1770 GI/2016

(1325)

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 659-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk

,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds [akM

(d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] eLdr esa

Jh nhid [k=kh] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 8 vizSy]

2016 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds

fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)

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- 17]

ubZ fnYyh] vizSy 17—vizSy 23] 2016] 'kfuokj@pS=k 28—oS'kk[k 3] 1938

No. 17]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 17—APRIL 23, 2016, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 28—VAISAKHA 3, 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 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2016

S.O. 659.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause

(a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers

(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central

Government hereby appoints Shri Deepak Khatri, ASO as

Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Muscat to

perform the Consular services with effect from

8 April, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

1326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 660-—cSaddkjh fofu;eu vf/fu;e] 1949 (1949

dk 10) dh /kjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjr

ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh vuq'kalk ij ,rn~}kjk] ;g ?kks"k.kk

djrh gS fd mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds

[k.M (x) ds mi&[k.M (i) ds mica/ vkU/zk cSad ij ykxw ugha

gksaxs] tgka rd bldk laca/ cSad ds izca/ funs'kd ,oa eq[;

dk;Zikyd vf/dkjh Jh lqjs'k ,u- iVsy dks eSllZ bafM;k iQLVZ

ykbiQ ba';ksjsal daiuh fy- ds cksMZ esa ukfer djus ls gS A

¹iQk- la- 13@27@2013&chvks&Iº

lkSE;kthr ?kks"k] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016

S.O. 660.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949),

the Government of India on the recommendations of the

Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions

of sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section

10 of the said Act shall not apply to Andhra Bank in so far

as it relates to the nomination of Shri Suresh N. Patel,

Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer of the Bank

on the Board of M/s. India First Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

[F. No. 13/27/2013-BO-I]

SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 661-—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad (leuq"kaxh cSad) vf/

fu;e] 1959 dh /kjk 25 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (Ä) }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh

va'kqeu 'kekZ] mi lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx] foÙk ea=kky; dks

rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd] LVsV cSad vkWiQ =kko.kdksj

ds funs'kd eaMy esa ljdkjh ukfefr funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&I º

Kkuksrks"k jkW;] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2016

S.O. 661.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of The State

Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, the Central

Government, hereby nominates, Shri Anshuman Sharma,

Deputy Secretary, Department of Financial Services,

Ministry of Finance, as Government Nominee Director on

the Board of Directors of State Bank of Travancore with

immediate effect and until further orders.

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 662-—fu;qfDr laca/h eaf=keaMyh; lfefr ds

vuqeksnu ds vuqlkj] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Hkkjh m|ksx foHkkx

esa lfpo Jh fxjh'k 'kadj dks vfrfjDr inHkkj xzg.k djus dh

rkjh[k ls vkS|ksfxd ,oa foÙkh; iqu£uekZ.k vihyh; izkf/dj.k

(,,vkbZ,iQvkj) ds lekiu rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks

Hkh igys gks] ,,vkbZ,iQvkj ds lnL; ds in dk vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj

lkSairh gS A

¹iQk- la- 20(02)@2002&vkbZ,iQ&II ([akM&III)º

vrh'k ¯lg] funs'kd (vkbZ,iQ&II)

New Delhi, the 18th April, 2016

S.O. 662.—In accordance with ACC approval, the

Central Government hereby entrusts additional charge of

the post of Member, Appellate Authority for Industrial

and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) to Shri Girish

Shankar, Secretary, Department of Heavy Industry w.e.f.

the date of his taking over the additional charge of the

post and till the abolition of AAIFR, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 20(02)/2002-IF-II (Vol. III)]

ATEESH SINGH, Director (IF-II)

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 663-—fu;qfDr laca/h eaf=keaMyh; lfefr ds

vuqeksnu ds vuqlkj] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

esa vk£Fkd lykgdkj MkW- 'k'kkad lDlsuk dks vfrfjDr inHkkj

xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls vkS|ksfxd ,oa foÙkh; iqu£uekZ.k cksMZ

(chvkbZ,iQvkj) ds lekiu rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] chvkbZ,iQvkj ds lnL; ds in dk vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj

lkSairh gS A

¹iQk- la- 20(02)@2011&vkbZ,iQ&II ([akM&II)º

vrh'k ¯lg] funs'kd (vkbZ,iQ&II)

New Delhi, the 18th April, 2016

S.O. 663.—In accordance with ACC approval, the

Central Government hereby entrusts additional charge of

the post of Member, Board for Industrial and Financial

Reconstruction (BIFR) to Dr. Shashank Saksena, Economic

Adviser, Department of Financial Services, w.e.f. the date

of his taking over the additional charge of the post and till

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1327

the abolition of BIFR, or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F. No. 20(02)/2011-IF-II (Vol. II)]

ATEESH SINGH, Director (IF-II)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 664-—Jh vk'kh"k dkfy;k] ihBklhu vf/dkjh]

Í.k olwyh vf/dj.k (MhvkjVh)] fnYyh dks vkS|ksfxd ,oa foÙkh;

iqu£uekZ.k cksMZ (chvkbZ,iQvkj) ds lnL; dk vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj

lkSais tkus ds laca/ esa 01 ekpZ] 2016 dh vf/lwpuk

iQk- la- 20(02)@2011&vkbZ,iQ&II ([akM&I) ds vuqlj.k esa]

ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vk'kh"k dkfy;k dks ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds

:i esa muds dk;Zdky ds lg&lekiu rd chvkbZ,iQvkj ds

lekiu rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] chvkbZ,iQvkj

ds vè;{k ds :i esa dk;Z djus ds fy, chvkbZ,iQvkj ds lnL;

dk vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj /kj.k djus gsrq izkf/Ñr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 20(02)@2011&vkbZ,iQ&II ([akM&II)º

vrh'k ¯lg] funs'kd (vkbZ,iQ&II)

New Delhi, the 21st April, 2016

S.O. 664.—In continuation of the notification

F. No. 20(02)/2011-IF-II(Vol.I) dated 1^st March, 2016

regarding assigning additional charge of the post of

Member, Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

(BIFR) to Shri Ashish Kalia, Presiding Officer, Debts

Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Delhi, the Government hereby

authorises Shri Ashish Kalia holding additional charge of

Member, BIFR to act as Chairman, BIFR co-terminus with

his tenure as Presiding Officer, or till the abolition of BIFR,

or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 20(02)/2011-IF-II (Vol. II)]

ATEESH SINGH, Director (IF-II)

(jktLo foHkkx)

(¯gnh vuqHkkx&2)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 665-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd vkSj lhek 'kqYd cksMZ ds

v/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d

deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks

vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

lhek 'kqYd] dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsokdj] vkxjk

dk vk;qDrky; eq[;ky;_

dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsokdj eaMy] fiQjkstkckn_

dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd eaMy] vkxjk_

lsokdj eaMy] vkxjk_

vkbZ-lh-Mh-] vkxjk A

¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,-Mh- (¯gnh&2)º

ehekald] la;qDr funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

(Department of Revenue)

(HINDI SECTION-2)

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 665.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies

the following Offices under CBEC, where more than 80%

staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Agra

(Commissionerate Head Quarters);

Central Excise and Service Tax Division,

Ferozabad;

Central Excise Division, Agra;

Service Tax Division, Agra;

ICD, Agra;

[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]

MIMANSAK, Jt. Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 666-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd vkSj lhek 'kqYd cksMZ ds

v/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d

deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks

vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

dk;kZy; vk;qDr] dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsokdj]

vyoj_

dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd laHkkx] vyoj_

lsokdj laHkkx] vyoj_

dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsokdj laHkkx] fHkokM+h&izFke_

dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsokdj laHkkx] fHkokM+h&f}rh;_

dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd laHkkx] cgjksM+ A

¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,-Mh- (¯gnh&2)º

ehekald] la;qDr funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

1328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 666.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies

the following Offices under CBEC, where more than 80%

staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

Commissionerate, Central Excise and Service Tax,

Alwar;

Central Excise Division, Alwar;

Service Tax Division, Alwar;

Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Bhiwadi-

First;

Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Bhiwadi-

Second;

Central Excise Division, Bahror.

[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]

MIMANSAK, Jt. Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 667-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd vkSj lhek 'kqYd cksMZ ds

v/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d

deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks

vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

vk;qDr dk;kZy;] dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsokdj

eq[;ky;] jkaph&I_

dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsokdj izeaMy] jkaph_

dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsokdj izeaMy] gtkjhckx_

dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd izeaMy] jkex<+_

lsokdj&I izeaMy] jkaph_

lsokdj&II izeaMy] jkaph A

¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,-Mh- (¯gnh&2)º

ehekald] la;qDr funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 667.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies

the following Offices under CBEC, where more than 80%

staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

Office of the Commissioner, Central Excise and

Service Tax (HQ), Ranchi-I;

Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Ranchi;

Central Excise and Service Tax Division,

Hazaribagh;

Central Excise Division, Ramgarh;

Service Tax-I Division, Ranchi;

Service Tax-II Division, Ranchi.

[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]

MIMANSAK, Jt. Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 668-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd vkSj lhek 'kqYd cksMZ ds

v/hu uks,Mk] lhek 'kqYd vk;qDrky;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls

vfèkd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

dks vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,-Mh- (¯gnh&2)º

ehekald] la;qDr funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2016

S.O. 668.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies

Customs Commissionerate, Noida under CBEC, where more

than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]

MIMANSAK, Jt. Director (OL)

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r vkSj isa'ku ea=kky;

(dkfeZd ,oa izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 669.—dsUæ ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh èkkjk

6 ds lkFk ifBr èkkjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, rFkk Hkkjr ljdkj] dkfeZd ,oa isa'ku ea=kky;]

yksd f'kdk;r vkSj isa'ku] dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx] ubZ fnYyh

dh vfèklwpuk la- 228@62@2015&,ohMh&II fnukad 23-12-2015 dks

vf/Øe.k djrs gq,] dsaæ ljdkj] gfj;k.kk jkT; ljdkj] lrdZrk

foHkkx paMhx<+ dh vfèklwpuk la- 58@30@15&1&VII fnukad

30-03-2016] }kjk izkIr lgefr ls iqfyl Fkkuk&jkT; lrdZrk C;wjks]

iapdqyk] ftyk iapdqyk] gfj;k.kk esa Hkka-na- lafgrk dh /kjk 201]

204] 409] 420] 467] 468] 471] 120&ch] 1860 (1860 dh /kjk

Ø- 45) rFkk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/fu;e] 1988 ds vuqPNsn 13

ds v/hu fnukad 19-12-2015 dk iathÑr ,iQvkbZvkj la- 09 esa

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1329

vUos"k.k djus rFkk mlls lac¼ vijk/ksa esa fd, x, nq"izsj.kkvksa

vkSj "kM;a=kksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu

fdlh vU; vijk/ ;k vijk/ksa dh vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh

fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kkfèkdkj dk

foLrkj leLr gfj;k.kk jkT; esa djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 228@62@2015&,ohMh&II]

eks- unhe] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 18th April, 2016

S.O. 669.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25

of 1946), and in supersession of the Government of India,

Ministry of Personnel, Public grievances and Pensions,

Department of Personnel and training, New delhi

Notification No. 228/62/2015-AVD.II dated 23.12.2015,the

Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Haryana, Vigilance Department, Chandigarh

vide Notification No.58/30/15-1 VII dated 30.03.2015, hereby

extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the

state of Haryana for investigation of FIR No.09 dated

19.12.2015 under sections 201, 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,

120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

and section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

(Act No.49 of 1988) registered at Police Station State

Vigilance Bureau Panchkula, District Panchkula Harayan

and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or

in connection with the offences mentioned above and any

other offence or offences committed in the course of the

same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/62/2015-AVD-II]

Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.

jsy ea=kky;

(jsyos cksMZ)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 670-—jsy ea=kky; (jsyos cksMZ)] jktHkk"kk fu;e]

1976 (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) ds fu;e 10 ds

mi&fu;e (2) vkSj (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] egkizca/d dk;kZy;]

jsy ifg;k dkj[kkuk] csaxyw:] tgka 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d

vfèkdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k

gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr djrk gS A

¹la- ¯gnh 2015@jk-Hkk-&1@12@2º

ds- ih- lR;kuanu] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(RAILWAY BOARD)

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2016

S.O. 670.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in

pursuance of sub-rules (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official

Languages Rules, 1976 (Use for the Official Purposes of

the Union), hereby, notifies the General Manager’s Office,

Rail Wheel Factory, Bangalore, where 80% or more Officers/

Employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. Hindi-2015/O.L.-1/12/2]

K. P. SATHYANANDAN, Director (OL)

fo|qr ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 671-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] fo|qr ea=kky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu

ikoj xzhM dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds if'peh {ks=k ikjs"k.k

iz.kkyh&] ds v/hu ¶400@220 dsoh fijkuk midsaæ] ljnkj iVsy

¯jx jksM deksn vkSj vlykyh ldZy ds chp] vgenkckn&382427

(xqtjkr) ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls deZpkjho`an us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d

Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- 11017@10@2013&¯gnhº

MkW- vkj- lh- 'kekZ] la;qDr funs'kd (jk-Hkk-)

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 671.—In pursuance of sub-rules (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notify

“400/220 Kv Pirana Substation, Sardar Patel Ring Road,

Between Kamod and Asalali Circle, Ahmedabad-382427

(Gujarat)” under the Western Region Transmission System-

II, of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. under the

administration control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of

the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 11017/10/2013-Hindi]

Dr. R. C. SHARMA, Jt. Director (OL)

Hkkjh m|ksx vkSj yksd m|e ea=kky;

(Hkkjh m|ksx foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 672-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r 1987] 2007

1330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkSj 2011) ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] Hkkjh

m|ksx vkSj yksd m|e ea=kky;] Hkkjh m|ksx foHkkx ds iz'kklfud

fu;a=k.kk/hu yksd m|e] ch,pbZ,y dh fuEufyf[kr bdkbZ] ftlds

80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjho`an us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr

dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr djrh gS %

¶bysfDVªdy e'khUl fjis;j IykaV (bZ,evkjih)] ch,pbZ,y¸]

eqacbZ&400093

¹la- bZ&11012@2@2013&¯gnhº

fo'othr lgk;] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC

ENTERPRISES

(Department of Heavy Industry)

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2016

S.O. 672.—In pursuance of sub-rules (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987, 2007 and 2011),

the Central Government, hereby notifies the following unit

of BHEL, a CPSE under the administrative control of the

Ministry of Heavy Industry and Public Enterprises,

Department of Heavy Industry, wherein more than 80%

staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :

“Electrical Machines Repair Plant (EMRP), BHEL”,

Mumbai-400093

[No. E-11012/2/2013-Hindi]

VISHVAJIT SAHAY, Jt. Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

'kqf¼i=k

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 673-—bl ea=kky; dh iwoZ lela[;d vf/lwpuk

fnuakd 28-09-2015 ds Øe 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 (lanHkZ la- 47@vkbZVhlh@2005) fnukad

03-02-2016 ds vUrxZr dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy }kjk la'kksf/r iapkV dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@259@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

ikn fVIi.kh % ewy vf/lwpuk Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa] vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk

17 ds vuqlj.k esa] fnukad 03-10-2015 ds

dk-vk- 1903 }kjk izdkf'kr gqbZ Fkh A

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2016

S.O. 673.—In continuation of this Ministry’s earlier

Notification of even number dated 28.09.2015, the Central

Government hereby publishes the Rectified Award Ref.

47/ITC/2005 dated 03.02.2016 of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Satgram Incline of M/s. ECL. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

16.02.2016.

[No. L-22012/259/2004-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

Foot Note : The principal Notification, in pursuance of

Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947), was published in the Gazette of

India vide Notification No. S.O. 1903 dated

03.10.2015.

ANNEXURE

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, ASANSOL

Date 03.02.2016

Ref. No. 47/ITC/(2005)

Ref : Ministry's order No. L-22012/259/2004-IR (CM-II)

dated : 05.07.2005. This office Ref. No. 47/2005 dated :

31.08.2015 (fully rectified copy of award (with highlighted

rectfications) is enclosed herewith).

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Satgram Incline

of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri A. K. Singh from services

vide order dated 08.03.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief

CORRIGENDUM

Page No.- 3

In Line No. 19 of 1st Para, ‘‘SAT/GM/PER/E/2000/

1091© dated 8.2.2001’’ may be read as ‘‘SAT/GM/

PER/C/2001/1091(C) dated 08.03.2001.’’

