts, I hold that this

1318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of bar of

limitation. This point is accordingly answered in favour of

petitioner. The petitioner did file a petition before this

Tribunal, it was not registered and the petitioner filed a

writ seeking registration of the petition. Therefore, it cannot

be stated that there was inordinate delay in approaching

this Tribunal. This point is answered in favour of petitioner.

12.

POINT No.2:- Admittedly the petitioner was

punished for unauthorized absenteeism in the year 2002

by reduction of two special piece rated allowance (SPRA),

by order dt.16-3-2005. According to the respondent, the

attendance of the petitioner was poor during the years,

2005 & 2006 also. The petitioner was appointed in the

year 1980 and he worked for nearly 10 years, without any

blemish. The explanation of the petitioner is that due to

ill-health, he could not attend to his duties. In the enquiry

report, it is pointed out that the petitioner did not cross

examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the

respondents/management. During the enquiry, the

petitioner was not having assistance from the recognized

union. When the petitioner pleaded ill-health for his

absence, even though the petitioner did not take treatment

from the SCCL hospital the version of the petitioner can

be believed regarding his ill-health, taking into

consideration his previous satisfactory service of 20

years. The work of the petitioner is hard manual work in

the underground mine. Therefore, absence due to ill-health

after 20 years service has to be considered taking into

account the nature of duties discharged by the workman

for about 20 years without any blemish. Therefore, I am

of the considered opinion that the extreme punishment

of dismissal from service without considering the

satisfactory service of 20 years of the petitioner, cannot

be sustained.

13.

The petitioner was aged 49 years, 6 months as on

9-8-2011 and thus he is aged about 54 years now.

Considering the age of the petitioner, instead of directing

reinstatement, the proper order would be to treat the

petitioner as if he voluntarily retired from service as on

the date of the last day of his attending to duty. The

petitioner is entitled to consequential retirement benefits

for the service rendered by him which are available to a

voluntarily retired employee.

14.

In the result, the order of dismissal dt.0-01-2007

marked as Ex.M-7 is set aside. The respondents’ company

is directed to treat the petitioner as if he were voluntarily

retired from service as on the date of the last day of his

attending to duty. The petitioner is entitled to

consequential retirement benefits for the service rendered

by him which are available to a voluntarily retired

employee.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of

February, 2016.

SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman :

For Management :

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman:-

Ex.W-1 Dt. 24-09-2014 Demand letter

Ex.W-2 Dt. -do-

Letter addressed to the G.M.,

SCCL

for

supply

documents under RTI Act.

Ex.W-3 Dt. 28-10-2014 Letter

the

AGM,

Sreerampur Area by Dy.GM,

RK-NT Incline, SRP area

Ex.W-4 Dt. 21-08-2006 Enquiry material record

Ex.W-5 Dt. 03-01-2007 Dismissal order x.copy

For Management:-

Ex.M-1 Dt. 24-07-2006 Charge sheet.

Ex.M-2 Dt. 21-08-2006 Enquiry notice.

Ex.M-3 Dt. 30-08-2006 Reply to charge sheet.

Ex.M-4 Dt. -do-

Enquiry proceedings.

Ex.M-5 Dt. -do-

Enquiry report.

Ex.M-6 Dt. 27-10-2006 Show cause notice.

Ex.M-7 Dt. 03-01-2007 Dismissal letter.

Ex.M-8 Dt. 02-09-2011 Circular No.LRP/PER/IR/S/

555/1399

along

with

Annexure-I

Ex.M-9 Dt. 16-03-2005 Letter issued to petitioner by

respondent punishment given

to petitioner (penalty of

reversion to lower stage).

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 657 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 56@2007) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@275@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 657 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1319

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/07) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/275/2006-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/56/07

General Secretary,

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),

Regional Kanhan Area,

PO Ambvara Via Iklehra,

Tehsil Parasia, Chhindwara

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria,

Chhindwara

...Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 17th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 5-7-07 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

22012/275/2006-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of WCL in

dismissing Shri Sanjay Aggarwal from services

w.e.f. 15-11-2000 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief is the workman entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Statement of claim is submitted through Union

at Page 8/1 to 8/7. The claim of Ist party workman is

workman Sanjay Aggarwal was appointed on

compassionate ground after death of his father as tub

loader on 2-7-91. His Form B Register was maintained.

After some years of his appointment, he was suffering

from diabetes. He was temporarily allowed the work as

time rated category work. Workman was transferred from

Nandan Mine to Tandsi Project. As per agreement between

management and Union dated 2-2-96, basic pay of time

rated category was protected. Workman was not given

benefit. He suffered loss of Rs.100 per month. In June

96, workman suffered from illness. He received treatment

in Mines Hospital at Junnardeo and at Nagpur. Despite

treatment received in the hospitals, workman was not fully

cured. Workman was unable to attend duties from 31-3-97,

its intimation was given by workman to the management.