In Line No. 28 of 1st Para, ‘‘personnel I are’’ may be

read as ‘‘personnel are’’.

In Line No. 3 of 2nd Para, ‘‘MS Colliery’’ may be read

as ‘‘NS Coal Depot’’.

In Line No. 4 of 2nd Para, ‘‘06.02.1999’’ may be read

as ‘‘06.11.1999.’’

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1331

In Line No. 5 of 2nd Para, ‘‘at MS coal Depot at

Vigilance Team of ECL’’ may be read as ‘‘at NS Coal

Depot a Vigilance team of ECL’’.

Page No.-4

In Line No. 2 of 2nd Para, ‘‘under section 10(a)(d)’’

may be read as ‘‘under section 10 (1) sub clause

(d)’’.

In Line No. 3 of 2nd Para, ‘‘06.09.2001’’ may be read

as ‘‘06.09.2000’’.

In Line No. 4 of 2nd Para, ‘‘04.09.2001’’ may be read

as o4.09.2000’’.

In Line No. 6 of 2nd Para, ‘‘06.09.2001’’ may be read

as 06.09.2000’’.

Complete 3rd Para i.e. ‘‘The workman has filed several

documentary evidences ...................... and 08.03.2001’’

may be read as :

The workman has filed several documentary

evidences as given below :

(1) Xerox Copy of the Transfer order dated

22.09.1998, (2) Xerox copy of the charge sheet dated 08/

09.01.1999, (3) Xerox copy of the letter dated 15.01.1999

marked W-III, (4) Xerox copy of the statement of workman

Arun Kumar Singh given to G.M., Vigilance, (5) Xerox copy

of the replay of the charge sheet given by the workman

dated 25.01.199, (6) Xerox copy of the charge sheet dated

14.01.1999, (7) Xerox copy of the replay to the charge sheet

dated 18.01.1999, (8) Xerox copy of the notice of enquiry

dated 25.02.1999, (9) Xerox copy of the order of reinstating

the workman dated 05.03.1999, (10) Xerox copy of the

workman's application dated 16.04.1999, (11) Xerox copy

of the application dated 10.06.2000, 21.07.2000, 04.09.2000,

14.01.1999 and 01.03.2000, (12) Xerox copy of the

application dated 18.05.1999, (13) Xerox copy of letter dated

25.08.2000, (14) Xerox copy of the certificate of attendance

25.03.2000, (15) Xerox copy of injunction order of the civil

judge, (16) Xerox copy of the report of Enquiry officer and

enquiry proceeding, (17) Xerox copy of the vigilance report,

(18) Xerox copy of certified copy of statement given before

the civil judge in T.S No. 49/99, (19) Xerox copy of

attendance in for E given to the workman by ALC, Asansol,

(20) Xerox copy of second show cause notice, (21) Xerox

copy of the reply dated 07.03.2001, (22) Xerox copy of the

order of dismissal against the workman.

Page No.-5

10.

In Line No. 6 of 4th Para, ‘‘06.09.2001’’ may be read

as ‘‘06.09.2000’’.

11.

In Line No. 6 of 4th Para, ‘‘04.09.2001’’ may be read

as ‘‘04.09.2000’’.

13.

In Line No. 3 of 5th Para, ‘‘06.01.1999’’ may be read

as ‘‘07.01.1999’’.

Page No.-7

14.

In Line No. 11 of 4th Para, ‘‘06.09.2001’’ may be read

as ‘‘06.09.2000’’.

15.

In Line No. 12 of 4th Para, ‘‘04.09.2001’’ may be read

as ‘‘04.09.2000’’.

16.

In Line No. 11 of 4th Para, ‘‘06.09.2001’’ may be read

as ‘‘06.09.2000’’.

Page No.-8

17.

In Line No. 02 of 1st Para, ‘‘29.09.2001’’ may be read

as ‘‘29.09.2000’’.

18.

In Line No. 03 of 1st Para, ‘‘06.09.2001’’ may be read

as ‘‘06.09.2000’’.

19.

In Line No. 05 of 1st Para, ‘‘GM/JNR/c/816 dated

01.03.2001’’ may be read as ‘‘SAT/GM/PER/C/2001/

816/1063(C) dated 01.03.2001’’.

20.

In Line No. 12 of 1st Para, ‘‘08.07.2001’’ may be read

as ‘‘08.03.2001’’.

21.

In Line No. 13 of 1st Para, ‘‘Ref. No. 1091 dated

08.09.2001’’ may be read as ‘‘SAT/GM/PER/C/2001/

1091 (C) dated 08.03.2001’’.

22.

In Line No. 2 of 4th Para, ‘‘impinged’’ may be read as

‘‘impugned’’.

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 47 OF 2005

PARTIES :

The management of Satgram Incline of M/s. ECL.

Vs.

Sri Arun Kumar Singh

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

Shri P. K. Goswami, Ld.

Advocate

For the union (Workman)

Shri G. P. Mal &

M. Mukherjee, Ld.

Advocate

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

1332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated : 31.08.2015

AWARD

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

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

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

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

259/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 05.07.2005 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Satgram

Incline of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri A. K. Singh

from service vide order dated 08.03.2001 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/259/2004-

IR(CM-II) dated 05.07.2005 of the above said reference

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

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 47 of

2005 was registered on 17.08.2005 and accordingly an order

to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list

of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of

the said order notices by the registered post were sent to

the parties concerned.

The delinquent workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh has

stated in his written statement that he was appointed by

the erstwhile coal company in the year 1972. He was

promoted to the post of Assistant Loading Inspector in

the year 1998. He had been discharging his duties honestly

and diligently. While Sri Arun Kumar Singh was on duty

as an Asst. Loading Inspector at N.S. Coal Depot on

05.01.1999, a team of Vigilance Department of ECL visited

the colliery and checked the Attendance Record vis-à-vis

physical availability at the coal depot of the loading

personnel. Due to availability of insufficient coal at the

dumping site, the workers were idle at the said coal depot,

which was a general phenomenon. Workers used to be

scattered and roaming here and there, sometimes, outside

the coal loading site and for this reason 17 loading

personnel, whose attendance were marked were not found

physically available at the Depot on the day of vigilance

inspection. The Loaders are all piece-rated employees

and they are paid at per with performing workload assigned

to each workman and therefore, as per existing practice,

they were being allowed attendance any time between 8

AM to 2 PM. Their attendance was valid subject to

performing the assigned job depending upon the

availability of coal and transport as per rule. This point

was categorically explained to the vigilance team members

of ECL. But, the team members showed severe highhanded

attitude and forced Sri Arun Kumar Singh to sign on many

papers which were written in English which hardly have

any material value in the eyes of law. Subsequently, the

biased Agent of the colliery transferred Sri Arun Kumar

Singh to some interior site to perform some inferior job

just to humiliate him and issued him charge sheets on

alleged mis-conduct which were replied by him in time

suitably. But the management decided to hold a domestic

enquiry by an Enquiry Officer. During the enquiry the

enquiry Officer stressed on false and fabricated allegations

against Sri Arun Kumar Singh without giving him any

opportunity to defend the allegations and the principle of

natural justice was ignored. Due to biasness of the Enquiry

officer, Sri Arun Kumar Singh the delinquent employee

could not rely upon the fairness of the domestic enquiry

and to have more protection against the ill-motive of both

Enquiry officer and management in concerted manner, in

very helpless situation Sri Singh took the shelter of Civil

Court for intervention and justice. The Learned Court

granted stay order. But finally the stay order was vacated

by ECL. The Enquiry Officer appointed by Satgram Area

of ECL was not fair in conducting the enquiry and he did

not offer lawful opportunity to Sri Arun Kumar Singh to

defend the wrongful allegations brought against him by

the management in the form of a charge-sheet. The enquiry

officer conducted the enquiry based on sheer assumption

unsupported with correct fact and figure as per his whim

and perhaps submitted a fabricated enquiry report to the

Disciplinary Authority. The Discipliay authority / General

Manager, Satgram Area vide his Office Order No. SAT/

GM/PER/E/2001/1091(c) dated 8.3.2001dismissed the

workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh from service. Sri Arun

Kumar Singh has stated that the order of dismissal passed

by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. General Manager,

Satgram Area is entirely illegal, mis-appropriate, vitiated

and biased because of utter violation of natural justice.

The Order of dismissal was based on ex-parte enquiry in

which the workman was not granted any opportunity to

defend the charges leveled against him and to cross

examine the witnesses produced by the management. All

the 17 workers found absent at the time of checking by the

vigilance team (being idle for non availability of sufficient

coal) had reported for their respective duties at 8 AM in

the morning and were granted attendance in the morning

as per rule and practice prevalent in the said colliery, In

this mine, the loading personnel are allowed to attend duties

any time between 8 AM to 2 PM as they were piece-rated

workers and paid on the basis of quantum of work done

on availability of loading items. They were given

attendance for this reason. Columns are also kept blank

for allowing their attendance as and when they may come

upto 2 PM subject to performing their assigned work. The

workman has prayed to set-a-side the order of dismissal

passed by the General Manager, Satgram Area against Sri

Arun Kumar Singh and also prayed to pass order of re-

instatement in the service to the post of Asst. Loading

Inspector with full back wages with effect from 08.03.2001.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1333

Management has stated in their written statement

the reference is not tenable. The workman concerned is in

the habit of manipulating the attendance of the loading

personnel of NS Coal Depot, one of the units of the

management of ECL and as a result he has gained illegally

which amounts to huge wrongful financial loss to the

Company. On 6.11.1999 when Sri Arun Kumar Singh was

on duty at NS Coal Depot a vigilance team of ECL Company,

visited the colliery and inspected the attendance in Form–

E Register and compared the same with Form B Register

and it was established on record that attendance of 17

persons were booked falsely and as such Sri Arun Kumar

Singh was issued with a charge sheet. The workman

concerned challenged the charge sheet in Civil Court and

prayed for injunction restraining the management to act

further with the charge sheet. The management as per the

order of the learned Court kept the proceeding of the

charge sheet in abeyance. Subsequently when the

Injunction was vacated by the learned court the

management proceeded the enquiry against Sri Arun Kumar

Singh ex-parte as he did not pay any hid to the notice of

enquiry given to him by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry

Officer in the report of the enquiry proved the charges

leveled against the workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh,

considering the gravity of the mis-conduct grave and

serious, the Disciplinary Authority issued the order of

dismissal. The workman challenged the order of dismissal

in Kolkata High Court which was rejected by Hon’ble

Kolkata High Court to take shelter in proper forum. Rest

of the allegations of the workman has been denied. The

management has stated that the workman is not entitled

to any relief.

The workman has stated in his rejoinder/written

statement that the reference is maintainable under section

10(1) sub clause (d) of ID Act read with Section 2 A.

Further he has stated that he had always been present

before the enquiry officer excepting on 06.09.2000 as on

the same day, there was a date of Civil Suit also. Therefore,

on 04.09.2000 at 11 a.m. the workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh

had requested the Enquiry Officer in writing to postpone

the enquiry on 06.09.2000. But the Enquiry Officer did not

adjourn the proceedings of the enquiry. The Enquiry

Officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte in absence of

delinquent workman without giving him opportunity to

defend himself during proceeding of the enquiry. A copy

of the enquiry report only was sent to the workman by

special messenger without enclosing therewith the

connected papers submitted during enquiry proceedings,

advising him to make representation if any against the

same if he so desires. The workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh

subsequently raised his objection against the dismissal

order of GM, Satgram Area and requested for supplying

him the copies of supporting documents, on the basis of

which the enquiry report was concluded ex-parte by the

enquiry officer so that he can make necessary

representation against the unlawful and fabricated enquiry

proceedings and the order of dismissal passed against

him. But the same was not supplied to him nor the workman

was given any response to his application. The enquiry

officer had not examined any of the workmen who were

marked absent on the fateful day nor he had examined the

records pertaining to payment of wages on 06.01.1999 of

the concerned 17 workmen. As the workman who had

reported in late had been paid wages proportionately as

per quantity of work done. The enquiry, therefore, was

not fair and proper. It is a fully vitiated enquiry. The

punishment was awarded based on improper enquiry

proceedings. The delinquent workman was not given any

opportunity to participate in the enquiry and the entire

proceeding was completed within a day with much

hurriedness in most unlawful manner. Sri Arun Kumar

Singh has been denied the principle of natural justice.

The workman has filed several documentary evidences as

given below:-

(1) Xerox Copy of the Transfer order dated

22.09.1998, (2) Xerox copy of the charge sheet dated 08/

09.01.1999, (3) Xerox copy of the letter dated 15.01.1999

marked W-III, (4) Xerox copy of the statement of workman

Arun Kumar Singh given to G.M., Vigilance, (5) Xerox copy

of the reply of the charge sheet given by the workman

dated 25.01.1999, (6) Xerox copy of the charge sheet dated

14.01.1999, (7) Xerox copy of the reply to the charge sheet

dated 18.01.1999, (8) Xerox copy of the notice of enquiry

dated 25.02.1999, (9) Xerox copy of the order of reinstating

the workman dated 05.03.1999, (10) Xerox copy of the

workman’s application dated 16.04.1999, (11) Xerox copy

of the application dated 10.06.2000, 21.07.2000, 04.09.2000,

14.01.1999 and 01.03.2000, (12) Xerox copy of the

application dated 18.05.1999, (13) Xerox copy of letter dated

25.08.2000, (14) Xerox copy of the certificate of attendance

25.03.2000, (15) Xerox copy of injunction order of the civil

judge, (16) Xerox copy of the report of Enquiry officer and

enquiry proceeding, (17) Xerox copy of the vigilance report,

(18) Xerox copy of certified copy of statement given before

the civil judge in T.S.No. 49/99, (19) Xerox copy of

attendance in for E given to the workman by ALC, Asansol,

(20) Xerox copy of second show cause notice, (21) Xerox

copy of the reply dated 07.03.2001, (22) Xerox copy of the

order of dismissal against the workman.

The workman has filed affidavit in his oral evidence.

The workman has been cross examined by the

management. The management has not filed any

documentary or oral evidence.

I have heard the argument of Sri Monoj Mukherjee,

learned Advocate attended on behalf of the workman. I

have also heard the argument of Sri Pijus Kanti Goswami,

learned Advocate attended on behalf of the management.

The workman has also filed written argument.

Sri Pijus Kanti Goswami, Learned Advocate,

appeared on behalf of the management argued that the

1334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dismissed workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh manipulated

the attendance record of 17 loading personnel. The

Vigilance Team of ECL Company did not find presence of

any workman out of the said 17 persons. The attendance

of all such absentees was marked as ‘A’ (which means

Absent) by the vigilance team members but later on by

adding letter ‘M’ with “A’ it was made ‘A.M.’ and before

‘A.M.’ figure number ‘8’ was added to make it a 8 A.M.

which amounts to manipulation of the records. He has

done this serious offence for his personal gain which

amounts of mis-conduct of very serious nature as per the

Model Standing Order applicable to the delinquent

workman. For this misconduct the workman was charge

sheeted and subsequently dismissed after proper enquiry.

The order of punishment is just and reasonable.

On the other hand, Sri Monoj Mukherjee, Learned

Advocate of the delinquent workman has argued that this

punishment is harsh, illegal and an glaring act of injustice

to the delinquent workman. On the day of the enquiry

there was a date fixed of Civil Suit and the delinquent

workman was asked to attend civil court on the same date

and time. As such, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, the Delinquent

workman had requested the Enquiry officer to postpone

the date of enquiry on 06.09.2000 by submitting application

on 04.09.2000 but his same request was rejected by the

Enquiry officer without any intimation to the delinquent

workman. In written argument the Learned Advocate Sri

Mukherjee contended that the enquiry officer was biased

and partial. Copy of the enquiry report along with other

relevant papers were not supplied to the workman in spite

of his written request. He was denied opportunity to avail

assistance of a Lawyer. He was not given any opportunity

to represent against the enquiry report.

It is an admitted fact that the delinquent employee

Sri Arun Kumar Singh was an employee of ECL Company

since 1972 before dismissal. It is also an admitted fact that

while the delinquent workman was on duty on 07.01.1999

as Asst. Loading Inspector a Vigilance Team of ECL, made

a surprise check at the colliery. The allegation that he had

illegally managed the attendance of 17 persons for his

wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss of ECL. Company

has already been denied by the concerned workman.