That chargesheet was issued to workman on 25-8-97

alleging unauthorized absence for the period 31-3-97 to

24-8-97 for absence without intimation etc. workman

submitted reply tot eh chargesheet denying charges

against him. After workman was recovered from his

illness, on 5th September, he came to join alongwith

medical certificate but he was not allowed to join.

Workman submits that Shri V.K.Shrivastava was appointed

Enquiry Officer, Shri R.K.Kashyap as Management

Representative. It is reiterated that enquiry was not

properly conducted. He was not allowed opportunity for

his defence. Enquiry conducted exparte was illegal and

conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Any

notice was not given to him. His services were terminated

on 15-11-2000 without notice. Retrenchment

compensation was not paid. Workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to

10/9 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that

workman was appointed as tub loader on 22-7-91. He was

transferred from Nandan to Tandsi project. Workman was

irregular in attendance. In 1996- he worked for 10 days,

in 1997 for 14 days, in 1998 for 53 days and in 1999 for

7 days. Charge sheet was issued to workman. Enquiry was

conducted against him as per rules on various dates. On

29-3-99 workman alongwith his co-worker was present.

Management’s representative given his evidence on behalf

of management. He was cross-examined and discharged.

On 1-8-09, workman produced certain documents.

Evidence in Enquiry Proceedings shows that attendance

of workman was poor. Enquiry Officer submitted his

findings. Considering the proved charges, findings of

Enquiry Officer charges against workman are proved,

workman was terminated on 15-11-2000. Incidentally 2nd

party submitted that medical facilities are provided to its

employees. 2nd party denies that enquiry conducted

against workman in violation of principles of natural

justice. That workman was not allowed opportunity for

his defence. Enquiry was conducted properly.

As per order dated 21-3-14, enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the charges alleged

In Affirmative

against workman is proved

from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal?

1320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1- Enquiry conducted against workman is

found proper and legal, whether charges alleged against

workman are proved or not needs to be decided from

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Exhibit M-1 is

chargesheet issued to workman under clause 26.30 of

standing orders for unauthorized absence more than 10

days without sanctioned leave. The intimations of enquiry

given to the workman are produced at Exhibit M-2 to M-7.

Exhibit M-8 is order allowing workman to join duty from

12-9-97. As per order Exhibit W-20, workman was

allowed to join duty on 9-5-00 pending enquiry. Enquiry

Proceeding is produced. Statement of Shri R.K.Kashyap

Presenting Officer shows workman was absent without

permission during the period 31-3-97 to 24-8-97.

Workman was also absent in the past. His attendance in

1996- he worked for 10 days, in 1997 for 14 days, in

1998 for 53 days and in 1999 from Jan to Feb- Nil.

Statement of workman was recorded at Page 13. Workman

explained that he was suffering from illness for 1-2

months. Because of weakness, he could not attend duty.

The evidence in enquiry proceedings proves charges

alleged against workman. The evidence in Enquiry

proceedings doesnot required to be appreciated. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

PointNo.2- In view of my finding in Point No. 2

charges alleged against workman are proved, question

arises for decision whether punishment of dismissal

imposed against workman is disproportionate. The

evidence of management’s representative Mr. Kashyap

shows that details of working days of workman in 1996-

97 & 97-98 the attendance of workman was very poor.

The evidence of workman shows that he was suffering

from illness, because of illness, he could not attend duty.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K.Shashi relies

on ratio held in

Eveready Industries India Ltd. Jabalpur and others

versus Shri P.S. Parihar and another reported in

2003(3)MPHT 257. His Lordship in Para 10 of the

judgment held- The petitioner company showed all

sympathy and spent a huge amount in providing

medical treatment to him but the company could

not continue to retain him as he had become a dead

wood. Respondent No.1 was not working efficiently

and his appraisal reports show that there were no

signs of improvement.

Even in present case, evidence shows that

attendance of workman from 1996 to 97 was very poor.

Workman was suffering from illness he was receiving

treatment in hospital. On the ground of illness , workman

was unable to attend duty.

Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case of

New India Assurance Co.Ltd versus Vipin Beharilal

Srivastava reported in AIR-2008(3)SCC-446. Their

Lordship dealt with proper mode for obtaining sick

leave the order of tribunal directing reinstatement

with backwages on ground respondent suffering

from Tuberculosis etc was sustained. Order

directing removal from service was maintained.