At the very outset it ought to be considered whether

denial by management for assistance of Lawyer to

workman caused his prejudice. Now question arises

whether the delinquent was entitled for assistance of a

Lawyer in a Departmental Enquiry? Domestic enquiries

are of simple nature where the person appointed as Enquiry

Officer is generally not a Lawyer. In other words, the

Enquiry Officer holds the enquiry without being influenced

by procedural Juggernaut and hear the delinquent

employee in person , and in such an informal enquiry a

delinquent workman best be able to defend himself. Rules

and natural justice do not postulate that the workman

should be assisted by a Lawyer. As such in the domestic

enquiry the delinquent has no right to take assistance of a

Lawyer.

Hon’ble apex court in Brook Bond (I) Ltd. V/s Subba

Raman (1961) 2 L.L.J. 417 held that the refusal by the enquiry

officer to allow a workman to be represented by a lawyer

or an outsider, do not vitiate the enquiry.

The workman has stated in his Affidavit that he

denied the charges leveled against him by submitting

written show cause. He was asked by Enquiry Officer to

appear before him on 16.04.1999 in connection with the

said enquiry. In persuasion with the said notice he made

a representation dated 16.04.1999 for supply of copies of

certain documents which are essential for his defence.

But he was refused to supply the same on the plea that

enquiry was still being commenced. The delinquent

workman has also stated that on 18.05.1999 he again

requested the Enquiry officer to supply him the copies of

the said documents which are essential for his defence

but neither those were supplied to him nor he was given

any reply. He was given a notice on 03.09.2000 to appear

before an enquiry on 06.09.2000 at 11 a.m. The delinquent

employee made written request to the Enquiry officer on

04.09.2000 to defer the same to some other date as he was

to appear in Learned Civil Court on 06.09.2000 but the

enquiry officer did not consider his request to adjourn the

proposed enquiry on 06.09.2000 and completed the enquiry

on the same day itself ex-parte. This type of enquiry and

evidences are vitiated and bad in the eyes of law. All the

enquiry was completed in a single day. The delinquent

employee was not given any opportunity to defend. Even

he was not allowed to represent against the show-cause

letter submitted by him against the order of punishment.

He was also not supplied with the copies of documents

for making representation before passing order of

punishment.

As per enquiry report, it appears that workman was

guilty of misconduct. The delinquent has manipulated the

attendance of workman, for his wrongful gain, which has

been deducted by vigilance team.

It appears from records the delinquent employee

was issued with two charge sheets. One charge sheet

dated 08/09.01.1999 and another on 14.01.1999. The

delinquent employee replied both the charge-sheets.

Copies of reply as submitted by him were filed. After

framing charge against the delinquent employee Sri Arun

Kumar Singh, the delinquent employee requested the

Enquiry Officer vide his letter dated 16.04.1999 and

18.05.1999 to supply him copies of documents. The required

documents are mentioned in the letter dated 16.04.1999

and 18.05.1999. But it is evident from records that the

delinquent workman was not supplied those documents

to enable him to defend before enquiry.

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in GR Venkateshwara

Reddy V/s Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Has

laid down the following requirements of reasonable

procedure:

(a)

The employee shall be informed of the exact

charges which he is called upon to meet;

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1335

(b)

he should be given an opportunity to explain

any material relied on by the management to

prove the charges;

(c)

the evidence of the management witness should

be recorded in the presence of the delinquent

employee and he should be given an

opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses;

(d)

the delinquent employee shall either be

furnished with copies of the documents relied

on by the management or be permitted to have

adequate inspection of the documents relied

on by the management;

(e)

the delinquent employee should be given the

opportunity to produce relevant evidence –

both documentary and oral which include the

right to examine self and other witnesses; and

to call for relevant and material documents in

the custody of the employer;

(f)

whenever the inquiring authority is different

from disciplinary authority, the delinquent

employee shall be furnished with a copy of the

inquiry report and be permitted to make a

presentation to the disciplinary authority

against the findings recorded in the inquiry

report.

Reasonable opportunity means not only framing

charges and asking for explanation but much more. The

employee must be appraised of the of the materials on

which the charges were framed so that he could have a

proper opportunity of testing or challenging of materials

so far as it would be possible for him. Though the technical

rules of procedure and evidences do not apply to domestic

enquiries, but the rules of natural justice require when a

fact is sought to be proved, before a tribunal it must be

supported by the statement made in presence of the person

against whom the enquiry is held and if a statement is

made at his back it ought not to be treated as substantive

evidence. “Therefore all the evidences against the person

concerned should be taken in his presence and he should

be given an adequate opportunity of cross-examining the

witnesses giving evidence against him. And no material

should be relied upon against him without his being given

an opportunity of explaining it. The delinquent workman

should further be given the opportunity of questioning

the witnesses after knowing in full what they have to state

against him. The witnesses on whom the employer relies

should generally be examined in presence of the delinquent

workman and he must also be informed the materials sought

to be used against him and given an opportunity to explain

it.

It is elementary principle that a person who is

required to answer a charge must know not only the

accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation

is supported. He, must be given a fair chance to hear the

evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant

question by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then

he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against

him. This is the barest requirement of an inquiry can be

accepted.

Management ought to have supplied the copies,

desired by delinquent, to defend the allegations during

enquiry proceeding and after issuing show cause notice.

If the documents are voluminous and cannot be supplied

to him an opportunity has to be given to him to come and

personally inspect the concerned documents. Failure on

the part of the management to supply copies of such

document is to be considered as violation of principle of

natural justice. Furthermore, if the documents are

demanded by the delinquent employee for his defence are

available in the custody of the management, then the

delinquent employee either be summoned to personally

go through the same or to obtain copies on payment of

cost. It is apparent that in this case the copies of

documents requisitioned by the delinquent employee were

not supplied by the management to the concerned persons

for his defence. The enquiry was conducted on 06.09.2000.

The delinquent employee has made written request to

Enquiry officer to postpone the said enquiry on 04.09.2000

i.e. two days before the date of the enquiry. From perusal

of the enquiry report it appears that before 06.09.2003 other

dates were fixed for conducting enquiry by the Enquiry

Officer but it was turned down as the delinquent had not

filed any documents which may show that he was required

to appear before Learned Civil Court. Even if it is accepted,

he was to appear in Civil Court for the civil suit, then it is

relevant to note that it may not be necessary to appear in

person in a civil case normally and it can be represented

by the Advocate concerned on behalf of the client. But

appearance of the delinquent employee in departmental

proceedings was more essential. It appears the delinquent

employee deliberately did not appear before the Enquiry

Officer. Even if the enquiry officer conducted ex-parte

enquiry against the delinquent workman he should have

been given the opportunity to put his defence. On perusal

of the enquiry report dated 29.09.2000 it appears that whole

enquiry was completed in one day on 06.09.2000 without

participation of the delinquent employee which amounts

to an act of denial of natural justice on the part of the

management. The delinquent employee was served Show

Cause Notice No. SAT/GM/PER/C/2001/816/1063(c) dated

1.3.2001 by Registered AD post. In this notice it is

mentioned that “The reply should reach this office within

72 hours of receipt of this letter failing which it will be

presumed that you have no explanation to offer and the

management shall dispose of the case as deemed fit

without further reference to you”. On receipt of this letter

on 05.03.2001, the delinquent workman requested the

General Manager, Satgram Area by his letter dated

07.03.2001 to supply him copies of some documents so

that suitable reply to the Show cause, may be sent. But

1336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the management did not hear to supply copies of those

documents which were required by the delinquent

workman. On 08.03.2001 the General Manager, Satgram

Area passed the Dismissal Order vide letter SAT/GM/PER/

C/2001/1091(c) dated 08.03.2001.

Imposing punishment is the last stage in the

disciplinary action proceedings against a workman. This

stage commences after the disciplinary authority has

received the report of the enquiry officer, issued a show

cause notice to the delinquent workman, if any and has

received his response to such notice. Upon considering

the gravity of the misconduct, and the extenuating

circumstances, if any, and also any other factor that may

be relevant in the fact and circumstances of the case, the

disciplinary authority has to decide the quantum of

punishment that may be imposed on the delinquent.

The charges were brought under Section 17 of the

Model Standing Order which amounts to commitment of

theft, fraud, dishonesty in connection with the employer’s

business & property, and willful damage to the property

of the Employer. Though the delinquent is guilty of

misconduct, but before passing order of punishment the

compliance of natural justice was necessary On the basis

of enquiry proceedings based on wrong material fact,

evidences and circumstances the dismissal order passed

by the disciplinary authority, it is evident that the workman

has been dismissed from service without complying the

principle of natural justice. Rather the order of dismissal

has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural

justice. The delinquent workman has never been granted

any opportunity to defend the case in his support.

In view of the facts as above I think it just and proper

to modify and substitute the impugned order of

punishment by exercising power under Section 11 A of

Industrial Dispute Act 1947.

The delinquent workman Sri Arun Kumar Singh if

not reached the age of superannuation shall be reinstated

in service from 08.03.2001. But as a measure of punishment

he will be reinstated with demotion in the lowest post and

category in which he was initially appointed in the year

1972. He will not get any type of remuneration excepting

25% of the actual billing amount without any incremental

or any other benefits till his reinstatement. If he has

reached the age of superannuation, before passing of the

Award, he will get 25% of remuneration (as back wages)

till date of superannuation, with all pensionary benefits.

This must be complied with immediate effect.

ORDER

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

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the

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

information and needful. The reference is accordingly

disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 674-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

88@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

07-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@97@2005&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 88 of 2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 07.04.2016.

[No. L-20012/97/2005-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference No. 88 of 2005

Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra (S).

Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present :

Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri U.N.Lall, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri K.N.Singh, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 21/03/2016

AWARD

By order No.-L-20012/97/2005 IR-(CM-I), dated

02/11/2005 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub

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

Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1337

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Bhowra

(S) Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Ashok

Kumar Mahato w.e.f. 03.07.2001 is justified? If so,

to what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

01.12.2005 After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 13.12.2005. The management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 30.10.2006 No evidence

adduced by either side.

The short point involved in the reference is that

the workman has been dismissed from his services on

absenteeism.

During Preliminary hearing. it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty.

But he has already out of service for last 14 years. It is felt

to give another chance to the workman to serve.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee as

under ground general Mazdoor cat-I scale. But the

workman be kept under probation for a period two year .

Therefore the question of granting back wages does not

arise at all.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 675-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ VkVk

LVhy fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 02@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

07-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@44@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 02 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Tata Steel Limited and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

07.04.2016.

[No. L-20012/44/2011-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 02 of 2012

Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., Jamadoba

AND

Their workman

Present :

Sri Rajan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

: Shri A. D. Choudhary, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 21/03/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/44/2011-IR (CM-I), dated

20/12/2011, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

Bhelatand Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd in not

paying the legal dues in respect of Shri MD Khalil

from the date of his appointment is fair and justified?

To what relief the concerned workmen is entitled

to?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

06.01.2012. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. The workman files their written statement on

19.06.2013. Thereafter the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 21.01.2014. One witness each

side adduced respectively. Document by both side filed

but the document of management is marked as M-1 to

M-3.

The case of the workman was they served the

management since 1980 as casual worker and made

permanent since 19.04.1983 and the concerned workman

was illegally dismissed from the service on the plea of

refusal to work for which material and tools were not

provided for coal cutting alongwith two other miner w.e.f

08.04.1985, and after one year he was reinstated as fresh

employee on 14.10.1986 with certain conditions That if

the workman works successfully he will be entitled to

continuity of service from 1983.

1338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is also submitted by the workman that after

retirement of the concerned workman w.e.f. 30.11.2004 all

other dues paid but not from the date of appointment but

from the date of reinstatement since 14.10.1986 but the

previous dues from 19.04.1983 denied and refused by the

concerned management. The concerned workman is

reinstated as such he is entitled to get the wages since

19.04.1983.

It is further stated that the concerned workman has

not paid the amount of P.F with proper calculation as well

as the management also refuse to pay the amount of P.F

and RG for the period from 19.04.1983 to 08.04.1985 which

is totally wrong baseless as they denied continuity

wrongly. Hence dispute arose.

On the other hand the case of the management that

the concerned workman was appointed on 19.04.1983 as a

miner and continued till 08.04.1985 and he was dismissed

from service on charges of misconduct. After certain

deliberation, the management decided to take back the

concerned workman into the service subject to certain

condition, stated above.

The workman was reinstated w.e.f 14.10.1986 was

considered the workman as fresh employee with condition

that if his one year performance was found satisfactory,

then he may be extended the benefits of continuity of

service for the period when he was dismissed from the

services of the company. The workman’s performance was

not found satisfactory and thus he was not extended the

benefit of continuity of service. Thereafter he was

continued to work with the management till his retirement

i.e 30.11.2004.

It is further stated by the management that the

concerned workman was only entitled to retiral benefits in

accordance with Law. Accordingly the concerned workman

has received P.F for all such period when he has

contributed to the CMPF. In the case of gratuity , the

concerned workman has been settled his gratuity dues

considering 14.10.1986 to be the date of his appointment

and he has received the dues without any protest as soon

as attaining the age of superannuation.

The management submits that the concerned

workman representation before the management for

payment of retiring gratuity,CMPF and other dues correctly

and handing over long service of 20 years on 17.02.2009.

Thereafter the management examined his application and

found his application has got no merit accordingly the

management gave him written relpy vide letter dated 12.03.

2009 mentioning the facts.

The short point to be decided in this case that the

workman concerned is entitled to his retirement benefits

or not.

10.

The workman has claimed his balance retirement

dues from the management through this reference. On the

other hand, the management submitted, that the workman

has received all his dues from the management and stated

that the workman was appointed on 19.04.1983 as miner

and continued till 08.04.1985. on which day he was

dismissed.

11.

Again on consideration of his case, he was given

fresh appointment on 14.10.1986 with certain conditions,

i.e if his one year of service from his fresh appointment

will be satisfactorily he will be given continuity of service

from the period of his dismissal day. It is also mentioned in

the written statement, within that year the work of the

workman was not satisfactory and as such he was not

given the continuity of service.

12.

But regarding bad performance, no notice was served

upon the workman, no charges were made and no memo

as well as no show cause issued to the concerned workman

for bad performance in the said one years period. The

management witness though filed certain documents,

those are photocopies but it is marked as M-1 to M-3 . The

witness had no personal knowledge of that mere on stray

allegations. Therefore without any concrete proof of

misconduct his continuity of service should not be refused.

13.

It is noticed that during the pendency of this case

the concerned workman Md. Khalil died on 20.09.2014 and

as per order dated 26.03.2015 Smt Safiran Bibi w/o deceased

workman is substituted in this case.

14.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Bhelatand

Colliery of M/S Tata Steel Ltd in not paying the legal dues

in respect of Latei MD Khalil from the date of his

appointment is not fair and justified, therefore the wife of

deceased workman Smt Safiran Bibi be given his all dues

from 19.04.1983 till his superannuation, with continuity of

service.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 676-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

13@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

07-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@381@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 676.—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 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1339

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 13 of 2001) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 07.04.2016.

[No. L-20012/381/2000-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 13 of 2001

Employer in relation to the management of

Bastacolla Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present :

Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri S.K. Behra, Asstt. Manager

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 17/03/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /381/2000-IR(C-1) dated

12/01/2001, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

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

BCCL in dismissing the services of the workman Sri

Karu Bhuia Ex- Miner Loader is justified and legal?

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

After receipt of the reference , both parties are

noticed. But none appears in the case by the workman .

Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between

the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence

No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 677-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

31@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

07-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@32@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 677.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 31 of 2010) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 07.04.2016.

[No. L-20012/32/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 31 of 2010

Employers in relation to the management of

W.J. Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present :

Sri Rajan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Shri Pintu Mondal, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 18/03/2016

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/32/2009-IR (CM-I), dated

23/03/2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

1340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bhatdee

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in changing the date of birth

of Shri Naraya Mahato, Trammer from 23.05.1952 as

alleged to be originally record in form “B” Register

to 11.12.1949 is justified and legal?

(ii) To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

30.03.2010. After notice, both parties appeared. The

workman files their written statement on 21.04.2010, After

long delay the management files their written statement

on 27.07.2011 Thereafter rejoinder and documents filed by

the respective parties. Neither the evidence nor the

document marked by both side.

The case of the workman is that the workman

concerned was appointed on 23.05.1980 at Bhatdee Colliery

as Trammer having the date of birth as 23.05.1952. and

service excerpt was filled by Colliery office in the year

1987 and that time colliery rightly mentioned the date of

birth of the concerned workman as 23.05.1952. The

workman himself see and put his sign on his service

excerpt. But the management intentionally and arbitrarily

cut the original date of birth from service excerpt of the

concerned workman and put the fabricated date of birth

as 11.12.1949.

It is also submitted by the workman that without

any authentic document /opinion of medical Board the

management cannot change the date of birth of concerned

workman . The Union submits that in the form “B” register

the date of birth of concerned workman is written as

23.05.1952 but the management did not show the original

form “B” register even the union demanded the form”B”

It is further submitted by the workman that if any

cutting /overwriting made on any paper, there must be

initial, date and seal of officer incharge who is doing entry,

the workman complaint about wrong entry of his date of

birth before the management but the management could

not take any action and handed over notice of retirement

on 01.07.2009. In this way the management force the

workman for retirement without any authentic document.

So this is also the case of premature retirement which is

illegal and against the provision of I.D Act Hence dispute

arose.

This is the case of the management that the form

“B” register is statutory register maintained under the

mines Act. The particulars recorded in Form”B” register

are not changeable in any circumstances. The date of birth

of the workman concerned which was recorded in form

“B” register at the time of his appointment at Bhurungia

project.

It is also submitted by the management that Sri

Narayan Mahato was appointed on 23.05.1980 at Bhatdee

Colliery. And the service excerpt issued to him in the year

1987 in which the date of birth of Sri Mahato recorded as

11.12.1949. After receiving the same in the year 1987 he

returned back the same after giving name of his dependent

putting his signature on the same. He has not submitted

any objection regarding his date of birth through service

excerpt at the time of submitting the same.

The date of birth was recorded in service excerpt on

the basis of Form”B” register of Bhurungia Project where

the workman initially appointed . He has also put his

signature in token of acceptance of entries made in the

form “B’ register at the time of his appointment. It is further

submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute for

change of his date of birth in service record at the fag-end

of his service. Which is not maintainable as per the decision

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The short point to be decided in the case is as to

whether the workman has been retired prematurely though

he had some more days to work or not.

10.

The management counsel solely relied upon the

Form”B” register as well as all other document which was

filed at the earliest stage signed and authenticated by the

workman. The management also kept that on record. But

the workman filing some stray document has claimed that

he was retired prematurely.

11.

The workman raised the claim at the fag end of his

service carrier. The belated claim is always after thought

and as such this Tribunal did not attach any importance

on it. Moreover the workman has not examined himself in

the case nor filed any authentic testimonials.

12. In this context very much material of this judgment is

as below:

As per civil appeal No.2331 of 2004 page 279 in

which— Court to be circumspect,cautions and

careful while issuing direction for correction in date

of Birth of a Govt. servant- particularly at the fag

end of his carrier or on the eve of his superannuation

– Employee cannot claim as a matter of right for

correction in his date of birth even if has good

evidence.

13.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Bhatdee

Colliery of M/S BCCL in changing the date of birth of Shri

Naraya Mahato, Trammer from 23.05.1952 as alleged to be

originally record in form “B” Register to 11.12.1949 is legal

justified. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1341

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 678-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

132@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

07-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@04@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 678.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 132 of 2001) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 07.04.2016.

[No. L-20012/04/2001-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 132 of 2001

Employer in relation to the management of

Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present :

Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 17/03/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /04/2001-IR(C-1) dated

22/05/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the RCMS from the

management of BCCL Sijua Area, for appointment

of Sri Santosh Kumar Paswan, S/O Late Kishun dusad

as per clause 9.4.2 of NCWA on compassionate

ground is proper and justified. If yes, what relief the

said dependant of the workman entitled ?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently as well as no step taken by the workman.

Cases remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between

the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence

No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 679-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

134@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-04-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@124@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 679.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 134 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 07.04.2016.

[No. L-20012/124/1994-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 134 of 1994

Employers in relation to the management of

Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s. BCCL

1342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

Their workman

Present :

Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 18/03/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /124/1994-IR(C-1) dated

01/06/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd.

P. O. Bhurkunda District Hazaribagh is justified in

not paying wages and other benefits for the period

from 01/07/1991 to 13/08/1993 to workman Shri Munir

Mian, Miner? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

After receipt of the reference , both parties are

noticed. But the workman appearing for certain dates.

Subsequently the workman does not appears. Case remain

pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties

have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute

Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 680-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

236@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

07-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@14@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 680.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 236 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 07.04.2016.

[No. L-20012/14/1994-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 236 of 1994

Employers in relation to the management of

Dhobari Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present :

Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 16/03/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /14/1994-IR(C-1) dated

12/10/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Dhobari

Colliery under Bastacolla Area No. IX of M/s. BCCL

in denial of employment to Smt. Jugni Kamin, W/O

Late Ruplal Singh, is justified? If not, to what relief,

she is entitled?”

After receipt of the reference , both parties are

noticed. But the workman appears for certain dates.

Subsequently the workman does not appears. Case remain

pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties

have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute

Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1343

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 681-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 1@2013] 2@2013] 3@2013] 4@2013] 5@2013] 15@2013]

16@2013] 17@2013] 18@2013] 19@2013] 20@2013] 21@2013]

24@2013] 70@2013] 71@2013] 72@2013] ,oa 74@2013) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@04@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@111&115@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@04&11@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@27&29@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@31@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2016

S.O. 681.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 1/2013,

2/2013, 3/2013, 4/2013, 5/2013, 15/2013, 16/2013, 17/2013, 18/

2013, 19/2013, 20/2013, 21/2013, 24/2013, 70/2013, 71/2013,

72/2013, and 74/2013, ) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 08/04/2016.

[No. L-40012/111-115/2012-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/04-11/2013-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/27-29/2013-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/31/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 70,

71, 72 and 74 of 2013, ( 17 references) as per detail given

below:

(1)

ID 1 of 2013:Sh. Ramesh Singh S/o Sh. Kali Ram,

R/o Vill Junidhar, PO Kansa Koti, Tehsil Rohru, Shimla

(Himachal Pradesh).

Reference No. L-40012/111/2012-IR(D.U) dated 26.02.2013

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Shimla in terminating the

services of Sh. Ramesh Singh S/o Sh. Kali Ram w.e.f.

31-1-2011 who was engaged by General Manager,

BSNL, Shimla through contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-

servicemen Corporation, Hamir pur is just, valid and

legal? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled

for and what directions are necessary in the matter?”

(2)

ID 2 of 2013:Sh.Chain Ram S/o Sh. Sanya Ram, R/o

Vill Chamrar, PO Lower Koti Teh. Rohru, Shimla (Himachal

Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/112/2012-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Shimla in terminating the

services of Sh. Chain Ram S/o Sh. Sanya Ram w.e.f.

31-1-2011 who was engaged by General Manager,

BSNL, Shimla through contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-

servicemen Corporation, Hamir pur is just, valid and

legal? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled

for and what directions are necessary in the matter?”

(3)

ID 3 of 2013:Sh.Het Ram S/o Sh. Seria Ram, R/o Vill

Mundo, Teh. Theog, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/113/2012-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Shimla in terminating the

services of Sh.Het Ram S/o Sh. Seria Ram w.e.f. 28-

02-2011 who was engaged by General Manager,

BSNL, Shimla through contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-

servicemen Corporation, Hamir pur is just, valid and

legal? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled

for and what directions are necessary in the matter?”

(4)

ID 4 of 2013:Sh.Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Chet Ram, R/

o Vill Gharog, PO Nehra, Teh. & Distt. Shimla (Himachal

Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/114/2012-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Shimla in terminating the

services of Sh.Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Chet Ram w.e.f.

31-01-2011 who was engaged by General Manager,

BSNL, Shimla through contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-

servicemen Corporation, Hamir pur is just, valid and

legal? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled

for and what directions are necessary in the matter?”

(5)

ID 5 of 2013:Sh.Jagdish Chand Rohal S/o Sh. Med

Ram, R/o Vill Katch., Teh. & PO Kandaghat, Shimla

(Himachal Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/115/2012-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Shimla in terminating the

services of Sh. Jagdish Chand Rohal S/o Sh. Med

Ram w.e.f. 28-02-2011 who was engaged by General

1344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Manager, BSNL, Shimla through contractor M/s. H.P.

Ex-servicemen Corporation, Hamir pur is just, valid

and legal? If not, then what relief the workman is

entitled for and what directions are necessary in the

matter?”

(6)

ID 15 of 2013:Sh.Prateek Kumar S/o Sh. Paras Ram,

R/o Vill Ghoond, Teh. Theog, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/04/2013-IR(DU) dated 12.04.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL,

Shimla in terminating the services of Sh.Prateek

Kumar S/o Sh. Paras Ram w.e.f. 31-01-2011 who was

engaged by General Manager, BSNL, Shimla through

contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation,

Hamir pur is just, valid and legal? To what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

(7)

ID 16 of 2013:Sh.Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Kesru Ram,

R/o Vill Bhajwana, Teh. Theog , Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/05/2013-IR(DU) dated 12.04.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL,

Shimla in terminating the services of Sh. Suresh

Kumar S/o Sh. Kesru Ram w.e.f. 31-01-2011 who was

engaged by General Manager, BSNL, Shimla through

contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation,

Hamir pur is just, valid and legal? To what relief the

workman is entitled to ?”

(8)

ID 17 of 2013:Sh.Rajesh Thakur S/o Sh. Deep Ram,

R/o Surinder Building Shadyana Road, Theog ,P.O.&

Tehsil Theog, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/06/2013-IR(DU) dated 12.04.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL,

Shimla in terminating the services of Sh.Rajesh

Thakur S/o Sh. Deep Ram w.e.f. 31-01-2011 who was

engaged by General Manager, BSNL, Shimla through

contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation,

Hamirpur is just, valid and legal? To what relief the

workman is entitled to ?”

(9)

ID 18 of 2013:Sh. Lekh Raj S/o Late Sh. Daulat Ram,

R/o VPO Bahli.& Tehsil Rampur, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/07/2013-IR(DU) dated 12.04.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL,

Shimla in terminating the services of Sh. Lekh Raj S/

o Late Sh. Daulat Ram w.e.f. 31-01-2011 who was

engaged by General Manager, BSNL, Shimla through

contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation,

Hamirpur is just, valid and legal? To what relief the

workman is entitled to ?”

(10)

ID 19 of 2013:Sh. Hem Chand S/o Sh. Kesru Ram, Vill

Shalapri,PO Mahog,Tehsil Theog, Shimla (Himachal

Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/08/2013-IR(DU) dated 12.04.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL,

Shimla in terminating the services of Sh. Hem Chand

S/o Sh. Kesru Ram w.e.f. 31-01-2011 who was

engaged by General Manager, BSNL, Shimla through

contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation,

Hamirpur is just, valid and legal? To what relief the

workman is entitled to ?”

(11)

ID 20 of 2013:Sh. Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Chaman Lal, Vill

Chikri,PO Taklesh,Tehsil Rampur, Shimla (Himachal

Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/09/2013-IR(DU) dated 12.04.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL,

Shimla in terminating the services of Sh.Mohan Lal

S/o Sh. Chaman Lal w.e.f. 31-01-2011 who was

engaged by General Manager, BSNL, Shimla through

contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation,

Hamirpur is just, valid and legal? To what relief the

workman is entitled to ?”

(12)

ID 21 of 2013:Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh.Parma Ram,

Vill Seti,PO Shilaroo,Tehsil Theog, Shimla (Himachal

Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/10/2013-IR(DU) dated 12.04.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL,

Shimla in terminating the services of Sh. Joginder

Singh S/o Sh.Parma Ram Lal w.e.f. 31-01-2011 who

was engaged by General Manager, BSNL, Shimla

through contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-servicemen

Corporation, Hamirpur is just, valid and legal? To

what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

(13)

ID 24 of 2013:Sh.Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kanwar Singh,

R/o Pikhadhar,PO Khadrala,Tehsil Rohru, Shimla

(Himachal Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/11/2013-IR(DU) dated 22.04.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL,

Shimla in terminating the services of Rajesh Kumar

S/o Sh. Kanwar Singh w.e.f. 31-01-2011 who was

engaged by General Manager, BSNL, Shimla through

contractor M/s. H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation,

Hamirpur is just, valid and legal? To what relief the

workman is entitled to ?”

(14)

ID 70 of 2013:Sh.Bal Krishan Thakur S/o Sh. Prem

Chand, R/o Vill Raghaon Teh. & Distt,Solan (Himachal

Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/27/2013-IR(DU) dated 24.05.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Shimla in terminating the

services of Sh.Bal Krishan Thakur S/o Sh. Prem

Chand w.e.f. 31-1-2011 who was engaged by General

Manager, BSNL, Shimla through contractor M/s. H.P.

Ex-servicemen Corporation, Hamir pur is just and

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1345

legal?To what relief the workman is entitled to and

what directions are necessary in the matter?”

(15)

ID 71 of 2013:Sh.Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Naya Ram, R/o

Vill Bhadral, PO Deem, Teh. Nirmand, Kullu, (Himachal

Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/28/2013-IR(DU) dated 24.05.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Shimla in terminating the

services of Sh.Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Naya Ram w.e.f.

31-1-2011 who was engaged by General Manager,

BSNL, Shimla through contractor M/S H.P. Ex-

servicemen Corporation, Hamir pur is just and legal?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and what

directions are necessary in the matter?”

(16)

ID 72 of 2013:Sh.Amar Chand S/o Late Cheti Ram,

R/o VPO Koyal Teh. Nirmand, Kullu, (Himachal Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/29/2013-IR(DU) dated 24.05.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Shimla in terminating the

services of Sh.Amar Chand S/o Sh. Cheti Ram w.e.f.

31-1-2011 who was engaged by General Manager,

BSNL, Shimla through contractor M/S H.P. Ex-

servicemen Corporation, Hamir pur is just and legal?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and what

directions are necessary in the matter?”

(17)

ID 74 of 2013:Sh.Ashish Kumar S/o Sh.Prashar Ram,

R/o VPO Nirmand Teh. Nirmand, Kullu, (Himachal Pradesh)

Reference No. L-40012/31/2013-IR(DU) dated 24.05.2013:

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Shimla in terminating the

services of Sh.Ashish Kumar S/o Sh.Prashar Ram

w.e.f. 31-1-2011 who was engaged by General

Manager, BSNL, Shimla through contractor M/S H.P.

Ex-servicemen Corporation, Hamir pur is just and

legal? To what relief the workman is entitled to and

what directions are necessary in the matter?”

VERSUS

The General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Ltd., Shimla Telecom District, Block No.35, SDA

Complex, Kasumpati, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)-9

M/s Equinox Guards & Security Services, VPO

Ambari Malan, Kangra-(HP)

M/s HP Ex-Servicemen Corporation Haripur- Distt.

Hamirpur,Hamirpur (Distt.), HP

APPEARANCES :

For the workmen

: Shri J.R. Syal, Advocate

For respodent No.1

: Shri D.R. Sharma, Advocate

For respondent No. 2&3 : None

AWARD

Passed on 31.03.2016

All the above mentioned 17 reference being similar

in nature as the facts of all the above cases are same and

vide this Tribunal’s order dated 19.6.2015 , all the above

17 reference were consolidated and I.D.1 of 2013 Ramesh

Singh Vs. BSNL was made the leading case. In the above

references, the workmen claiming reinstatement along with

seniority and continuity in service and all other

consequential benefits. Thus all the references are taken

together and are being answered by joint award.

The workmen in claim statements submitted that they

were initially appointed by respondent No.1earlier through

M/s Equinox Guards & Security Services,VPO Ambari

Malan, District Kangra H.P. and thereafter through M/S

HP Ex-Servicemen Corporation Haripur- Distt. Hamirpur,HP

as security guard at BTS Tower at different places under

the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. and they were issued

identity cards by respondent No.1. It is further submitted

that respondent No.1 availed the services of the workmen

for multifarious duties such as rectification of faults in

cables, to distribute/despatch official files and documents

from one office to another and also taken the services

during night hours which the workmen have done with

utmost sincerity and loyalty and there was no complaint

against the workmen from any corner. It is further pleaded

by the workmen that their services were terminated by the

respondents without issuing any charge sheet, notice,

enquiry or paying any compensation to the workmen. It is

further submitted by the workmen that respondent No.1

has executed an agreement with respondent No.3 to

provide security guards for the purpose of security

services of the area of the BSNL GMTD. Consequently

the services of the workmen were availed by respondent

No.1. It is further submitted by the workmen that normally

the relationship of employer and employee does not exist

between an employer and contractor and servant of an

independent contractor, however a employer retains or

assumes control over the means and method by which the

work of the contractor is to be done, it may be said that the

relationship between the employer and employee exist

between him and the servants of such a contractor. As the

workmen were required for the purpose of proper security

services of the area of the respondentNo.1 and respondent

No.1 has retained complete control on employment, work

and continuance of service of the contract labour, therefore

the security work being a work of permanent and perennial

nature, therefore, the employment of the staff for

respondent No.1 through contractor is an unfair labour

practice and the workmen should be reengaged in the

service by respondent No.1 being principle employer. It is

further pleaded that the termination of the workmen are

against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and

the Contract labour Abolition Act, therefore, the workmen

1346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

are entitled for their reinstatement with effect and

continuity of service with full back wages from the date of

their respective terminations as mentioned in the term of

references above.