In present case, chargesheet was issued for

unauthorized absence for the period 31-3-97 to 24-8-97,

he had submitted application that he was on sick leave.

Ratio cannot be applied beneficially as facts of present

case are not comparable. However charges alleged against

workman about unauthorized absence is proved, his

attendance during 96 was very poor. Workman in his

evidence says he was suffering from illness and unable

to attend duty, the order of removal does not call for

interference. Point No.2 is answered accordingly in

Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of WCL in

dismissing Shri Sanjay Aggarwal from services

w.e.f. 15-11-2000 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 658 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 166@2003) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@283@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2016

S.O. 658 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 166/

2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

05.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/283/2002-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1321

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/166/2003

General Secretary,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan

Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),

B/39, Bartunga Parashpani,

PO Chirimiri,

Distt. Korea (CG)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

West Chirimiri Sub Area of SECL,

PO West Chirimiri,

Distt. Korea(CG)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 13-10-03 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-22012/283/2002-IR(CM-II). The dispute under

reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of Shri Kamal Khan S/o

Dilshad Khan, Timber Mazdoor, represented through

Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),

to regularize/ confirm his services as a clerk

(Registration) w.e.f. January 1993 is legal and

justified? If so, to what relief he is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim

at Page 3/1 to 3/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he

was working as timber mazdoor category. He was

employed in 1982 as timber mazdoor. He was working

with devotion. His service record was unblemished.

Management directed him to work as registration clerk.

His main duty was to maintain record of out door patients

and maintain record in the colliery hospital. That Shri

Kamal Khan was working as registration clerk since 1993

without break and performing the duties as registration

clerk. However he was paid salary of post of timber

mazdoor Category III. Salary for the post of clerk was not

paid to him is alleged to be unfair labour practice. That

repeatedly demands were made for regularization of Shri

Kamal Khan. Management constituted committee

consisting of Dy.General Manager, Shri B.R.Reddy, Finance

Manager and Shri R.K.Yadav Personnel Manager. Said

committee found that the claim of Kamal Khan was correct.

He was working as registration clerk in West Chirimiri Clerk.

He was allowed work as such by the management. When

Union raised the issue it was that workman cannot be

regularized as there are 5 sanctioned posts and 11 workers

were working. The claim of Kamal Khan was not disputed

by the management. There is no justification in extracting

work from him and not regularizing under the pretext of

sanctioned post. Reference is also made to ratio held in

various case. Ist party contends that action of the

management denying to extract work of higher scale and

pay less wages of timber mazdoor denying regularization

in the post of registration clerk is unfair labour practice.

On such ground, Union prays for regularization of Kamal

Khan on post of registration clerk, seniority and

consequential benefits.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to 4/

10 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is

raised that regularization to the post of clerk is claimed

from January 93. The dispute is raised in 2003 is highly

belated and not tenable. Workman slept over for long

period. That Kamal Khan was initially appointed as

mazdoor Cat-I in NCPH. He was transferred to Chirimiri

colliery. Kamal Khan was promoted as timber mazdoor

cat-III on 30-1-91. He was doing the job of timber

mazdoor and paid wages of timber mazdoor cat-III.

Management maintains statutory record, Form B,

Attendance Register etc. the service conditions of

employees working in Coal Industry are covered by

NCWA, cadre scheme. The cadre scheme are provided

for general clerical grade, loading dispatch cadre.

Accounts cadre. There is no post of registration clerk in

cadre scheme. The claim for regularization of workman

to the post of clerk is in violation of the cadre schemes

and guidelines had the workman working on the post of

clerk he would have claimed regularization earlier without

waiting for 14 years. The promotion cannot be claimed

as a matter of right. It depends on administrative

requirement, availability, eligibility and recommendations

of DPC. The qualified persons employed as general

mazdoor are given preference for selection to the post of

clerk and when requirements take place. The cadre scheme

for post of clerk prescribes minimum educational

qualification matriculation or equivalent from recognized

board, 3 years service experience, mode of promotion by

selection/ test.

That SECL Hqr issued circular dated 1-10-99

intimating no diversion of man power to non-productive

jobs and any diversion in any circumstances by colliery

Manager to be viewed as misconduct. Vide circular dated

3-2-2000 issued by Area Personnel Manager Hqr,. Time

rated employee deployed in clerical job directly or

indirectly in case of any employees posting from

underground to surface would be taken very seriously.

Office order dated 10-4-93 was issued by SECL hqr. That

company was having surplus clerical strength, no person

shall be placed in clerical cadre. That claim of workman

is based on the ground that he was promoted to work as

clerk for few months, it doesnot given him right for

regularization. Workman was never authorized to work as

registration clerk by the authority. He was not paid wages

of said post. Workman did not claim wages for the post

of clerk for long time. Claim of workman cannot be

accepted.