The management of respondent No.1 filed reply to

the claim statements stating therein that the claim

statement qua respondent No.1 is not maintainable as the

workmen were never employed by the respondent No.1

and there is no relationship of master and servant It is

further submitted that services of watch and ward staff

were hired through approved agency i.e. Respondent No.2

and 3 and the respondent No.1 has no role to play as the

workmen were not their employees. It is further pleaded

by the management that all the workmen except Chain

Ram ( ID No.2 of 2013) and Suresh Kumar(ID NO.16 of

2013) also approached the Hon’ble C.A.T Chandigarh by

filling separate OAs in which the workmen were granted

liberty to approach this Court which fact has been

concealed by the workmen. On merits it is pleaded that

watch and ward staff were hired through approved agency

i.e. respondent No.2 and 3 and the salary of the workmen

were paid through the approved agency i.e. respondent

No.2 and 3. And the management of respondent No.1 has

executed the agreement for the said work and as the

workmen were not employees of the respondent No.1

therefore, the question of issuance of the identity card

does not arise. It is further submitted by the respondent

No.1 that work was executed on need basis and as per the

requirement of the organisation. It is further submitted

that as the workmen were never engaged by the respondent

NO.1, therefore, the question of their reinstatement does

not arise as there is no relationship of master and servant

and the respondent No.1 prayed for rejection of the

reference. Along with the written statement, the

respondent No.1 also filed documents as annexure R-1

and R-2.

Respondent No.3 appeared and filed reply stating

therein that the management of respondent No.3 supplied

Security Guards to BSNL during the period 31.8.2009 to

31.10.2009 where after M/S H.P. Ex-Servicemen Corporation

was engaged by BSNL and entire staff of the respondent

No.3 was taken over by respondent NO.2 i.e. M/S HP Ex-

Servicemen Corporation and at the time of alleged

terminations of the workmen, respondent No.3 was

nowhere in picture and it is prayed by the respondent

No.3 that reference may be rejected qua respondent No.3.

After filing of the reply, the respondent No.3 stopped

appearing and proceeded ex-parte vide this Tribunal order

dated 19.6.2015. The respondent No.2 never appeared

nor filed any reply to the claim statement hence proceeded

ex-parte vide order dated 19.6.2015.

The workmen also filed rejoinders to the reply filed

by respondent no.1 reiterating the claim made in claim

statements and also pleaded that the O.As filed by the

workmen were disposed off on the ground of jurisdiction

not on merit by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

In evidence, the workmen filed their respective

affidavits. Being similar in nature one workman Jagdish

Kumar was examined who tender his affidavit Ex.W1 and

he was cross-examined by the counsel for respondent No.1.

The management in evidence filed affidavit Ex.M1 of Anita

Bhardwaj working as AGM in the office of General Manager

Shimla who also relied on document Ex.M2 containing

Annexures from pages 38 to 65 . The said witness was

also cross-examined by the counsel for the workmen.

I have heard the parties, gone through the evidence

and record.

The management in documentary evidence filed

photo copy of agreement dated 27-8-2007 between

G.M.T.D.Shimla, as one party and M/S Equinox Guards

and Security Services, the contractor as annexure-1,

photocopy of approved wage structure ,receipt dated

27-8-2007 on account of 50% security, letter dated 11/12-

6-2009 from D.E.Admn O/o GMTD Shimla, regarding

termination of services of 47 security guards deployed at

BTSs on Non BSNL cites, photo copy of locations under

GMTD Shimla, another agreement dated 30-11-2009

between H.P.Ex-Servicemen Corporation, Hamirpur as party

no.1 and General Manager Telecom, Distt. Shimla as party

no.2, copy of wage structure running in two pages, letter

dated 27-12-2010 by AGM (HR/Admn.) O/o G.M.T.D.

Shimla to M/S H.P. Ex-Servicemen Corporation, Hamirpur

regarding withdrawal of services of 17 security guards

deployed at BTSs in Shimla SSA, letter dated 21-12-2010

by AGM (HR/Admn.) O/o G.M.T.D. Shimla to M/S H.P. Ex-

Servicemen Corporation, Hamirpur regarding withdrawal

of services of 7 security guards deployed at BTSs in

Shimla SSA, letter dated 16-12-2010 by AGM (HR/Admn.)

O/o G.M.T.D. Shimla to M/S H.P. Ex-Servicemen

Corporation, Hamirpur regarding withdrawal of services

of 28 security guards deployed at BTSs in Shimla SSA,

letter dated 3-12-2010 by AGM (HR/Admn.) O/o G.M.T.D.

Shimla to M/S H.P. Ex-Servicemen Corporation, Hamirpur

regarding withdrawal of security guards from the various

locations w.e.f. 1-1-2011.

10.

On behalf of the workmen a judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.3166 of 2002

Ram Singh and others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh

and others with Civil Appeal No.3200 of 2002 Dharam Pal

and others Versus. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others

and Civil Appeal No.3167 of 2002 Amar Kumar and others

Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others decided on

7-11-2003. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases

held that Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 226 –

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970,

Section 10 – Contract labour – Regularisation of –

Relationship of employee and employer – Validity of labour

contract – Court can lift the veil and pierce behind it to

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1347

ascertain the nature of employment and can hold direct

relationship of labour with the principal employer – That

however cannot be done in writ proceedings or the appeals

arising from the same – Workman will have to approach

the industrial court for industrial adjudication.

11.

In this context, if we examine the pleadings of the

parties, the workmen mentioned in para no.1 of the claim

statements that workmen were appointed by respondent

no.1 through M/s. Equinox Guards and Security Services

and thereafter through M/s. H.P. Ex-Servicemen

Corporation, Hamirpur. The management in the this context

pleaded that the workmen were never employed by the

answering respondent (Respondent no.1) . It is further

pleaded that the services of the watch and ward were hired

through approved agency M/s. H.P. Ex-Servicemen

Corporation, Hamirpur and M/s. Equinox Guards and

Security Services. Salaries of the workmen were paid

through agency only i.e. management no. 2 and 3 and the

management has no role to play as the workmen were not

the employee of respondent no.1 i.e. BSNL Shimla. WW1

Jagdish Chand Rohal in his cross examination clearly stated

that “ I have not received any appointment letter from

BSNL. ......I have no salary slip of BSNL. I have not

received any salary from BSNL. “ This witness further

admitted that he do not know who is making payment of

salary to him and his salary is credited in his saving bank

account.

12.

Thus the workmen themselves admitted that they

had not received any appointment letter from the BSNL.

The management witness MW1 in her cross-examination

stated that the workmen are working as security guards

through contractor for maintaining security which is need

basis job and at present there is no need of security guards

at the places where the workmen were working. This

witness further stated that BSNL is the principal employer

as the contractor provides the workmen to work with BSNL

and the workmen so provided by the outsourcing agency

are not being transferred by the BSNL. They are under the

control of the out sourcing agency. BSNL do not suggest

the contractor for transferring the workmen. BSNL being

the principal employer pay to the contractor and contractor

subsequently disburse the wages to the workmen as per

entitlement.. We do not know whether workmen have

completed 240 days in preceding year to the date of their

disengagement. It is for the contractor to verify the

attendance of the workmen. This witness also stated that

accordingly the management intimated to the contractor

that no work is available. BSNL did not terminate the

services of the workmen. .BSNL intimated to the contractor.

It is further stated by MW! That deductions and

deposition of EPF was the liability of the contractor as per

the agreement.

13.

Thus from the oral as well as documentary

evidence, it is clear that the workmen were not employed

by the BSNL ( respondent No.1) and workmen were

engaged by the contractor approved out source agency.

From the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that

the respondent No.1 had no control over the workmen;

their salary was disbursed by the contractor. In the claim

statement, the workmen sought the relief of reinstatement

from respondent No. 1 which cannot be granted in view of

the facts and circumstances of the case as the workmen

were never the employees of the management of BSNL i.e.

respondent No. 1. So far as the violation of the provisions

of Section 25 F. G. H. of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947

are concerned, the workmen had not pleaded in the claim

statement nor proved that they had completed more

than240 days in preceding year to the date of termination.

14.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

and discussion made above, it is held that the workmen

are not the employee of the BSNL and there exists no

relationship of employer and employee between the

management of BSNL and the workmen and the workmen

are not entitled to any relief.

15.

All the references are answered accordingly. Central

Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent

to the Central Govt. for publication. A copy of this award

be placed on each reference file as mentioned above.

Chandigarh

31.03.2016.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 682-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj rEckdw fodkl

funs'kky; 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 58@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-4-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@31@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2016

S.O. 682.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 58/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyaderbad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Tambaku Vikas Nideshalaya, Chennai

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 11.04.2016.

[No. L-42011/31/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

1348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 58/2011

Between :

The President,

Cost of Production Scheme

Employees Association,

&th Street, Bhagyanagar,

Ongole – 523001

...Petitioner

AND

The Director-in-charge,

Tambaku Vikas Nideshalaya,

M/o Agriculture,

D/o Agriculture & Cooperation,

Sastri Bhawan Annexe, III rd floor,

26, Haddows Road,

Chennai – 600006

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. K. Lakshman, P. Sardar

Singh Chauhan & M. Kiran

Kumar, Advocates

For the Respondent

Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud,

Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-42011/31/2011-IR(DU) dated 5.9.2011 referred

the following dispute between the management of

Tambaku Vikas Nideshalaya, M/o Agriculture and their

workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for

adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Director,

Tobacco Development, Chennai in not inducting the

services of field staff under ‘Subordinate Statistical

Services’ is legal and justified? What relief the

workmen are entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.

No. 58/2011 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

The Petitioner Union has filed their claim statement

and Respondents also filed their respective counter

statement.

The case stands posted for recording Petitioner’s

evidence.

Inspite of availing several opportunities to adduce

evidence, the Petitioner union remained absent and there

is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union,

which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner

union has already been settled. In the circumstances stated

above, it is felt that the Petitioner union has got no claim

to raise. Thus, ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 15th day

of March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 683-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,DliksVZ baLisD'ku

,tsalh] dksydkrk 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 03@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 11-4-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@05@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2016

S.O. 683.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 03/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Export Promotion Agency, Kolkata and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11.04.2016.

[No. L-42012/05/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1349

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 03 of 2011

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of Export

Inspection Agency - Kolkata

AND

Their workman.

Present :

Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty,

Management

Ld. Counsel

On behalf of the

None

Workman

State : West Bengal

Industry :

Dated: 29th March, 2016.

AWARD

By Order No.L-42012/5/2011-IR(DU) dated 02.06.2011

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Export

Inspection Agency, Kolkata, in terminating the

services of workman Shri Sujit Biswas w.e.f.

01/05/2009, by verbal order, is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of the workman though the management

is represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears from the record

that the workman at whose instance the present reference

has been initiated, has not turned up for the last three

consecutive dates.

Considering the above, it may reasonably be

presumed that the workman is not at all interested to

proceed further with the case. So, no fruitful purpose will

be served in keeping the matter pending.

In view of the above, instant reference is disposed

of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Kolkata,

The 29th March, 2016.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 684-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

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

ohjHkæ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;-2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 88@2012)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-4-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@191@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2016

S.O. 684.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 88/2012) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of IDPL, Virbhadra and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 08.04.2016.

[No. L-42011/191/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

I.D. No. 88/2012

Sh.Rishipal Arya,

Chargeman (Services),

B-263, IDPL, Virbhadra,

Rishikesh,

Dehradun

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager

IDPL, Virbhadra,

Rishikesh,

Dehradun

...Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-42011/191/2011-IR(DU) dated

17.02.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of IDPL in

accepting the application under VRS without

following any principle of seniority and termination

of service on VRS of workman is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

1350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On 13.03.2012 reference was received in this

Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 88/2012 and

claimant union was called upon to file claim statement

with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which

was required to be accompanied with relevant documents

and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim

statement alongwith Photostat copies of documents on

11.05.2012.

In his claim statement he stated that manager IDPL

corporate office, Gurgaun, in his letter directed all the

workmen to file VRS form up to 31.12.2002. In case of

default workmen shall be retrenched in future. Due to which

all workmen filled VRS form. He also mentioned that senior

workmen are still working in management while junior

workers granted VRS . He also mentioned in claim statement

that following workmen filled VRS form on 31.3.2004.

S.No.

Name

Designation

C.C. No.

Employee No.

Date of retirement

Ranjit Singh

Charge man

282

4207

November, 2010

Ramesh Thapliyal

Charge man

323

6245

January, 2013

Kausal Kishor Singh

Charge man

531

6242

May 2013

R.K. Sharma

Charge man

323

6246

November, 2013

Gurender Singh

Charge man

241

6236

May, 2013

Rishi Pal Arya

Charge man

282

4716

Jully, 2014

R.R. K Masik.

Charge man

441

4903

November, 2014

Out of aforesaid workmen VRS was granted to

workman Sh. Rishipal only other workmen are still in

service. On the basis of aforesaid grounds workmen prayed

that he be reinstated in service since date of his VRS dated

31.3.2004 because maintenance and education of children

of workman is being adversely affected.

Against claim statement management filed written

statement on 15.01.2009. Through which management

prayed as follows:-

It is therefore humbly prayed that the claim of the

applicant is wholly vexations, mischievous and untenable

and as such the claim may kindly be dismissed, with

exemplary cast.

My Ld. Predecessor on 29.4.2013 passed an order on order

sheet as follows:-

Present :

None for the claimant.

None for the management .

“On perusal of pleadings , it came to light that no

other issue than those referred for adjudication by the

appropriate Government , is made out. Case adjourned for

evidence of the parties for 18.6.2013 . Claimant to conclude

first.”

Sh. Rishipal Arya, on 18.6.2013 examined himself as

WW1 . His statement is as follows:-

In September 2002, I was working at IDPL Veerbhadra,

Rishikesh, Uttrakhand as a chargeman. The management

issued a circular on 20.09.2002, copy of which is Ex. WW1/1.

Further examination may be deferred. Since I want to

produce voluntary retirement scheme alongwith other

documents. Which are not in my possession today.

At the request of the witness, his further examination

is deferred.

He was further re-examined himself on 8.10.2015.

Wherein he stated as follows:-

In addition to it papers filed by me be taken into

consideration as evidence.

XXXXX:- It is incorrect to suggest that after VRS to

me all benefits were given. My department compensatory

benefits of VRS were not given to me. Letter dated 17.09.2004

which is on record has been given by me to department .

Contents of that letter are true. It is correct nothing about

balance is mentioned in this letter. I am still in possession

of residential accommodation provided to me by the

department. It is incorrect to suggest that I have filed this

case to exert pressure on department so that department

may not eject me from residential accommodation un-

authorizedly occupied by me. It is correct that financial

condition of management was week at the time of filing of

this case but now department has rescued and in better

position.

It is correct that management has launched revised

VRS scheme to keeping in view the financial crises of the

company which is Ex. WW1/1. In my letter dated 25.3.2005

nothing is mentioned about non-payment of balance dues

of VRS benefits . It is correct that it is written in letter

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1351

dated 25.3.2005 that the benefits received by me under the

VRS scheme may be adjourned in my future services on

monthly basis. I have not withdrawn my application for

VRS pending its disposal . It is wrong to suggest that I am

deposing falsely.

Then workman closed his evidence. so 25.11.2013

was fixed for management evidence.