1322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 16, 2016/CHAITRA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In parawise reply, 2nd party submits that

management is bound to act according to rules and

regulations. That workman is not entitled to receive wages

for the post of clerk. Workman has made false claim

against management. The fund being used is public money.

No one should be permitted to misuse public money.

Workman cannot be allowed promotion to the post of

clerk in such manner. The dispute was discussed between

the Union and the management. The Union was convinced

that the workman was not entitled for regularization to

the post of clerk. It is denied that company made any

recommendation in favour of workman. 2nd party did not

dispute workman was working with the management.

However claim for his regularization for post of clerk is

denied. 2nd party prays reference be answered in its favour.

Ist party Union filed rejoinder at Page 15/1 to 15/6

reiterating contentions in statement of claim that Kamal

Khan was deployed as clerk in hospital of Chirimiri

colliery in 1993. As per circular dated 13-8-96, he

submitted his service particulars for post of clerk. When

Union took up the case of workman before management

for regularization for post of clerk as per letter dated 18-

4-01, it was informed that workman was working as clerk

in colliery hospital. As per letter dated 9-7-01, Dy.Chief

Personal Manager submitted detailed information

regarding working of Kamal Khan as clerk in Chirimiri

Hospital. The committee was constituted to examine the

matter submitted findings on 15-3-02 regarding

regularisation of the workman. Other contentions in

statement of claim are reiterated in rejoinder.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the demand of Shri Kamal

In Negative

Khan S/o Dilshad Khan, Timber

Mazdoor, represented through

Rashtriya Koyala Khadan

Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), to

regularize/ confirm his services

as a clerk (Registration) w.e.f.

January 1993 is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman

entitled to?”

not entitled

to any

relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to claim for

regularization of Kamal Khan timber mazdoor Cat-III to

the post of clerk registration. Management of 2nd party

is opposing his claim under Written Statement.

Workman Kamal Khan filed affidavit of his

evidence supporting his claim that he was working as

Registration clerk from January 1993. He had submitted

details of his working as per circular dated 13-8-96 for

the post of clerk. Management had constituted committee

regarding his claim for reguslarisation as clerk consisting

of Dy.General Manager , Shri B.R.Reddy Finance Manager

and Shri R.K.Yadav Personnel Manager. The committed

found truth in his claim. Personnel Manager West

Chirimiri colliery had submitted information about his

working as clerk on 18-4-01. In his cross examination

workman says he was initially engaged as casual mazdoor.

He was given order in writing, he was working at chirimiri

mines. He was assigned duty in hospital in 1993, no order

in writing was given to him about his duties in the hospital.

He admits that there is no cadre scheme for the post of

general mazdoor. Cadre scheme is provided for the post

of clerk. He was unable to tell whether there was no post

of registration clerk in cadre scheme. Regional Manager

had sent him for working in hospital. Medical Officer

directed him to work as registration clerk at the time he

was working as timber mazdoor Cat-III. He claims

ignorance whether pay scale of registration clerk is higher

to the post of mazdoor category. While he was working

in the hospital as clerk, he was receiving salary of timber

mazdoor Cat-II. He claims ignorance about different pay

scales of the post. He did not complained about it. He

was not knowing procedure for selection of clerk. He

received written communication about formation of

committee about his complaint. He was unable to tell he

had complained about promotion in 96. Workman was

unable to tell the Union raised dispute about his

promotion. Management is maintaining his service book,

form B documents marked Exhibit M-1, M-2.

10.

Affidavit of evidence of management’s witness Shri

Augustus Tigga is filed supporting contentions of

management that Kamal Khan was appointed as Category I

Mazdoor in NCPH Colliery. He was promoted to the post

of Timber Mazdoor Cat-III on 30-1-91. That cadre scheme

provides for general clerical cadre, store personnel,

loading dispatch, sales cadre. As per cadre scheme, the

appointment of clerk Grade III qualification is

matriculat5ion. 3 years service in company. Mode of

selection is by promotion. Management’s witness in his

cross says hospital was not under his control. He was

acquainted with Kamal Khan working as timber mazdoor.

He was not working in hospital. His attendance was

maintained in colliery hospital. He had seen Kamal Khan

in hospital in 1995 but he did not see him working in the

hospital. From his evidence in cross-examination, Exhibit

W-30 was admitted in evidence. He was unable to tell

what action was taken against workman.

11.