On 25.11.2013 affidavit of MW1 Sh. Pravin Kumar

Verma was filed. Which was tendered on 26.3.2014

alongwith documents Exh. MW1/1 & MW1/2. His

examination –in-chief and cross-examination is as follows:-

I tender in evidence of my affidavit Ex. MW1/A

which bears my signature at point ‘A’ and ‘B’ . I reply

upon documents Ex. MW1/1 and Ex. MW1/2.

XXXXX by Sh. Rishi Pal Arya, (Workman ).

It is correct form of VRS was also taken from the

seniors to workman. Those seniors are still working but

workman has been retired on the basis of that form.

Whether application for withdrawal of VRS

application was given by me?

I have no knowledge .

Whether that application was moved in 2004?

I do not know.

Whether after VRS to workman Pension was given?

When workman completed 50 years of ages he was

provided with the family pension.

Whether teachers working in inter college of IDPL

was permitted to withdraw their application moved

for VRS.

That college was not under control of IDPL.

It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing false to

save the management from its liability.

Management also filed affidavit of MW2 Sh.

Shailendra Singh, and tendered his affidavit. His

examination –in-chief and cross-examination is as follows:-

I tender my evidence by way of affidavit as Exh.

MW2/A which bears my signature at point A & B . I also

tendered authority letter annexed with affidavit which is

mark Ex. MW2/1.

XXXXX by Sh. Rishipal Arya, (Workman)

Whether circular were issued to all workman?

Yes.

Whether partiality has been done in matter of VRS

of employees?

No.

Whether Management favoured workman Ranjit

Singh, Ramesh Thapliyal, Kaushal Kr. Singh, R.P.

Sharma, Gurender Singh & Ors?

No.

It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely

in respect of aforesaid fact.

It is also incorrect to suggest that I am filed false

and fabricated affidavit to shield the management from its

liability.

After his tendering and cross –examination on

7.7.2015 management closed its evidence. On 7.7.2015

workman moved an application through, which he prayed

for reinstatement. Copies of which supplied to

management and objection was invited. Fixed 18.08.2015.

On 18.08.2015 management filed reply of application by

workman. Thereafter I have heard the arguments on the

point of disposal of application of workman as well as

disposal of I.D. Case and reserved award.

First of all disposing of application for workman for

reinstatement. Application is not maintainable as it has

been moved after conclusion of evidence of parties.

So it is rejected.

Now I am deciding the case on the basis of pleadings

and evidence of parties. Perusal of questions of

determination mentioned in schedule of reference are as

follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of IDPL in

accepting the application under VRS without

following any principle of seniority and termination

of service on VRS of workman is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

Out of questions of determinations. Burden of proof

of question of determination no. 1 is on management but

management adduced no reliable and credible evidence to

prove question of determination which has been treated

to be issue no. 1.

While on the other hand workman in rebuttal well

proved that seniors workmen who filled BRS forms

alongwith workman have been retained by management.

While BRS was granted to juniors to them . In this

background this Tribunal has no option except to decide

question of determination treated issue No. 1 in favour of

workman. In the instant case is liable to be decided in

favour of workman and against management. Which is

accordingly decided. But at the same time this fact cannot

be ignored that workman Sh. Rishi Pal Arya has crossed

the age of retirement. So no relief of reinstatement can be

granted to workman.

At the same time management cannot be awarded

reward for his default. So it is a fit case wherein settled law

1352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of supreme court on the point of compensation is

applicable.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court on the

point of reinstatement and grant of back wages. Which

shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence

wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the

facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded.

In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and

Anr Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that reinstatement of workman with

continuity of service and 25% back wages was not proper

in the facts and circumstances of the case and the

compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)

shall meet the ends of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana

State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. AIR 2009

Supreme Court 3004, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus

“the award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case

where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a

year preceding the date of termination particularly, daily

wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and

instead compensation has been awarded.” In catena of

Judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that

reinstatement is not automatic, merely because the

termination is illegal or in contravention of S-25-F of the

Industrial Dispute Act. In Talwara Co-operative credit and

service society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC

486, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus,” grant of relief of

reinstatement, it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back

wages is also not automatic.”

Workman of the instant case was not appointed by

following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered

service with the respondent as a casual worker, thus,

Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only)

by way of damages as compensation to the workman/

claimant within two month by Management after expiry of

period of limitation of available remedy against Award.

That will meet the ends of Justice.

Thus Reference is decided in favour of workman

and against Management.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-11.09.2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 685-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZLV fnYyh

E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 239@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 08-4-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@141@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2016

S.O. 685.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 239/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of East Delhi Municipal Corporation and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.04.2016.

[No. L-42011/141/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO. 1, DELHI

ID No.239/2015

Shri Jabbar Singh, through

The President,

MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi 001 011

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

East Delhi Municipal Corporation

Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419,

Patparganj Industrial Area, Shahdara,

Delhi 110 092

...Management

AWARD

Reference in the present case was received from the

appropriate Government, viz. Ministry of Labour and

employment, vide order No.L-42011/141/2015-IR(DU)

dated 09.11.2015 for adjudication of the industrial dispute

with following reference:

“Whether the action of the management of East Delhi

Municipal Corporation In not granting the grade

pay scale of Rs.1900/- to Shri Jabbar Singh with

effect from 01.01.2011 as Mali is fair and legal? If

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1353

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and

from which date?”

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent

to the claimant as well as the management.

Shri B.K. Prasad, authorized representative

appearing on behalf of the claimant has moved an

application submitting that the dispute for grant of

Rs.1900/- grade pay with effect from 01.01.2011 was raised

on 21.02.2012 as the workman has been absorbed in

Municipal Corporation of Delhi from Delhi Development

Authority and is presently working under East Delhi

Municipal Corporation. After completion of 24 years of

service, he is entitled to grade pay of 4200/-, which he has

been paid upto 30.06.2014 through bank attachment under

Section 33 C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Hence, the workman herein is satisfied and does not want

to contest the present dispute.

Pursuant to grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4200 from

01.01.2011 to the workman herein, his claim made would

stand satisfied. Hence, a no claim/dispute is, accordingly,

passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : April 5, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 686-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj E;qfufliy

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh (lkmFk) 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 72@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 08-4-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@57@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2016

S.O. 686.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 72/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi

(South) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 08.04.2016.

[No. L-42011/57/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO. 1, DELHI

ID No. 72/2014

Shri Brahm Prakash, S/o Shri Sube Singh,

Through MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

New Delhi

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South),

9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi-110 002

...Management

Reference under Section 10 sub section (2A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received

from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide it orders No.L-42011/57/2014-IR(DU)

dated 05.08.2014 for adjudication of the industrial dispute

with the following terms:

‘Whether Shri Brahm Prakash S/o Shri Sube Ram is

entitled to the status of Chaudhary in the pay scale

of Rs.3050-4590 with effect from 01.01.1995 revised

from time to time alongwith all consequential

benefits? If so, what directions are necessary in

this respect?

Both the parties were put to notice and the workman

Shri Brahm Prakash filed his statement of claim, wherein it

is alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary

with effect from 01.01.1995 by the competent officers of

Horticulture Department. He was posted in West Zone to

work under Director of Horticulture. He is posted under

Shri Kare Singh, SO(H), Shri Ajay Chauhan, AD(H) and

Shri Kamal Singh Meena, Dy Director (Horticulture),

Najafgarh Zone and is presently posted under South Delhi

Municipal Corporation However, he has been denied pay

scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. No

qualification is prescribed for promotion to the post of

Garden Chaudhary. The workman has got payment of

salary in the lower pay scale of mali, i.e. Rs.810-1100

revised from time to time and has been denied the scale of

Chaudhary, i.e. Rs.950-1500 for his performing the duty of

Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1995. Action of the

management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and

amounts to unfair labour practice.

It is also averred in para 9 of the statement of claim

that Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai Chand

vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has

disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis

1354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

who are working on the post of Chaudhary vide its

judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement

of the Hon’ble Court, Municipal Corporation of Delhi

(Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.

ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005

(Annexure B). There is also reference to the judgment of

Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the matter of

Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan Singh wherein

also plea of the MCD regarding non-payment of wages of

Chaudhary to malis who are doing working of Chaudhary,

was turned down by the Hon’ble High Court in judgement

dated 27.07.2011.

It is also averred that similar situated workmen (Mali

and Chowkidar) who were performing duty of Chaudhary

were granted pay scale of Chaudhary from the date when

they were asked to perform duty on the higher post and

management has challenged the order dated 27.07.2011 of

the Labour Court in the matter of MCD vs Sultan Singh

as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by

Special Leave to Appeal No.S20069/2011 and the plea by

MCD all the time has been dismissed by both, before the

High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Workman herein is also similarly situated and doing work

of Chaudhary and as such entitled to same benefits.

Management, despite granting of four opportunities,

failed to put in their appearance and hence were proceeded

ex-parte on 21.01.2015.

The only issue which requires determination in the

case in hand is whether the workman herein is entitled for

grant of pay scale of Rs.950-1500 as revised from time to

time alongwith consequential benefits. It is clear from

statement of claim that initially the workman herein was

appointed as mali on muster and later on he was regularized

on the same post of mali in the pay scale of Rs.810-1100

alongwith usual allowances.

There is also ample evidence on record that the

workman herein was performing duty as officiating

Chaudhary. It is clear from perusal of document dated

26.09.2005 (List of Chaudharys working in West Region)

Ex.WW1/1 that name of the workman, Shri Brahm Prakash

finds mention at serial No.21 and working as Chaudhary

since January, 1995. Workman, in order to prove his case,

has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein

material averments contained in statement of claim has

been reiterated. It is specifically alleged in the affidavit

that he was doing work of Chaudhary/officiating

Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1995.

To my mind, as similarly situated other workers who

were performing duties of Chaudhary, i.e. acting Chaudhary

have been granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after

judgement dated 27.07.2011 rendered by the Hon’ble High

Court in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD

vs. Mahipal(WP 5550 of 2010). Operating portion of the

judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon’ble Division

Bench is as under:

“28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances

it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have

always been that they should be paid the difference

in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary

as they were made to work on the post of Garden

Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied

that they worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took

the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture)

was not competent to ask the respondents to work

as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents

cannot be appointed to the post of Garden

Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment

rules. There is no doubt that respondents are not

claiming appointment to the post of Garden

Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-

hoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary

to rules or that some of them not having the requisite

qualifications are entitled for relaxation.

29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances

therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

failed to make out any such grounds which will impel

this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution to set aside the orders of the

Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October,

2010 as no illegality or un- sustainability or perversity

in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.

30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties

are left to bear their own cost.”

It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD

before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special

leave S20069/2011 MCD vs. Sultan Singh and others which

was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon’ble High Court

in Sultan Singh case strongly deprecated the stand taken

by the management that the workmen were not possessing

requisite qualification or have not qualified the test etc. It

was clarified that since the workmen were discharging

duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, a such, workmen

were entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and

competent authority need not look into anything else

except the fact that the workman had worked as Garden

Chaudhary.

10.

It is not out of place to mention here that even if the

workman herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case

referred above, judgement of the Hon’ble High Court is

binding on the management and management is required

to implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is

judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are

required to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement

of the Hon’ble High Court, which have become final. The

Hon’ble High Court has decided an abstract proposition

of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as officiating/

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1355

acting Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages of

Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working

on a higher post, on adhoc or temporary basis, even such

workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless

rules or regulations specifically provides otherwise. I find

support to this view from Secretary vs. Lieutenant Governor

Port Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon’ble

Apex Court while considering that question of grant of

benefits to similarly situated employees who were not party

to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar

Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347

observed as under:

“The moot question which requires determination

is as to whether in the given case, approach of the

Tribunal and the High Court was correct in extending

the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which

had attained finality as it was affirmed till the

Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be

culled from the judgments, cited both by the

appellants as well as the respondents, can be

summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of

employees is given relief by the Court, all other

identically situated persons need to be treated alike

by extending that benefit. Not doing so would

amount to discrimination and would be violative

of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This

principle needs to be applied in service matters more

emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved

by this Court from time to time postulates that all

similarly situated persons should be treated similarly.

Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely

because other similarly situated persons did not

approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated

differently.

(2) However, this principle is subject to well

recognized exceptions in the form of laches and

delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who

did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases

and acquiesced into the same and woke up after

long delay only because of the reason that their

counterparts who had approached the Court earlier

in time succeeded in their efforts, then such

employees cannot claim that the benefit of the

judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated

persons be extended to them. They would be treated

as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the

acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss

their claim.

(3) However, this exception may not apply in those

cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court

was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit

to all similarly situated persons, whether they

approached the Court or not. With such a

pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the

authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all

similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur

when the subject matter of the decision touches

upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization

and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of

India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of

the Court was in personam holding that benefit of

the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before

the Court and such an intention is stated expressly

in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from

the tenor and language of the judgment, those who

want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended

to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does

not suffer from either laches and delays or

acquiescence.”

11.

In view of the discussions made herein above, it is

held that the workman is entitled to the pay scale of Garden

Chaudhary with effect from January, 1995 and as a

corollary, management is liable pay the difference of wages

of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when

the workman herein was performing duties and functions

of Garden Chaudhary till date. An award is accordingly

passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : April 5, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 687-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy

dkjiksjs'ku ,.M vnlZ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 184@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 08-4-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2016

S.O. 687.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 184/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and

Others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 08.04.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

1356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT NO. 1, DELHI

ID No. 184/2012

Shri Sohan Lal, S/o Shri Ram Niwas,

through Delhi General Udyog Karamchari

Sangh (Regd.) Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh,

5239, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110 006

……Workman

Versus

The Manager,

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Kashmeri Gate,

Delhi-110 006

M/s. All Services Under One Roof (I) Pvt. Ltd.

690/91 West Guru Angad Nagar, Delhi

……Management

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that

Shri Sohan Lal, workman herein, was engaged by

Management No.2 as daily wager with effect from 04.07.2008

at Metro Station Kashmeri Gate, Delhi. He was being paid

salary of Rs.4500.00 being minimum wages and the

workman was performing his duties diligently. He was

deprived by the management of all the benefits such as

letter of appointment, casual leave, minimum wages,

overtime etc. by the management. Management was

informed number of times regarding this but to no avail.

Later on, the services of the workman was terminated

without any rhyme or reason on 21.1.2011 by Management

No.2. Officials of the management were getting signatures

of most of the workers on blank papers and they were

always threatening to expel the workmen from the job

despite the fact that the workman herein was performing

his duties sincerely.

2. Later on the workman sent demand notice on

10.07.2012 which was never reply by the management.

Later on matter was taken through the union to the

Conciliation Officer. However, no action was taken against

within 45 days by the Assistant Labour Commissioner

also, as such, the workman herein filed his claim directly

under sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947(in short the Act). Prayer has been made by the

workman for declaring order dated 21.01.2011 to be illegal,

null and void and to direct reinstatement of the workman

alongwith all consequential benefits.

3. Managements were put to notice and both the

managements filed separate reply to the statement of claim.

Management No.1 in its reply took preliminary objection

that the workman herein was never employed by them

and there was no relationship of employee and employer

between him and the management. Moreover, workman

does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ as defined

under section 2(s) of the Act and there exists no dispute

nor this Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the present matter.

On merits, Management No.1 has denied most of the

averments contained in the statement of claim. Stand of

Management No.1 is very specific that the workman was

never in the employment of Management No.1 and his

services were in fact were terminated by Management No.2.

4. Management No.2, in its reply also took

preliminary objections of malafide, misconceived, claim

being illegal and the present claim is nothing but an abuse

of process of law. On merits, it is denied that the workman

herein was a skilled employee and was working since

11.07.2008 and honestly. It is further denied that the

workman herein was getting salary below minimum wages.

Management No.2 also denied that the workman herein

was not given benefits of labour laws, including casual

leave etc. Management also denied that services of the

workman were terminated illegally or without any reason

etc. The workman herein, most of the time was found

smoking beedis in the metro premises, which is strictly

prohibited. He was warned on several occasions, however,

he continued to repeat these acts despite warnings by the

Management. In January, 2011, he committed theft of some

machinery, which was reported to PS Kashmeri Gate.

Thereafter, he fled and never reported back for the job.

Management denied the averments contained in the

remaining paras.

6. Against this factual background, my learned

predecessor on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide

order dated 17.07.2013 framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether services of the claimant was

dispensed with by M/s All Services under One

Roof Pvt. Ltd.?

(ii)

Whether claimant abandoned services of M/s

All Services under One Roof Pvt. Ltd., as

claimed in the written statement?

(iii)

Whether claimant is entitled to relief of

reinstatement in services of M/s All Services

under One Roof Pvt. Ltd.?

(iv)

As in terms of reference

7. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of

the stand taken in the respective pleadings. The workman

examined himself as WW1 and the management examined

Shri Rahul Singh as MW1 and tendered certain

documents. I would be discussing the same in the

subsequent paras while drawing my conclusions.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1357

Findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2

8. Both these issues are being taken up together for

the purpose of discussion as well as adjudication as they

are interconnected and can be conveniently disposed of.

9. Workman in order to prove his case against the

management has tendered in evidence his affidavit,

Ex.WW1/A which is on similar lines as the averments

contained in the statement of claim. It is alleged in para 2

of the affidavit that management No.1 engaged services

of Management No,2 under Contract Labour Act, 1970

and Management No.1 being the principal employer was

responsible to ensure payment of wages well in time as

well as grant of all labour benefits which are available to

the workmen under the Industrial labour laws. Workman

was not given wages for January 2011 despite several

demands made by him. Resultantly workman was verbally

terminated on 21.01.2011 without any rhyme or reason.

Workman herein does not have any source of income and

has tried his level best to get some job. There is hardly

any cross-examination of the workman herein on any

material point. Workman has tendered in evidence

documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8. It is clear from

perusal of pay slip Ex.WW1/1 that services of the workman

herein were being taken by management No.2 at Kashmeri

Gate Metro Station, at a monthly wages of Rs.4500.00.

Letter No.Ex.WW1/2 is demand letter regarding claim of

wages by the workman from Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Management No.1. Receipt of letter is Ex.WW1/3 and

acknowledgement is Ex.WW1/5, It shows that copy of the

letter was sent to Management No.2 and copy of Identity

Card is Ex.WW1/6. Claim filed by the workman through

the Union is Ex.WW1/7 which also shows that the

workman herein has specifically averred that his services

were terminated on 21.01.2011.

10. It is not out of place to mention here that when

matter was listed for hearing on 07.03.2014, an offer was

made by the management of All Services Under One Roof

to take the claimant back on duty in Delhi. Thereafter, as

per statement of claim, he went to report for duty on

12.03.2014 and also thereafter, but he was not allowed to

resume his duties. Rather he was asked by no one to join

duty as per order of this Tribunal. Letter Ex.WW1/M2

was addressed to the workman herein by Management

No.2 which shows that the workman did not report for

duty on 08.03.2014 and management waited till 5 p.m. for

the workman herein so as to enable him to join duty. There

is also mention in letter Ex.WW1/M2 that the workman

does not appear to be interested in resuming duties.

11. Management, in order to rebut the case of the

claimant re-examined Shri Rahul Singh, Operation staff of

Management No.2 All Services Under One Roof as MW1

and his affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. It is clear from averments

made in para 2 of the said affidavit that Shri Sohan Lal was

working with Management No.2 in the year 2009 as safai

karamchari. However, his conduct was not found to be

good. He was a habitual beedi smoker and was warned

several times by the management. It was in the month of

January 2011 he suddenly stopped coming to work and

thereafter he never turned up, Thus, he has abandoned

his service on his own. Management of All Services Under

One Roof is engaged in the business of providing

maintenance staff and personnel to different

establishments on contract basis and employees who are

engaged by the said company do not have permanent

jobs or fixed place of working. It is clear from the cross

examination of Shri Rahul Singh, MW1 that he joined duty

in 2000 and at that time there were around 500 employees

in the company. ESI and PF deductions were also made

from the wages of the employees. No notice was issued to

the workman herein because his services were never

terminated. He further admitted that no notice regarding

his conduct was issued to the workman herein. He made

another vital admission that the claimant approached the

management as per orders of the Court. Therefore there is

no merit in the contention of the management that the

workmen never reported for duty as per order of this Court

on 08.03.2014. This witness tried to explain that in fact the

workman came late on that day for joining duty at 11 a.m.

and thereafter he left the premises after about half an hour.

If this fact is taken to be correct, then by no stretch of

reasoning coming to office at 11 a.m. for the purpose of

reporting for duty cannot be considered to be so late. He

has admitted that Management No.2 was awarded contract

by DMRC in 2009 and there was written agreement with

DMRC regarding this. He was not in a position to produce

copy of the said agreement. There were as many as 50

workers at the relevant time. He further admitted that

attendance record of the workman was maintained by

management No.2. However, despite orders by this court

no such record has been produced by management No.2

so as to show the period of engagement/duty of the

workman herein. In such a situation, this Tribunal is bound

to draw adverse inference against the Management and

there is no evidence to the contrary that the workman

herein has not worked for more 240 days or more in a

calendar year. There is also no merit in the stand of the

management of the workman herein has voluntarily

abandoned service. No notice whatsoever was admittedly

served upon the workman regarding his voluntary

abandonment or commission of theft, including smoking

of beedis during office hours. They are merely averments

made in the pleadings and affidavit of the management

without any further evidence to substantiate the same.

12. During the course of arguments, reliance was

placed on behalf of the workman in the case of Jasmeer

Singh vs. State of Haryana in SLP (C) No.1532 of 2014,

decided on 13.01.2015 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court

has observed that when a workman was working on daily

wages for a considerable period and has also completed

240 days in a calendar year, in that eventuality services of

1358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

such workman cannot be dispensed with in an arbitrary

manner as the same would amount to gross violation of

provisions of Section 25F of eh Act. In the said case,

Industrial Tribunal has aside the order of termination,

which was set aside by the High Court. However, the Apex

court maintained the order of the Industrial Tribunal by

setting aside the judgement of High Court by observing

that removal or termination of service of the employee in

violation of principles of the Act cannot be justified under

the law. Situation in the case in hand is in no way different

inasmuch as it is admitted case of the parties that the

workman herein was in the employment of Management

No.2 since 2008-09 and his services were admittedly

terminated without issuing any show cause notice on one

month pay in lieu thereof, as required under section 25 F

of the Act. Since evidence regarding abandonment of

service, as discussed above, is lacking, both in quality as

well as content, as such it is held that the services of the

workman were terminated without following due

procedure. Both these issues are decided in favour of the

workman and against the management.

Findings on Issue No.3

13. Now, the only residual question which survives

for consideration is whether the workman is entitled to

relief of reinstatement in service of Management No.2.

Admittedly, workman herein was working at Kashmeri Gate

Metro Station in the service of Management No.2, which

fact is otherwise established from salary slip, E.WW1/1.

In the case in hand, contractor has not been examined by

the managements so as to prove the terms and conditions

of the contract nor has the management taken care to file

copy of the agreement which was entered into between

DMRC and Management No.2. It is not out of place to

mention here that under the Contract Labour Act, 1970,

Section 29 spells the Registers and other records to be

maintained as under

(1) Every principal employer and every contractor

shall maintain such registers and records giving such

particulars of contract labour employed, the nature of

work performed by the contract labour, the rates of

wages paid to the contract labour and such other

particulars in such form as may be prescribed.

(2) Every principal employer and every contractor

shall keep exhibited in such manner as may be

prescribed within the premises of the establishment

where the contract labour is employed, notices in the

prescribed form containing particulars about the hours

of work, nature of duty and such other information as

may be prescribed.

14. It is apposite to mention here that the workman

herein, Shri Sohan Lal, has admitted in his cross

examination dated 31.03.2014 that for the last three months

he is serving M/s Godavari Firms at Laxmi Nagar Metro

Station and is getting a salary of Rs.6000.00 per month.

However, he has specifically denied the suggestion that

he was still working with M/s Godavari Firms and it was

on account of this reason that he did not respond to the

management to report on 08.03.2014. It has already come

in evidence of Shri Rahul Singh, MW1 that the workman

came late for joining duty on 08.03.2014 at 11 a.m. and he

left the premises after half an hour without information.

This witness also admitted that it is difficult to state whether

the workman at present is employed or not. This witness,

further, feigned ignorance as to whether on 13.03.2014, M/

s Godavari Firms terminated services of the workman

herein on the instructions of M/s All Services Under One

Roof (I) Pvt. Ltd. Further, if the workman was really in the

employment of M/s Godavari Firms till the last, then it was

not difficult for the management to bring cogent and

reliable evidence on record so as to prove that the workman

herein as really in employment.

15. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhuvnesh

Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (2014) 11 SCC

85)dealt with the question of termination of services of a

daily wager who has rendered service for six yours and it

was held that when the workman has stated that he was

out of employment, onus to prove that the workman was

in service would shift upon the employer.

16. In the case in hand, it has come in evidence of

the workman herein, Shri Sohan Lal, WW1 that he was

working for the last three months, as such he is not entitled

for salary/wages for the period from 01.01.2014 to

31.03.2014. Since services of the workman herein has been

terminated without following any procedure, inasmuch as

no notice was served upon the workman before ordering

his termination/retrenchment, nor any retrenchment

compensation was paid to the workman as required under

the Act, as such, it is held that the workman herein is

entitled for back wages from the date of termination, except

for the period from 01.01.2014 to 30.03.2014. Workman

herein, Shri Sohan Lal, is also entitled to be reinstated as

work of daily wagers is still available with the management

so as to employ him immediately. An award is accordingly

passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : March 28, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 688-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot; eksfgfu

feYl] dsjy ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 02@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-4-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@90@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1359

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2016

S.O. 688.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 02/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Vijayamohini Mills, Kerla and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12.04.2016.

[No. L-42012/90/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri. K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 31^st day of March, 2016/11^th Chaitra, 1937)

ID 2/2013

Unions

The Secretary,Vijayamohini Mill

Employees Union (INTUC),

Vijayamohini Mills, Thirumala

(PO),Trivandrum – 695006.

The Secretary,Trivandrum

Textile

Workers

Union

(CITU),Vijayamohini Mills,

Thirumala, P.O. Trivandrum –

695006.

By Adv. Smt. Anila Peter

The Secretary,

Thiruvananthapuram Cotton Mill

Workers Union (AITUC),

Vijayamohini Mills, Thirumala,

P.O. Trivandrum – 695006.

The Secretary,

Thiruvananthapuram Jilla Textile

Mazdoor

Sangh(BMS),

Vijayamohini Mills, Thirumala,

P.O.Trivandrum – 695006

Management

The

General

Manager,

Vijayamohini Mills,Thirumala

P.O. Kerala - 695006

By Adv. Shri Ajith S. Nair

2. This case coming up for final hearing on 28.03.2016

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 31.03.2016 passed

the following:

A W A R D

This is a matter referred by the Central Government under

clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947).

2. The dispute referred for adjudication is:

‘Whether the action of the management of M/s

Vijayamohini Mills, Thirumala, Trivandrum in

unilaterally fixing the wages of the newly

regularized Gate Badli/Casual workers as 80% and

90% of the category wages as applicable to the

lowest grade workers in the Spinning section

during the first six months and subsequent six

months of probation respectively and also to

reckon only Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance

for the purpose of calculation of category wages

contrary to the previous practice of taking into

account of all the other components of wages

viz., HRA, LTC and Attendance Incentive is

justified? If not, to what relief these workman are

entitled?

3. After receipt of the reference order No.L-42012/

90/2012-IR(DU) dated 04.12.2012, issued by the Ministry

of Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to

the union and the management to appear and answer all

material aspects relating to the dispute and produce

documents to substantiate their respective contentions.

4. The contentions in the claim statement filed by

the union Nos.1 & 2, in brief are as follows:-

As a result of modernization more workers have

to be absorbed in the management establishment. The

strength of the employees was fixed at 245. Since

permanent workers were not available a scheme was

prepared so as to absorb permanent workers from among

badly workers. Originally the practice followed by the

management was as and when the badly workers were

absorbed they were paid the same wages as that of the

permanent workers. Subsequently the management

changed that practice unilaterally and followed the new

practice – that during the first six months of the probation

period, the badly workers will be paid 80% of the category

wages (Basic of spinning doffing boy and DA) and during

the next six months 90% of the category wages (Basic of

spinning doffing boy and DA). The management reserved

the right to terminate the services of the absorbed workers

without any notice or pay in lieu of notice at any time

without assigning any reason.

5. The decision of the management was in violation

of the terms and conditions in the long term settlement

dated 17.09.2011 entered into between the management

and the workers. The settlement dated 17.09.2011 is a

conciliation settlement as provided under Section 12(3) of

the Industrial Disputes Act and it is followed and binding

on both parties.

1360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6. The workers were repeatedly requesting the

management to restore the earlier practice followed as per

the earlier settlement. The management is not ready and

willing to accept the request of the workmen. Therefore

the union Nos.1 & 2 have requested to restore the earlier

practice of paying the same salary for the regularized

workmen at par with the permanent workmen with

retrospective effect. They have also requested to disburse

the monetary benefits on restoring the previous practice.

7. Union Nos.(3) and (4) remained exparte.

8. The contentions in the written statement filed

by the management in brief are as follows:

The management in this case viz., M/s.Vijayamohini

Mills is a unit of National Textiles Corporation. All the

policy matters relating to the Mill are taken by the National

Textiles Corporation, most specifically by the Regional

Office at Coimbatore. The decisions taken by the Regional

Office is applicable to all the mills under the National

Textiles Corporation.

9. The National Textiles Corporation introduced

modernization scheme and the mill was modernized.

Accordingly new arrangements were made for improving

the production. The service conditions of the employees

were changed as a result of the modernization.

10. On 29.09.2011 a memorandum of settlement was

entered into between the management and the trade unions

covering all matters relating to the demands made by the

unions. As per the terms and conditions in the

memorandum of settlement all the parties agreed that the

regularization of gate badalis/casuals shall be as per the

terms and conditions of the regularization scheme

formulated by the National Textiles Corporation, Southern

Regional Office at Coimbatore. The Regional Office

formulated a scheme in accordance with the stipulations

in the settlement and regularization is done as per the

scheme. The scheme is formulated in accordance with the

terms and conditions in the conciliation statement and it

is followed and binding on the unions in view of the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

11. During the subsistence of the settlement the

unions raised several demands which are covered by the

settlement. In the midst of conciliation before the

Conciliation Officer the unions demanded regularization

of gate badalis/casual workers in accordance with their

demands. The dispute could not be resolved since the

claim by the union was against the terms and conditions

in the scheme formulated in accordance with the

stipulations in the conciliation settlement. There is no

illegality in the action on the part of the management.

There is no legal basis for the demands made by the unions.

The regularization is done on probation for one year and

during the first six months of probation, salary is fixed at

80% of the category wages and 90% for the next six months.

On completion of probation they will be considered in the

category of wages itself. This was done in accordance

with the scheme prevailing in the Mill. The management

has not made any unilateral decision against the terms

and conditions of the settlement arrived between the

parties. The management has implemented the scheme

formulated in accordance with the terms and conditions

in the settlement which was agreed between the

parties, the union has no right to challenge the same.

The management has not violated any other provisions of

the long term settlement. The contention of the union

that the management reused to follow the earlier practice

of paying the same salary, is denied. There was no such

earlier practice followed by the management. The

settlement and scheme formulated thereof are followed

and binding on the parties, including the trade union.

12. The management has requested to uphold the

contentions and disallow the claim of the union.

13. After filing the written statement by the

management, union No.2 filed rejoinder reiterating the

contentions in the claim statement. They have stated that

the dispute involved in this case will come under the

purview of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

14. After affording sufficient opportunities to the

parties to take steps and produce documents to

substantiate their contentions, the matter was posted for

evidence.

15. On behalf of the union Nos.1 & 2 WW1 was

examined and Exts.W1 to W8 are the documents marked.

On behalf of the management no oral evidence has been

adduced and no documents were marked. Heard both

side.

16. The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether there was any unilateral action on the

part of the management of M/s.Vijayamohini

Mills, Thirumala, Thiruvananthapuram in fixing

the wages of newly regularized gate badly/

casual workers at 80% and 90% respectively of

the category wages during the first six months

and next six months of probation?

(ii)

Whether the reckoning of basic pay and

Dearness Allowance for the purpose of

calculating the category wages was contrary to

the previous practice of including all other

components like HRA, LTC and attendance

incentive?

(iii)

Whether the management has violated the terms

and conditions of the settlement and the scheme

formulated thereof?

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1361

(iv)

To what relief the unions are entitled?”