Perusal of documentary evidence shows Exhibit

W-1 is letter dated 13-8-96 calling information about

details of employees working against higher post. Exhibit

W-2 is application submitted by workman claiming he

was working as Registration clerk since last 4 years and

claiming regularization. The endorsement is made by

Medical Suptd. Kamal Khan was working in hospital since

January 93 as registration clerk. Exhibit W-3 is application

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 16] 2016@pS=k 27] 1938

1323

submitted by Kamal Khan on 19-8-96 claiming

regularization. Documents Exhibit W-4 to W-14 are

copies of the documents written by Kamal Khan while

working

the

hospital.

Exhibit

W-15 is letter issued by Union Secretary dated 11-3

requesting management to look into the claim for

regularization as clerk. Exhibit W-16 letter issued by

Personnel Manager shows that workman was working in

West Chirimiri Colliery Hospital as Registration Clerk.

Exhibit W-17 is letter issued by Dy. Chief Personnel

Manager enclosing copies of relevant documents

directing General Manager to look into the matter. Exhibit

W-18 is copy of documents written by workman in the

hospital. Exhibit W-19 is letter directing committee to

examine in what capacity Kamal Khan was allowed to work

in colliery hospital as Registration Clerk, on what basis

he was allowed to work so and whether permission of

competent authority was obtained. The officer responsible

for such deployment of Kamal Khan, the Committee

submitted its report Exhibit W-20. The Committee had

found hand written notes dated 22-3-2000 by Dr. Shri Giri

Medical Suptd. Who accepted that Kamal Khan had been

doing job of registration clerk. The document Exhibit W-

21 to 28 are the copies of documents written by workman

while working in the hospital. Exhibit W-29 shows Dy.

Personnel Management informed General Manager about

educational qualification of workman was HSc. His

working days in 99 was 317 days, 242 days in 2000 &

277 days in 2001. The documentary evidence corroborates

evidence of workman that he was working as clerk in

hospital. The absence of post of registration clerk in cadre

scheme is not material as evidence shows that he was

working as clerk in the hospital.

12.

The question remains whether workman is entitled

for regularization on the post of clerk while he was holding

post of Cat-III Mazdoor. The cadre scheme provides

appointment of clerk qualification matriculation

experience 3 years mode by selection/ test. Ist party

workman was subjected to such selection process or test.

There is no cadre scheme for post of General Mazdoor

as admitted by workman in his cross-examination. Any

rule is not brought to my notice under which the claim

for regularization on post of clerk would be allowed.

13.

Shri Vijay Tripathi learned counsel for workman in

support of claim of workman relies on ratio held in

Shri Vijay Tripathi submits that claim of workman

for regularization was agitated time to time,

committee was constituted. Dispute is raised in

2003 is not barred by time. Ratio held in case

supports his argument.

14.

Shri A.K.Shashi for management relies on ratio held

Case of Indian Iron and Steel Co.Ltd. versus Prahlad

Singh

reported

2001(1)SCC-424

2001(1)SCC-240. The ratio held in the case

pertains to dispute raised after 13 years of

termination of service. The ratio cannot be applied

to case at hand as workman was pursuing his claim

for regularization time to time. Cause of action is

continuing. The committee is constituted and

ultimately the dispute is raised by Union. It cannot

be said barred by time.

15.

Turning to the merit of matter Shri A.K.Shashi relies

on ratio held in

Case of Union of India versus Kartick Chandra

Mondal reported in AIR 2010-SC-3455. In para-13

of the judgment, their Lordship discussed the note

of the legal advisor culminated in the aforesaid

note of the Dy. Director which clearly indicates that

no official order was passed by the Competent

Authority and therefore issuing directions to the

appellants to absorb the respondents on the basis

of the same was unjustified and uncalled for.

Their Lordship discussed they were required to

consider pertains to internal communications which

are relied upon by the respondents and which were

also referred to by the Tribunal as well as by the

High Court exfacie the aforesaid communications

were exchanged between the officers at the level

of board hierarchy only. An order would be deemed

to be a government order as and when it is issued

and publicized. Internal communications while

processing a matter cannot be said to be orders

issued by the competent authority unless they are

issued in accordance with law.

In present case, the evidence in cross-examination

of workman is clear that no order in writing was issued to

him for working as clerk in colliery hospital. Ratio held

in the above case is not helpful for deciding the

controversy as any rule is not brought to my notice that

as workman was working on superior post of clerk dehors

the cadre scheme. The claim of workman for

regularization cannot be accepted. In absence of any rule,

I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

16.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The demand of Shri Kamal Khan S/o Dilshad Khan,

Timber Mazdoor, to regularize/confirm his services

as a clerk (Registration) w.e.f. January 1993 is not

proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.