17. Point Nos.(i) to (iii):-The dispute referred for

adjudication before this Tribunal is:

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

Vijayamohini Mills, Thirumala, Trivandrum in

unilaterally fixing the wages of the newly

regularized Gate Badli/Casual workers as 80% and

90% of the category wages as applicable to the

lowest grade workers in the Spinning section

during the first six months and subsequent six

months of probation respectively and also to

reckon only Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance

for the purpose of calculation of category wages

contrary to the previous practice of taking into

account of all the other components of wages

viz., HRA, LTC and Attendance Incentive is

justified? If not, to what relief these workman are

entitled?”

In the claim statement union Nos.1 and 2 have stated

that as a result of modernization more workers have to be

absorbed in the management establishment. The strength

of the permanent employees in the management

establishment was 245. Union Nos.1 and 2 have stated

that the strength of permanent workers required for working

the management establishment was not available and as

such permanent workers were absorbed from among the

badli workers, for which a scheme was prepared. The

grievance of the union Nos.1 & 2 is that originally the

practice followed by the management was to pay the same

wages as that of permanent workers to the workers

absorbed from among the badli workers. It is stated that

at a later stage the management unilaterally changed this

practice and they adopted a different method viz., during

the first six months of probation period the badli workers

will be paid 80% of the category wages (Basic of spinning

doffing boy and DA) and for the next six months 90% of

the category wages. It is stated that the management

reserved the right to terminate the services without any

notice or pay in lieu of notice at any time without assigning

any reason. According to the union, as per the terms and

conditions in the settlement dated 17.09.2011, they are

entitled to restoration of the wages to the badli workers

absorbed to the permanent vacancy. The union Nos.1 & 2

have stated that the management is not accepting their

demand. They have requested to restore the earlier

practice of paying the same salary for the regularized

workmen from among the badli workers during the initial

probation period of one year.

18. The management has contended that the policy

matters relating to the Mill are taken at the Regional Office

of the National Textiles Corporation, Coimbatore. It is

stated that the management Mill was a sick unit.

Subsequently the National Textiles Corporation introduced

modernization scheme and new arrangements were made

for improving the production. Accordingly the service

conditions of the employees were changed. They have

mentioned about the settlement dated 29.09.2011 between

the management and union. It is stated that as per the

terms and conditions of settlement the parties agreed that

the regularization of gate badlis/casual workers shall be in

accordance with the scheme formulated by the Southern

Regional Office of National Textiles Corporation at

Coimbatore. It is stated that the Regional Office formulated

the scheme and as per the conditions of settlement the

regularization is done. According to the management the

scheme formulated in accordance with the terms of

settlement dated 29.09.2011 is followed and it is binding

on the parties. The management has further stated that

when regularization of badli workers was done, they will

be on probation for one year and out of which during the

first six months their salary is fixed at 80% of the category

wages and at 90% for the next six months. On completion

of probation the workers will be confirmed in the category

wages. According to the management the practice followed

by them is in accordance with the scheme prevailing in the

Mill.

19.It is stated that there was no irregularity or

illegality on the part of the management in implementing

the scheme which was formulated in accordance with the

terms and conditions in the settlement dated 29.09.2011.

20. While examined as WW1 the Secretary of union

No.2 has stated about the violation of the terms and

conditions of the settlement by the management. During

cross examination WW1 has stated that the management

has violated the settlement dated 17.09.2011. He has

admitted that Exts.W1 and W2 are the long term settlements

between the management and the unions. He has stated

that as per the clause 26 of Ext.W2 settlement the union

have agreed and accepted the terms and conditions relating

to the gate badlis/casual workers. WW1 has stated that

the management has formulated Exts.W4 and W6 schemes

in accordance with the stipulations in Ext.W2 settlement.

WW1 has admitted that the management regularized the

salary of gate badlis as per the scheme. According to WW1

the dispute is relating to the stipulations in the scheme

formulated by the management. He has stated that the

long term settlement entered into between the unions and

management is even now in force and the tenure of the

long term settlement has not been completed so far. He

has stated that in the long term settlement it was agreed

by the union that they will not raise any further demands

during the subsistence of the settlement. According to

WW1 the dispute is that the management violated the

terms and conditions of the settlement dated 17.09.2011.

21. Ext.W1 is the settlement dated 17.09.2011 entered

into between the unions and the management. Clause 26

of Ext.W1 reads as follows:

“The unit wise settlement under section 12(3) of ID

Act should be signed by the unit mills before the

1362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Regional Labour Commissioner(Central),

incorporating the revised agreed workload and

terms of this settlement before 30^th September 2011

in respect of Vijayamohini Mills, Trivandrum,

Alagappa Textile Mill, Thrissur, Kerala Lakshmi

Mills, Thrissur. In the case of the Cannanore

Spinning and Weaving Mills, Cannanore it should

be signed as per the terms of the settlement dated

27.08.2011”.

22. Ext.W4 is the scheme formulated by the

management for regularization of casual badlis. The

contention of the management is that Ext.W4 scheme was

formulated in accordance with the terms and conditions in

Ext.W1 settlement. Ext.W7 is copy of the minutes of joint

discussion

before

the

Regional

Labour

Commissioner(Central), Cochin entered into between the

unions and the management. As per the decision the parties

agreed as follows:

“Clause 3 of that decision of the conciliation reads

as follows:

It is agreed by the management to extend

category basic wages for those workers who were

regularized and getting 80% and 90% of

category basic wages as on date for all mills in

Kerala and Mahe as one time measure. For

workers who will be regularized hereafter wages

will be fixed as per the existing scheme referred

in clause 26 of the settlement dated 18.07.2011

(Mahe) and 17.09.2011 for remaining four

mills”.

23. The learned counsel for the union Nos.1 & 2

submitted that the management has not restored the earlier

practice of paying the entire wages to the gate badlis who

are absorbed in the regular vacancies. While examined as

WW1 the Secretary of union No.2 has stated that Ext.W7

Settlement came into existence during the pendency of

this case. Representatives of all the unions are parties to

Ext.W7 Settlement. The challenge of the union is against

Ext.W4 scheme. Ext.W7 document reveals that all the

unions have agreed to the settlement relating to wages of

gate badlis who were regularized thereafter and that wages

will be fixed as per the existing scheme referred in clause

26 of the settlement. Therefore it is evident that the unions

have in principle agreed and accepted the terms and

conditions in the scheme formulated by the management

as per Ext.W4. It follows that the claim of the unions for

additional benefits of newly regularized gate badlis/casual

workers at 80% and 90% respectively for the first six

months and subsequent six months of probation is not

sustainable. Even otherwise, in view of Ext.W1 the unions

have admitted that they will follow the scheme formulated

by the management in this regard. In such circumstance

the claim of the unions is not sustainable in law. Therefore,

the points for consideration are answered against the

union and in favour of the management.

24. Point No.(iv):—In view of the finding on point Nos.(i)

to (iii) the unions are not entitled to the relief claimed in

this reference. The point is answered accordingly.

25. In the result an award is passed holding that the

unions are not entitled to the relief claimed as per the

dispute involved in this reference.

The award will come into force one month after of its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the

31^st day of March, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the unions

WW1

04.12.2015 Shri A. K. Divakaran

Witnesses for the management

NIL

Exhibits for the unions

W1 -

Copy of the memorandum of settlement dated

17.09.2011 in respect of wage revision arrived at

under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes

Act 1947, before the Regional Labour

Commissioner(Central), Cochin between the

management of National Textile Corporation

Limited, Coimbatore and their workers in the unit

mills in Kerala represented by their State wide

federation level leaders of each union.

W2 -

Copy of memorandum of settlement arrived at

under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 on 29.09.2011 before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (Central), Cochin between

the management of Vijayamohini Mills and their

workmen represented by the unions in respect of

revised work load and other benefits.

W3 -

Copy of the minutes of the discussion dated

29.12.2011 held on the joint representations

submitted by the three unions of Vijayamohini

Mills, Trivandrum with the management and the

unions of Vijayamohini Mills.

W4 -

Copy of the scheme for regularization of casuals

in mills.

W5 -

Copy of the joint representation dated 02.01.2012

addressed to the Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Kendriya Shramsadan, Olimugal,

Kakkanad, Kochi – 682030 by the Secretaries of

Vijayamohini Mill Employees Union (INTUC),

Trivandrum Textile Workers Union (CITU) and

Thiruvananthapuram Textile Mazdoor Sangh

(BMS).

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1363

W6 -

Copy of the letter No.NTC/PERS/2012-01 dated

27.01.2012 addressed to Shri. K. I. Abdul Jaleel,

General Manager, Vijayamohini Mills,

Trivandrum by the Senior Manager (HR) – HOD,

National Textile Corporation Limited, Southern

Regional Office, Coimbatore.

W7 -

Copy of the minutes of joint discussion/

conciliation proceedings held on 27.01.2014

before the Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Cochin over the dispute between the

management of M/s.NTC Ltd. Textile Mills in

Kerala & their workmen represented by their

unions.

W8 -

Salary bill in respect of Shri.Sunil Kumar. A,

No.243, Doffing Boy for the month of November,

2012 in Vijayamohini Mills, Thiruvananthapuram.

Exhibits for the management

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 689-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fovkse usVoDlZ

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 36@2015)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-4-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@142@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2016

S.O. 689.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 36/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Viom Networking Limited and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 12.04.2016.

[No. L-42012/142/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present:

Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 31st day of March, 2016/

11th Chaitra, 1937)

ID 36/2015

Workman

Shri. Shyamlal P.S.,

Parinappilly House,

Makayiram,Thuravoor P.O.,

Cherthala, Kerala-688524

Managements :

1. The Circle Head,

Viom Networks Ltd.,

J & Co. Chamber,

Manimala Road,

Edappally,

Cochin – 682024

2. The Vice Chairman,

Viom Networks Ltd.,

Southern Park,

Sachet Palace, Saket,

New Delhi - 110017

By M/s. Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 31.03.2016

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day

passed the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of

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

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

Central Government referred the following dispute before

this Tribunal for adjudication.

The dispute is:

‘Whether the action of the management of VIOM

Networks Ltd. In terminating the services of Shri

Shyamlal P. S., is justified? If not to what relief he is

entitled to?’

After receipt of the reference order No.L-42012/142/

2015-IR(DU) dated 04.08.2015, issued by the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the

parties to appear, submit their pleadings and produce

documents to substantiate their respective contentions.

Summons was served on the workman and

management Nos.1 and 2. Management Nos.1 and 2

entered appearance through counsel. Even after the

service of summons and granting repeated adjournments,

the workman ramained absent. Hence he was set ex-parte.

Heard counsel for management Nos.1 and 2.

The workman at whose instance this dispute was

referred for adjudication, remained absent after the receipt

of summons. There was no representation on his behalf.

Therefore it is evident that he has no interest in proceeding

with the Industrial Dispute initiated at his instance.

In the result an award is passed holding that there is

no subsisting Industrial Dispute to be adjudicated as per

this reference.

The award will come into force one month from the

date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

1364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the

31st day of March, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 690-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

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

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-

15@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12-4-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@16@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2016

S.O. 690.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Ref. No. 15/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 12.04.2016.

[No. L-40011/16/2009-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri R.K.Saran , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 15 OF 2012

PARTIES

Shri Dinesh Kumar,

S/o Shri Chandradeep Prasad

Village: Chandwapur, PO: Dhergawan,

PS. Kako, Distt : Jehanabad,

Bihar

Vs.

The Principal General Manager /

Chief Gen. Manager/

General Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Bihar Circle, Patna.

Ministry’s Order No L-40011/16/2009-

IR(DU) dt 1.2.2012

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. B. B. Pandey, Ld. Adv.

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. S. Prasad, Ld. Adv.

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Telecom.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st March, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-40011/16/2009-IR (DU) dt 1.2.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Principal

General Manager/General Manager, BSNL, Patna in

terminating the services of Shri Dinesh Kumar w.e.f.

01.05.2004 is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?

On receipt of the Order No. L-40011/16/2009-IR (DU)

dt 1.2.2012 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 15 of 2012 was registered on 13.02.2012 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Petitioner and the O.P./Management through their own

Ld. Counsels appeared and contested the case.

Short point to be decided in this reference is, whether

the workman, completed 240 days in the BSNL, so that he

will be regularized as a regular employee. The case of the

workman is he was rendering service to BSNL since so

many years but the Management, without regularsing,

allowed him to sit and virtually retrenched him.

The workman in support of his claim filed

testimonials of SDE, Telecom that he rendered services

more than 240 days in a calendar year. The workman while

examined as witness says that similarly engaged other

eight workmen have been regularized as casual employee

barring the present workman. The workman while

examined, he was cross-examined by the Management.

Management has not suggested to the workman, that he

was never engaged by the BSNL nor the testimonials were

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1365

in genuine. This being the situation, the workman be taken

as casual employee of the Management.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 691-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osyfdu VsyhdkWe

baizQk izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

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

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 73@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12-4-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@09@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2016

S.O. 691.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Ref. No. 73/

2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Welkin Telecom Infra Private

Limited and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 12.04.2016.

[No. L-40011/09/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 73 of 2015

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd.

A N D

Their workmen.

Present:

Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

Mr. Suchindram Bhattacharjee,

Management

Ld. Counsel for M/s. Welkin

Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Basabjit Banerjee, Ld.

Counsel for M/s. Indus Towers

Ltd.

On behalf of the

Mr. Partha Mukherjee, Ld.

Workman & Union

Counsel.

State: West Bengal

Industry: Telecommunication

Dated: 7th April, 2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-40011/09/2015-IR(DU) dated

05.05.2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of

the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd., contractor of M/s

Indus Towers Limited is justified by terminating the

service of Sri Ramkrishna Pal and is it legal and/or

justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?”

When the case is taken up today for hearing, all the

parties are represented by their respective Ld. Counsel.

The Ld. Counsel for the concerned workman and the union

submits that one reference being Reference No. 23 of 2015

was initiated on the self same dispute among the self same

parties and the said reference has already been disposed

of by passing an Award in terms of memorandum of

settlement signed by the parties. So, neither the concerned

workman nor the union, wants to proceed with this

reference further.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and

since the workman and the union at whose instance the

instant reference has been initiated do not want to proceed

with the case, I do not find any reason to proceed with the

matter further.

Accordingly, the instant reference is disposed of by

passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 7th April, 2016

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 692-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

160@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

13-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@38@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2016

S.O. 692.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 160/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

1366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 23, 2016/VAISAKHA 3, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in

the Industiral Dispute between the management of M/s.

ONGC and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13.04.2016.

[No. L-30012/38/1998-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 3rd February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 160/2004

Reference : (ITC) No. 46/1999

1. The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Ahmedabad

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen

through the secretary,

Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,

Ahmedabad-380001

...Second Party

For the First Party

Sh. K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party

Kum Santoshben, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30012/38/98-

IR(C-I) dated 10.02.1999 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum

Employees Union, Ahmedabad treating Shri N.K.

Rajan and seven others (as per list attached) in direct

employement of ONGC as Fireman and Driver w.e.f.

from their date of joining are just and legal? If so,

their termination w.e.f. 14.6.97 are legal and justified

and to what relief they are entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 10.02.1999. Learned

counsels for the parties filed their vakalatnama. Second

party submitted the statement of claim (Ext.5) on 25.08.1999

and first party submitted written statement (Ext.24) on

25.07.2000. It is unfortunate that the second party has not

been responding since last several years to adduce the

evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities to them.

Thus, it appears that both parties are not interested in the

proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no

option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second

party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 693-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

168@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

13-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@123@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2016

S.O. 693.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 168/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in

the Industiral Dispute between the management of M/s.

ONGC and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13.04.2016.

[No. L-30012/123/1998-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 3rd February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 168/2004

Reference : (ITC) No. 63/1999

1. The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Shri Dineshbhai S. Senva

Through the secretary,

Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,

Ahmedabad-380001

...Second Party

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 23] 2016@oS'kk[k 3] 1938

1367

For the First Party

Sh. K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party

Kum Santoshben, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30012/123/

98-IR(C-I) dated 17.02.1999 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Employees Union

regarding contract worker Dinesh Somabhai Senva

be treated as direct worker of ONGC is legal and

justified? If yes, then from which date and to what

relief is he entitled?”

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.

This reference dates back to 17.02.1991. Both the

parties were served. Second party submitted Statement of

claim (Ext.5) on 09.12.1999 and first party also filed

vakalatnama and written statement (Ext.13) on 06.12.2001.

Learned Counsel for the first party has been present on

each and every date but none has been responding on

behalf of second party to adduce evidence since last

dozens of dates. Thus, it appears that second party is not

interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore,

Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in

default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer