2280 GI/2016

(2161)

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- 21]

ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 15—ebZ 21] 2016] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 25—oS'kk[k 31] 1938

No. 21]

NEW DELHI, MAY 15—MAY 21, 2016, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 25—VAISAKHA 31, 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)

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

( य

य

यय िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 16 मई, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 944

944

944.—कीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के

उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म भारत सरकार के भारतीय लेखापरी'ा और लेखा िवभाग के िन* निलिखत काया+लय को,

िजनके 80 ितशत कम+चा/रय ने 0हदी का काय+साधक 3ान ा4 त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है।

1. धान िनदेशक लेखापरी'ा वै3ािनक िवभाग का काया+लय, नई द ली, शाखा काया+लय, कोलकाता ।

2. धान महालेखाकार (लेखा एवं हक), केरल का काया+लय, शाखा काया+लय, इणा+कुलम ।

3. धान िनदेशक लेखापरी'ा, उ: तर देश म; य रेलवे का काया+लय, इलाहाबाद।

[सं. ए-12034/02/2014-ईजी]

ऐनी जॉज+ मै= यू, संयु? त सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2016

S.O. 944.—In pursuance of sub-rule(4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following Officers of the Governmet of India in the

2162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty per cent, of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi, namely :—

1. Office of the Principal Director of Audit Scientific Departments, New Delhi, Branch Office Kolkata;

2. Office of the Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements) Kerala, Branch Office Ernakulam;

3. Office of the Principal Director of Audit North Central Railway, Allahabad.

[No. A-12034/02/2014-EG]

ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Jt. Secy.

(राज व

(राज व िवभाग)

िवभाग)

(के ीय

के ीय

के ीय य

य

य कर

कर

कर बोड

बोड

बोड)

नई दली, 7 अैल, 2016

का

का.आ. 945

945

945.— जनसाधारण क सूचना हेतु एतद् @ारा यह अिधसूिचत कया जाता है क क ीय िवAुत अनुसंधान

संBथान बंगलुE नामक संगठन (पैनः एएएएसी 0268 पी) को आयकर िनयमावली, 1962 (उF िनयमावली) के िनयम 5ग

एवं 5घ के साथ प/ठत आयकर अिधिनयम, 1961 (उF अिधिनयम) क धारा 35 क उपधारा (1) के खHड (ii) के उJेKय के

िलए ‘वै3ािनक अनुसंधान संBथान’ क Lेणी म कर िनधा+रण वष+ 2003-2004 के आगे से क सरकार @ारा िनMिलिखत शतN

के अ;यधीन अनुमोदत कया जाता है, यथा :—

(i)

अनुमोदत ‘वै3ािनक अनुसंधान संBथान’ का एकमाO उJेKय वै3ािनक अनुसंधान करना होगा,

(ii)

अनुमोदत संगठन Bवयं ही वै3ािनक अनुसंधान करेगा।

(iii)

अनुमोदत संगठन वै3ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए इसके @ारा ाP रािश के संबंध म अलग बही-लेखा रखेगा तथा उसम

अनुसंधान के िलए उपयोग क गई रािश को दQशत करेगा और ऐसी बिहय क उF अिधिनयम क धारा 288 क उपधारा

(2) के अनुसार BपRीकरण म प/रभािषत कए गए अनुसार लेखाकार @ारा िविधवत हBता'/रत तथा स:यािपत क गई ऐसी

लेखा परी'ा /रपोट+ उF अिधिनयम क धारा 139 क उपधारा (1) के अंतग+त आयकर िववरणी भेजने क तारीख तक

आयकर आयुF अथवा आयकर िनदेशक, िजनके पास मामले का 'ेOािधकार है, को भेजेगा।

(iv)

अनुमोदत संगठन सामािजक िव3ान म वै3ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए ाP दान रािश एवं युF रािश का एक अलग

िववरण रखेगा तथा ित िविधवत मािणत ऐसे िववरण क एक ित लेखा परी'ा @ारा ऊपर संदQभत लेखा परी'ा क

/रपोट+ के साथ भेजी जाएगी।

क सरकार अनुमोदन को वापस लेगा यद अनुमोदत संगठनः-

(क) पैराUाफ 1 के उप पैराUाफ (iii) म संदQभत एक अलग बही-लेखा नहW रखताः अथवा

(ख) पैराUाफ 1 के उप पैराUाफ (iii) म संदQभत इसक लेखा-परी'ा /रपोट+ नहW भेजताः अथवा

(ग) पैराUाफ 1 के उप-पैराUाफ (iv) म संदQभत वै3ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए इसको ाP दान रािश एवं युF रािश

का िववरण नहW भेजताः अथवा

(घ) इसके अनुसंधान काय+कलाप को जारी रखना बंद कर दे अथवा इसक अनुसंधान गितिविधयां उपयुF नहW

पायी जाती हX; अथवा

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2163

(ङ) उF िनयमावली के िनयम 5ग तथा 5घ के साथ प/ठत उF अिधिनयम क धारा 35 क उप-धारा 1 के खHड

(ii) के ावधान के अनुEप काय+ करना तथा अनुपालन करना बंद कर दे।

[अिधसूचना सं. 27/2016/फा. सं. 203/32/2015/आईटीए-II]

रोिहत गग+, उप सिचव

(Department of Revenue)

( CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2016

S.O. 945.—It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Central Power Research Institute

Bengaluru (PAN:- AAAAC0268P) has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-

section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5D of the Income-tax Rules,

1962 (said Rules), from Assessment year 2003-2004 onwards in the category of ‘Scientific Research Association’,

subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i)

The sole objective of the approved ‘Scientific Research Association’ shall be to undertake scientific research;

(ii)

The approved organization shall carry out scientific research by itself;

(iii)

The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for

scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get such books audited by an

accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-section (2) of section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report

of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of

Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-

section (1) of section 139 of the said Act;

(iv)

The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for

scientific research in social science and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany

the report of audit referred to above.

The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization:-

(a)

fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(b)

fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(c)

fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred

to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

(d)

ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

(e)

ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of

the said Act read with rules 5C and 5D of the said Rules.

[Notification No. 27/2016/F. No. 203/32/2015/ITA-II]

ROHIT GARG, Dy. Secy.

नई दली, 26 अैल, 2016

का

का.आ. . . . 946

946

946.—जनसाधारण क सूचना हेतु एतद् @ारा यह अिधसूिचत कया जाता है क ओएनजीसी ऊजा+ क

[Bट इंा चौक, नई दली (पैनः- एएएटीओ.2299एम) अनुसंधान, संBथान को आयकर िनयमावली, 1962 (उF

िनयमावली), के िनयम 5ग एवं 5घ के साथ प/ठत आयकर अिधिनयम, 1961 (उF अिधिनयम) क धारा 35 क

उपधारा(1) खHड (ii) के उJेKय के िलए ‘वै3ािनक अनुसंधान संBथान’ क Lेणी म कर िनधा+रण वष+ 2015-2016 के आगे से

क सरकार @ारा िनMिलिखत शतN के अ;यधीन अनुमोदत कया जाता है, यथाः-

(v)

अनुमोदत ‘वै3ािनक अनुसंधान संBथान’ का एकमाO उJेKय वै3ािनक अनुसंधान करना होगा,

(vi)

अनुमोदत संगठन Bवयं ही वै3ािनक अनुसंधान करेगा।

2164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(vii)

आयकर आयुF अथवा आयकर िनदेशक, िजनके पास मामले का 'ेOािधकार है, को भेजेगा।

(viii)

िववरण रखेगा तथा िविधवत मािणत ऐसे िववरण क एक ित लेखा परी'ा @ारा ऊपर संदQभत लेखा परी'ा क /रपोट+ के

साथ भेजी जाएगी।

क सरकार अनुमोदन को वापस लेगा यद अनुमोदत संगठनः-

(क) पैराUाफ 1 के उप पैराUाफ (iii) म संदQभत एक अलग बही-लेखा नहW रखताः अथवा

(ख) पैराUाफ 1 के उप पैराUाफ (iii) म संदQभत इसक लेखा-परी'ा /रपोट+ नहW भेजताः अथवा

का िववरण नहW भेजताः अथवा

पायी जाती हX; अथवा

(ङ) उF िनयमावली के िनयम 5ग तथा 5घ के साथ प/ठत उF अिधिनयम क धारा 35 क उप-धारा 1 के खHड

(ii) के ावधान के अनुEप काय+ करना तथा अनुपालन करना बंद कर दे।

[अिधसूचना सं. 28/2016/फा. सं. 203/14/2015/आईटीए-II]

रोिहत गग, उप-सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2016

S.O. 946.—It is hereby notified for general information that the organization ONGC Energy Centre Trust Indra

Chowk New Delhi (PAN:- AAATO2299M) has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii)

of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5D of the Income-tax

Rules, 1962 (said Rules), from Assessment year 2015-2016 onwards in the category of ‘Scientific Research

Association’, subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i)

The sole objective of the approved ‘Scientific Research Association’ shall be to undertake scientific research;

(iii)

The approved organization shall carry out scientific research by itself;

(iii)

The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for

scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get such books audited by an

accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-section (2) of section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report

of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of

Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-

section (1) of section 139 of the said Act;

(iv)

The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for

scientific research in social science and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany

the report of audit referred to above.

The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization:-

(a)

fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(b)

fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(c)

fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred

to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2165

(d)

ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

(e)

ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of

the said Act read with rules 5C and 5D of the said Rules.

[Notification No. 28/2016/F. No. 203/14/2015/ITA-II]

ROHIT GARG, Dy. Secy.

िवदेश

िवदेश मंालय

मंालय

(सी

सी

सी.पी

पी

पी.वी

वी

वी. . . . भाग

भाग

भाग)

नई द ली, 10 मई, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 947

947

947.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के

अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश।

एतद् @ारा, क सरकार भारत के दूतावास, मB कत म Lी करणदीप 0सह, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक

10 मई, 2016 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा_ के िनव+हन के िलए ािधकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी- 4330/01/2016]

काश चaद, उप सिचव (कसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 947.—Statutory Order in pursuance of 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 Karandeep Singh, ASO as

Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Muscat to perform Consular services with effect from 10 May,

2016.

[No.T- 4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

नई द ली, 10 मई, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 948

948

948.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के

अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश।

एतद् @ारा, क सरकार भारत के दूतावास, यांगोन म Lी काQतकेय कुमार, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक

[सं. टी- 4330/01/2015]

काश चaद, उप सिचव (कसुलर)

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 948.—Statutory Order in pursuance of 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 Kartikey Kumar, ASO as

Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Yangon to perform Consular services with effect from 10 May,

2016.

[No. T- 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

2166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 11 मई, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 949

949

949.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के

अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश।

एतद् @ारा, क सरकार भारत के दूतावास, अJस अबाबा म Lी मनोज कुमार 0सह, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को

दनांक 11 मई 2016 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा_ के िनव+हन के िलए ािधकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2016]

काश चaद, उप सिचव (कसुलर)

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016

S.O. 949.—Statutory Order in pursuance of 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 Manoj Kumar Singh, ASO as

Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Addis Ababa to perform the Consular services with effect from

11 May 2016.

[No. T. 4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

वािणय

वािणय एवं

एवं

एवं उ ोग

उ ोग

उ ोग मंालय

मंालय

(वािणय

वािणय

वािणय िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 11 मई, 2016

का

का.आ. 950

950

950.—केaीय सरकार, िनया+त (गुणवbा िनयंOण एंव िनरी'ण) िनयमावली, 1964 के िनयम 12, के

उपिनयम (2) के साथ प/ठत िनया+त (गुणवbा िनयंOण एंव िनरी'ण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क धारा 7 क

उपधारा (1) @ारा दb शिFय का योग करते cए, मैसस+ िमनेरस लैब सQवसेस ाइवेट िलिमटेड, चौथी मंिज़ल, कमा+

पीस एवेaयू, एफ़. एल. गो*स रोड, वाBको–डी-गामा 403802 को इस अिधसूचना, के शासकय राजपO म काशन क

तारीख से तीन वष+ क अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के वािणdय मंOालय, क तारीख 20 दस*बर, 1965 क का॰ आ॰

3975 के तहत अिधसूचना म उपाबe अनुसूिचय म िविनfदR खिनज और अयBक, समूह-I, अथा+त्, लौह अयBक और

बॉ?साइट, को िनया+त से पूव+ िनMिलिखत शतN के अधीन गोआ, म उ? त खिनज और अयB क के िनरी'ण करने के िलए एक

अिभकरण के Eप म माaयता देती है, अथा+त् :-

(i) मैसस+ िमनेरस लैब सQवसेस ाइवेट िलिमटेड, चौथी मंिज़ल, कमा+ पीस एवेaयू, एफ़. एल. गो*स रोड, वाBको–डी-गामा

403802, खिनज और अयBक Uुप -I का िनया+त (िनरी'ण) िनयमावली 1965 , के िनयम 4 के अधीन उनके @ारा अपनाई

गई िनरी'ण क पgित क जांच करने के िलए, इस िनिमb िनया+त िनरी'ण प/रषद् @ारा नामिनfदR अिधका/रय को

पया+P सुिवधाएं देगी; और

(ii) मैसस+ िमनेरस लैब सQवसेस ाइवेट िलिमटेड, चौथी मंिज़ल, कमा+ पीस एवेaयू, एफ़. एल. गो*स रोड, वाBको–डी-गामा

403802, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायN के िनhपादन म िनदेशक (िनरी'ण एंव गुणवbा िनयंOण) िनया+त िनरी'ण

प/रषद समय-समय पर िलिखत म दए गए ऐसे िनदiश से आबg हगे।

[फा. सं. 4/4/2016-िनया+त िनरी'ण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयुF सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2167

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016

S.O. 950.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)

Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. Minerals Lab Services Private Limited, 4th Floor, Karma

Peas Avenue, F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa-403802, as an agency for a period of three years from the date of

publication of this notification in the official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores, Group- I, namely, Iron

Ore and Bauxite, specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Commerce vide S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Goa, subject

to the following conditions, namely: -

(i)

that M/s. Minerals Lab Services Private Limited, 4th Floor, Karma Peas Avenue, F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco-da-

Gama, Goa-403802, shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in

this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of

the Export of Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

(ii)

that M/s. Minerals Lab Services Private Limited, 4th Floor, Karma Peas Avenue, F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco-da-

Gama ,Goa-403802, in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directions

as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to

time.

[F. No. 4/4/2016 – Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

नई दली, 17 मई, 2016

का

का.आ. 951

951

951.—केaीय सरकार, िनया+त (गुणवbा िनयंOण एंव िनरी'ण) िनयमावली, 1964 के िनयम 12, के

उपिनयम (2) के साथ प/ठत िनया+त (गुणवbा िनयंOण एंव िनरी'ण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क धारा 7 क

उपधारा (1) @ारा दb शिFय का योग करते cए, मैसस+ िमनेरस लैब सQवसेस ाइवेट िलिमटेड, सी/ओ भाकर जे

रावूल, हाउस नंबर 2073 *हता+लेवली, रेडी 0सधुदुग+, महाराh [ – 416517 को इस अिधसूचना, के राजपO म काशन क

तारीख से तीन वष+ क अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के वािणdय मंOालय, क अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975, तारीख 20

दस*बर, 1965 से उपाबg अनुसूिचय म िविनfदR खिनज और अयBक के िनरी'ण, ( Uुप-। ) , अथा+त् लौह अयB क को

oमश: िनया+त से पूव+ िनMिलिखत शतN के अधीन रेडी पbन म उ? त खिनज और अयB क के िनरी'ण करने के िलए एक

अिभकरण के Eप म माaयता देती है, अथा+त् :

( i ) यह क मैसस+ िमनेरस लैब सQवसेस ाइवेट िलिमटेड, सी/ओ भाकर जे रावूल, हाउस नंबर 2073 *हता+लेवली, रेडी

0सधुदुग+, महाराh [ – 416517, खिनज और अयBक Uुप -। का िनया+त (िनरी'ण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन

िनरी'ण करने के िलए उनके @ारा अपनाई गई िनरी'ण क पgित क जांच करने के िलए, िनया+त िनरी'ण प/रषद् @ारा

िनिमb नामिनfदR अिधका/रय को पया+P सुिवधाएं दान करेगा।

( ii ) यह क मैसस+ िमनेरस लैब सQवसेस ाइवेट िलिमटेड, सी/ओ भाकर जे रावूल, हाउस नंबर 2073 *हता+लेवली, रेडी

0सधुदुग+, महाराh [ – 416517, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायN के िनhपादन म ऐसे िनदेश से आबg होगा जो

िनदेशक (िनरी'ण और ? वािलटी िनयंOण) िनया+त िनरी'ण प/रषद् समय-समय पर िलिखत म दये जाए।

[ फा. सं. 4/5/16 - िनया+त िनरी'ण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयुF सिचव

2168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 951.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)

Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. Minerals Lab Services Private Limited, C/o: Prabhakar J

Rawool, House No. 2073, Mhartalewali, Redi, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra- 416 517, as an agency for a period of three

years from the date of publication of this notification, for inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group- I), namely, Iron Ore

specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce vide

number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Redi port, subject to

the following conditions, namely:-

(i)

that M/s. Minerals Lab Services Private Limited, C/o: Prabhakar J Rawool, House No. 2073, Mhartalewali,

Redi, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra- 416 517, shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the

inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and;

(ii)

that M/s. Minerals Lab Services Private Limited, C/o: Prabhakar J Rawool, House No. 2073, Mhartalewali, Redi,

Sindhudurg, Maharashtra- 416 517, in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by

such directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in writing

from time to time.

[F. No. 4/5/2016 – Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

वा

वा य

य

य एवं प रवार क या

एवं प रवार क या

एवं प रवार क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

( वा

( वा य

य

य एवं परवार क या

एवं परवार क या

एवं परवार क याण िवभाग)

ण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 11 मई, 2016

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 952

952

952.—जब क भारतीय आयुवान परषद (संशोधन) अ$ यादेश, 2013 क% धारा 3क क% उप-

धारा (1) 'ारा (द) त शि* तय+ का (योग करते -ए भारतीय िच क) सा परषद का दनांक 6 नवंबर, 2013 को

पुनगठन कया गया था;

और जब क भारतीय आयुवान अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क% धारा 3 क% उप-धारा (1)(क)

के (ावधान के अनुसरण म6 डॉ. सुरे: ; के. अहलुवािलया को दनांक 06.11.2013 से िहमाचल (देश सरकार के

(ितिनिध के @प म6 भारतीय आयुवान परषद सदA य नािमत कया गया था;

और जब क िहमाचल (देश सरकार ने सूिचत कया है क आईएमसी अिधिनयम, 1956 क% धारा

3(1)(क) के अंतगत िहमाचल (देश सरकार का (ितिनिध) व करने वाले डॉ. सुरे: ; के. अहलुवािलया (ाइवेट

संA थान एमएम मेिडकल कॉलेज के (धानाचाय थे। और यह क एमसीआई म6 आईएमसी अिधिनयम, 1956 क%

धारा 3(1) (ख) के अंतगत िवG विवHालय के (ितिनिध के @प म6 डॉ. मुकेश शमा उनके अपने नािमती हI। डॉ.

सुरे: ; के. अहलुवािलया के राJ य सरकार का नािमती बने रहने म6 िनिहत A वाथ (तीत होता है * य+ क यह

अनुपयु* त है क (ाइवेट मेिडकल कॉलेज के दो नािमती एमसीआई के सदA य बने रह6।

और जब क मामले को िविध और : याय मंMालय, िविध काय िवभाग के साथ उठाया गया था िजसने यह

सलाह दी है क साधारण खंड अिधिनयम, 1897 क% धारा 16 के अनुसार ‘िनयुि* त का अिधकार म6, िनलंबन या

बखाA त कए जाने का अिधकार भी शािमल है’ – िजसके 'ारा कसी (क6;ीय अिधिनयम) या िविनयम, कोई

िनयुि* त करने का अिधकार (दान कया जाता है, त) पG चात्, जब तक कोई िभ: न आशय (तीत न हो, िनयुि* त

करने के अिधकार वाली (ािधकारी (वतमान के िलए) को इस अिधकार का (योग करते -ए िनयु* त कसी Q यि* त

(चाहे A वयं या कसी अ: य (ािधकारी 'ारा) को िनलंिबत या बखाA त करने का अिधकार भी है।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2169

अब इसिलए उपयु* त सलाह के अनुसरण म6 तथा साधारण खंड अिधिनयम, 1897 क% धारा 16 के अंतगत

क6; सरकार शि* तय+ का (योग करते -ए क6; सरकार डॉ. सुरे: ; के. अहलुवािलया क% एमसीआई क% सदA यता को

त) काल (भाव से समाR त करती है।

[सं. वी-11013/01/2013-एमईपी]

अिमत िबAवास, अवर सिचव

पाद ट प

पाद ट पणी:

णी:

णी:- मूल अिधसूचना 9 जनवरी, 1960 के का.आ. 138 'ारा भारत के राजपM म6 (कािशत क% गई थी

और इसम6 अंितम बार भारतीय आयुवान परषद (संशोधन) दूसरा अ$ यादेश, 2013 (2013 का 11) 'ारा

संशोधन कया गया था।

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016

S.O. 952.—Whereas on 6th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of

the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1)(a) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956

(102 of 1956) Dr. Surendra K. Ahluwalia was nominated as a member of the Medical Council of India

representing Government of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 06-11-2013;

And whereas the Government of Himachal Pradesh has informed that Dr. Surendra K. Ahluwalia, representing

Government of Himachal Pradesh under section 3(1)(a) of IMC Act, 1956 was the Principal of MM Medical College, a

private Institute. And that the University has its own nominee Dr. Mukesh Sharma as representative of the University

under section 3 (1) (b) of IMC Act, 1956 in the MCI. There appears to be conflict of interest in Dr. Surendra K.

Ahluwalia continuing as State Govt. nominee as it is inappropriate that two nominees of a private medical college

continue as Members of the MCI.

And whereas the matter was taken up with Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs which has

advised that as per Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 ‘Power to appoint includes power to suspend or dismiss’

– where by any (Central Act) or Regulation, a power to make any appointment is conferred, then, unless a different

intention appears, the authority having (for the time being) power to make the appointment shall also have power to

suspend or dismiss any person appointed (whether by itself or any other authority) in exercise of that power.

Now therefore in pursuance of the aforesaid advice and invoking the powers of the Central Government under

Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Central Government terminates Dr. Surendra K. Ahluwalia from the

membership of MCI with immediate effect.

[No. V-11013/01/2013-MEP]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

Foot Note:—The principal notification was publish in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th

January, 1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance,

2013 (11 of 2013).

भारी उोग और लोक उ

भारी उोग और लोक उम

म

म मंालय

मंालय

(भारी उोग

भारी उोग

भारी उोग िवभाग)

िवभाग)

नई द ली, 12 मई, 2016

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 953

953

953.—सावजिनक परसर (अनिधकृत दखलकारी क% बेदखली) अिधिनयम, 1971 (1971 का

40) क% धारा 3 'ारा (द) त शिSय+ का उपयोग करते -ए, इस िवभाग 'ारा फाइल सं. 1(12)/2008-पीई-II

दनांक 30.10.2009 और 12.11.2013 के तहत जारी क% गई अिधसूचना के Uम म6 के: ; सरकार एतद् 'ारा

उ* त अिधिनयम के (योजन+ के िलए नीचे दी गई ता िलका के कॉलम 1 म6 उिलिखत अिधकारय+ को सरकार के

2170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

राजपिMत रIक के समकV अिधकारी होने के नाते, सW पदा अिधकारी के @प म6 िनयु* त करती है, जो उ* त तािलका

के कॉलम 2 म6 िविनXदY ट सावजिनक परसर+ के संबंध म6 अपने VेMािधकार क% सW पदाZ पर दी गई शिSय+ का

(योग और कतQ य+ का पालन कर6गे।

अिधकारी का नाम व पदनाम

सावजिनक परसर के वग तथा ेािधकार क

सावजिनक परसर के वग तथा ेािधकार क था

था

थानी

नी

नीय

य

सीमाएं

Lी एम. एस. सूय+नारायण बंधक (यूएच) हैदराबाद इकाई हैदराबाद इकाई, पी.ओ. िहa दुB तान केब स, हैदराबाद-

500051 िBथत प/रसर

Lी के. के. 0सह, बंधक (सीएफ/टीकेपी) नई द ली

'ेOीय काया+लय, ए-40 रंजीत 0सह r लॉक, एिशयन गे* स

िवलेज, नई द ली-10049 िBथत प/रसर

[सं. 1(12)/ 2008-पीई-II]

एल. सी. राम, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

(Department of Heavy Industry)

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2016

S.O. 953.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupations) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government in continuation of this Department’s Notification issued

under F. No. 1(12)/2008-PE-II, dated 30.10.2009 & 12.11.2013 hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column 1 of

the table below, being officer, equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of Government to be an Estate Officer for the

purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powerp conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estates of his

jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column 2 of the said Table.

Name & Designation of the Officer

Categories of public premises and local limits of

jurisdiction

Shri M. S. Suryanarayana Manager (UH) Hyderabad Unit

Premises at Hyderabad Unit, P.O. Hindustant Cables,

Hyderabad-500051

Shri K. K. Singh (CF/TKP) New Delhi

Premises at Regional Officer, New Delhi, A-40 Ranjit

Singh Block, Asian Games Villages, New Delhi-110049.

[No. 1(12)/2008-PE-II]

L. C. RAM, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 954

954

954-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 153/2001) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/146/2001–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2171

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 153 of 2001) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/146/2001-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. 153/2001

Employer in relation to the management of Phularitand Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present: -Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman .

:- None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry-Coal

Dated-18/04/ 2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /146/2001-IR(C-1) dated 10/07/2001, 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 Rashtyriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for appointment of Sri

Chaneshwar Mohali, S/O Lakshman Mohli workman of Phularitand Colliery of M/s. BCCL

on Compassionate ground is proper and justified? If so, to what relief is the said dependant

entitled?”

2. 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

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 955

955

955-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31/2001) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10.05.2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012/403/2000–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-,e--1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

2172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 955.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 31 of 2001) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/403/2000-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT NO.I,

DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.1947

Ref. No. 31 of 2001

Employer in relation to the management of Katras Chaitudih Colliery, M/S. BCCL,

AND

Their workman

Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers : Shri D.K.Verma ,Advocate

For the workman : Shri S.C.Gour, Rep.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry :-Coal.

Dated …18/04 /2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/403/2000-IR (CM-I), dated.25/01/2001, 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 disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Katras Chaitudih Colliery of M/S. BCCL in

dismissing Sri Dhowa Jaina, M/Loader, from the service of the company w.e.f. 08.02.1999 , is

justified? If not, to What relief is the concerned workman entitled ?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. After appearing for certain dates by parties. Ld. Counsel of

the workman submits in the meantime that the workman is not interested to contest the case further. 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] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 956

956

956-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 44/1994) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10.05.2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/85/1993–vkbZ- vkj- (lh--1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2173

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 956.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 44 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/85/1993-IR (C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference: No. 44 of 1994

Employer in relation to the management of Bhagabandh Colliery, M/S. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances: k

For the Employers

:- Shri N.M.Kumar, Aevocate

For the workman

:- None

State : Jharkhand

Industry- Coal

Dated- 15/04/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /85/1993-IR(C-1) dated Nil , 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 Bhagabandh Colliery of M/S. Bharat Coking coal

Ltd., P.O –Bhagabandh,-Dhanbad in denying the wages for idle period w.e.f. 01.07.90 to 08.05.91

to Shri Shorha Bhar is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently on

behalf of the workman. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

R .K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 957

957

957-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; ua0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13/1994) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10.05.2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012/20/1993–vkbZ- vkj- (lh--1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

2174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 957.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 13 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/20/1993-IR (C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference: No. 13 of 1994

Employer in relation to the management of Kenduadih Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri R. K.Saran

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

:- Shri D. K. Verma, Aevocate

For the workman

:- None

State : Jharkhand

Industry- Coal

Dated- 11/04/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /20/1993-IR(C-1) dated 16/02/1994 , the Ventral 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 Kenduadih Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking coal

Ltd., in dismissing Shri Ram Barat Ram Ex-under ground Trammer w.e.f. 26.11.83 is justified?

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

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently on

behalf of the workman. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

R .K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 958

958

958-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17/1994) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10.05.2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012/34/1993–vkbZ vkj (lh--1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2175

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 17 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/34/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 17 of 1994

Employer in relation to the management of Moonidih Project, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

:- None

For the workman

:- None

State : Jharkhand

Industry- Coal

Dated 11/04/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /34/1993-IR(C-1) dated 16/02/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Moonidih Project of M/s. BCCL, P.O –Moonidih,

Dist-Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Jogeshwar Singh, w.e.f. 10.10.1991 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently on

behalf of the workman. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 959

959

959-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49/1994) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012/112/1993–vkbZ vkj (lh--1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

2176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 49 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/112/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 49/1994

Employer in relation to the management of Moduda Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

:- None

For the workman

:- None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated- 08/04/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /112/1993-IR(C-1) dated 24/03/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General manager, Mahuda Area of BCCL, P.O. Mahuda,

Dt. Dhanbad in dismissing Sh. Aditya mahto, Timber mistry w.e.f. 05/08/1992 is justified? If

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

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 960

960

960-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33/1997) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012/475/1995–vkbZ vkj (lh--1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2177

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 960.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 33 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/475/1995-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

Ref. No. 33 of 1997

Employer in relation to the management of Lodna Area, M/s. BCCL,

AND

Their workman

Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers : Shri U. N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry :-Coal

Dated 11.03 .2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/475/1995-IR(C-I),dated.14/01/1997, 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 by dismissing the workman Shri Suresh Dusadh,

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

2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed, though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently did not

appears nor take any interest in the case by the workman. It is presumed that the disputes between parties have been

resolved in the meantime, Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 961

961

961-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34/2001) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10.05.2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012/384/2000–vkbZ vkj (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

2178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 961.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 34 of 2001) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/384/2000-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. 34 of 2001

Employer in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

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 : 21.3.2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/384/2000-IR(C-1) dated 25/01/2001, 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 not accepting the date of birth as mentioned in the

Identity Card and also as mentioned in Form ‘‘B’’ register in respect of the workman Sri Sagar Manjhi,

Miner/Loader of Bastacolla Colliery of M/s. BCCL and superannuating the workman w.e.f. 03.09.1999 is legal

and justified? If not, to BCCL and superannuating the workman w.e.f. 03.09.1999 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief is the workman entitled?’’

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears 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] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 962

962

962-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10.05.2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 20012/41/2003–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-,e--1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2179

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 962.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 87 of 2003) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/41/2003-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 87 of 2003

Employers in relation to the management of Sounda “D” Colliery of M/s.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers. :- Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman :- Shri B.B.Pandey, Advocate

State :- Jharkhand

Industry:-

Coal

Dated. 18.04.2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/41/2003-IR(CM-I), dated -19.08..2003, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

(i) “Whether the action of the management of CCL, Sounda “D” Colliery in

terminating the services of 41 workmen (as per list) w.e.f 16.09.2000 is justified? If not , to

what relief are the workmen entitled?”

2 “Whether the demand of the Janta Shramik Sangh from the management of CCL,

Saunda”D” Colliery for payment @ Rs. 30/- per thousand clay cartridges for the period

from 01.01.97 to 01.09.98 is justified ? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled?”

List of workmen

1. Ramchandra

2. Mini Devi

3. Somar Bhuiya

4. Suresh Prasad

5. Nirmal Ram

6. Sanjay Chouhan

7. Sanjay Kumar

8. Ramlal Ram

9.Kunti Devi

10. Malti Devi

11. Indradev Ram

12. Lakho Devi

13. Gujlari Ram

14. Maina Devi

15 . Suresh Ram

16. Chandru oraon

17. Tajwa Devi

18. Nideshwari Devi

19. Budhani

20. Ramdhani Saw

21. Kushmi Devi

22. Laljee Ram

23. Ram Brichh Saw

24. Gendhari Bhuia

25. Ram Sinhi Das

26. Rajesh oraon

27. Tipu

2180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

28. Bahadur Bhuia

29. Bihari Saw

30 Chintamani

31. Laxmi Devi

32. Birsa oraon

33. Mohan Kumar

34. Puran Ram

35. Ramesh Bhuia

36. Basdeo Bedia

37. Bhagirath Ram

38. Radha Devi

39. Ashok Kr. Ram

40. Dhaneshwari Devi

41. Shivdayal Nonia

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 06/13.10.2003.After notice both parties appeared. But

After long delay, the workman files their written statement on 06.05.2013. Thereafter the management also files their

written statement-cum- rejoinder on 06.05.2014.

3. The case of the workman is that , all 41 workmen had been working as clay cartridge Mazdoor at Sounda

“D” Colliery of CCL since long time and the cartridge were used by the management in different sections, mines and

inclines etc. of Sounda “D” Colliery . But all of a sudden the management terminated the services of these 41 above

named workmen without any reason and without any prior information or notice w.e.f 16.09.2000 which is illegal and

unjustified.

4. It is further submited by the workman that the rate of clay cartridges is fixed by the management from time

to time by settlement or otherwise and the same is followed and complied with. Further it is enhanced the rate of clay

cartridges from Rs. 20/- per thousand to Ra. 30/- per thousand w.e.f. 01.01.1997 But the management did not apply its

decision and did not pay the due amount on the basis of enhanced rate and as such the workmen are entitled for payment

of their due amount for the period from 01.01.97 to 01.09.1998.

5. On the other hand the case of the management is that one Industrial dispute in respect of clay cartridges

supplier Sri Ram Chandra Ram and one 133 other to treat them as the workmen of the management and payment of

category –I wages vide notification No. L20012/3/93 IR (C-1) dated 21.02.1994 which is registered as Ref. 31of 1994

in this Tribunal. And the award passed in favour of the management stating their in that the workman is not entitled to

get any relief.

6. It is further submitted by the management, that in para 10 of the said award, it is clear cut finding that as

per the evidence produced by the workmen it shows that they are supplier of clay cartridges to the management and

supplier can not be the employee of the management, hence question of termination of their services by the

management in the reference do not arise.

7. It is also submitted by the management that so far the item no 2 of schedule of the reference is concerned ,

it is submitted that the demand for payment @ Rs. 30 per thousand clay cartridge for the period 01.01.97 to 01.09.1998

is not the subject matter of an Industrial dispute. The management use to purchase commodity from the supplier on

agreed rate between supplier and purchaser.

8. The present set of workman already approached Tribunal vide Ref. no. 31/94 and their claim was rejected. It

is not known , whether the said award has been varied or set- aside.

9. Therefore the same set of claim has already been heard and finally decided , the said matter can not be

decided again and it is barred by res-judicata. Once it is declared that all workmen are not employees of the

management, so far the price of clay cartridge once fixed by the parties, has already been finalized & paid to them.

Therefore this Tribunal unable to give any relief to the workmen.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 963

963

963-&&

&& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 58/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10.05.2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012/173/2005–vkbZ- vkj- (lh--1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2181

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 963.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 58 of 2006) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/173/2005-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

Ref.No. 58 of 2006

Employer in relation to the management of E.J.Area M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the employers :- None

For the Workman :- Shri Rabindra Kumar Thakur

State :- Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated 18.04.2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /173 /2005/IR (C-I) dt. 01.06.2006 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/s. BCCL in

dismissing Shri Jogilal Thakur is fair and justified? If not , to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled?”

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on 03.07.2006. During the pendency of the case concerned workman has

died. Thereafter son of the concerned workman files a petition for withdrawing this reference case. It is felt that the

dispute between parties is resolved. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. Communicate.

R .K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 964

964

964-&&

&& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (dEiys.M la[;k 9/2014) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10.05.2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012/45/2011–vkbZ- vkj- (lh--1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

2182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016

S.O. 964.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Comp. No. 9 of 2014) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/45/2011-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT U/S 33 (A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

COMPLAINT NO. 9/2014

( Arising out of Ref. No. 8/2012)

L-20012/45/2011-IR(C-I) dt.20/12/2011

Shri Mohan Prasad

Per.No. 00684902

Dhansar Colliery, Dhansar

P.O-BankMore, Dhanbad ………………………………...………….Complainant

Vs.

Chief Personal Manager

Kusunda Area, M/s. BCCL

P.O- Kusunda, Dist-Dhanbad ………………………………………………………Opp. Party

Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding officer

Appearances:

For Complainant .

:- Shri S. Prakash, Advocate

For Opp. Party

: Shri U.N.Lall, Advocate

State :- Jharkhand

Industry:--Coal

Dated. : 19.04.2016

AWARD

Complaint received, Admitted. Notice issued to other side, After certain dates, the learned counsel for the

Complainant submits that the demand is already fulfilled. Opp.party did not raise objection. Hence the complaint is

closed as withdrawn. Award passed, Communicat.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2183

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 965

965

965-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53@2014½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@101@2014–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-,e--1) ]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10^th May, 2016

S.O. 965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 53 of 2014) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[L-20012/101/2014-IR(CM-I]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.

REFERENCE NO 53 OF 2014

PARTIES

The Jt. General Secretary,

Bhaujan Mazdoor Union,

Mines Rescue Station, PO: Dhansar, Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager

E.J. Area of M/s BCCL,

PO: Bhowra, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/101/2014-IR (CM-I) dt.08.10.2014.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr.R.R.Ram, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr.U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16^th Mar. 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-20012/101/2014-IR (CM-I) dt.08.10.2014.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Sudamdih Incline Mine of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri

Bhagirath Bauri, Ex. M.Loader, from the services of the company vide office order dated 06.07.1998 is fair and

justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?’’

2. Neither the Representative for the Sponsoring Union nor the petitioner is present on date nor did file the long

awaited W.S. due on the part of the Union/workman despite sending two Regd. Notices dtt. 10.11.2014 and 15.5.15 at

the address of the Union/petitioner referred in the Order of the Reference but the same remained unresponsive as they

2184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

seem to be no hurry to move ahead; whereas Mr U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate for the Management is present on date after

having filed his authority.

From perusal of the case record thoroughly it transpires the Union/petitioner is no longer interested to get the

case to final adjudication as sufficient opportunity had been provided to them since 27.1.2015 ; the case was posted

more than eight times .The way the case is virtually halted even before unfolding after just set it rolling, shows the

conduct and gesture of the Sponsoring Union that they have lost the interest in the merit of the case and the case need

not warrant any further time to set it rolling for final adjudication .Under such circumstances, the Tribunal can not sit

idle over it for the end of the natural justice but calls for closure of the case due to unwillingness of the Union

concerned and passed an Order of ‘No dispute Award’ accordingly.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk-966

966

966-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@74@2007–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-,e--1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10^th May, 2016

S.O.966.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 39 of 2007) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

10.05.2016.

[L-20012/74/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 39 OF 2007.

PARTIES :

The Vice President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

At; Vihar Building, Post: Jharia,

Dhanbad.-826001

Vs.

The General Manager,

E.J. Area of M/s. BCCL.

PO: Bhowra, Dhanbad.826001

Order No. L-20012/74/2007-IR(CM-I) dt. 23.07.2007

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. K.N. Singh Rep. of the workmen

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 14^st March 2016

A W A R D

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No.L-20012/74/2007-IR (CM-I) dt.23.07.2007.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2185

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Bhowra (N) U.G. Mines of M/s BCCL in dismissing the services of

Shri Hiralal B.P. S.F. Mazdoor , w.e.f. 09.12.2002 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman

entitled?”

None appearance either from the Union / workman nor the OP/Management was registered on date nor did file the long-

awaited rejoinder by the workman followed by submission of documents by the both sides. The case has been advanced

but stalled over filing of rejoinder by the Union/petitioner since 18.06.2008. There have been sufficient dates posted

since then, as fact revealed from the record, giving the opportunity to come out with rejoinder on the part of the

petitioner /Union but they seem to have repeatedly failed. Though two formal notices dated. 5.12.07 and 03.12.14 were

also sent to the address of the Union /Petitioner at the address referred in the Order of Reference itself but that too did

not work.However, the Representation of the Management was made by Mr.U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate, who has registered

his presence all through, is also significant.

It transpired from the fact there seems to be no urgency on the part of the Petitioner /Union to file the rejoinder,

as proceedings stalled for want of the rejoinder since 18.06.2008 as if they are no longer interested to get it to final

adjudication through trails Simultaneously the Tribunal holds of the view holding the case for any further will be

termed sheer wastage of time and, for the end of the justice and in the natural interest, the case needs winding up

immediately due to utter disinterestedness on the part of the Union/petitioner. Under such circumstances the case is

closed; and accordingly an order of ‘No Dispute Award,‘is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk-967

967

967-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2007) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@84@2007–vkbZ vkj (lh-,e--1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10^th May, 2016

S.O.967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 47 of 2007) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/84/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO. 47 OF 2007

PARTIES :

The Vice President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

At Vihar Building, Post: Jharia, Dhanbad.

Vs.

The General Manager

Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL, PO: Sijua, Dhaanbad.

Order No. L-20012/84/2007-IR(CM-I) dt.09.08.2007

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

: None

On behalf of the Management

Mr.U.N.Lal, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16^th March 2016.

2186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

A W A R D

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/84/2007-IR (CM-I) dt.09.08.2007.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denying regularization as

PR Trammer to Shri Bullu Ram M/Loader is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman

entitled and from which date?”

Neither the petitioner nor the Union is reported to be present nor did file the long awaited rejoinder followed

by submission of the documents by both the sides. Whereas Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate representing

Management is present on date. The proceedings of filing the W.S. by the Union /workman advanced one stage

with submission of counter rejoinder by the O.P/Management. Since then the proceedings virtually came to a

grinding halt for non-submission of much awaited rejoinder stood due on the part of the Union itself. Though

three formal notices dated 5,12.07, 22.11.2008 and lastly one 24.11.2014 were sent at the address of the

Sponsoring Union referred in the order of the Reference itself that too went unheeded .The case deals with

denial of regularization as PR Trammer to the workman by the Management seeking relief there under.

By going through the records, it is apparently clear that the onus of stalling proceedings by not filing the

long chased rejoinder largely rest with the Union. The gesture and conduct with Union/workman walks out,

drops sufficient hint to assume as if they are least interested whatsoever to get the case to final adjudication,

and there seem to be no urgency on the their part to file the rejoinder despite having been provided ample

opportunity since 27.03.2008,almost on a good number of occasions . Contrary to it, merely dragging the case on

one stage for so long spell time will not be worthy rather should be closed down for the end of the justice. As such

the case is closed an order of “No Dispute Award” due to unwillingness of the Union/petitioner is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-968

968

968-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@83@2007–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-,e--1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10^th May, 2016

S.O.968— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 46 of 2007) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/83/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO. 46 OF 2007

PARTIES :

The Vice President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

At Vihar Building, Post: Jharia, Dhanbad.-826001

Vs.

The General Manager

Sijua Area of M/s BCCL.

P.O. Sijua

Distt. Dhanbad.826001

Order No. L-20012/83/2007-IR(CM-I) dated 09.08.2007

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2187

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr. K. N .Singh Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16^th 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-20012/83/2007-IR (CM-I) dated 09.08.2007.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denying regularization as

PR Trammer to Shri Chhota Jailal Mahato, M/Loader is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled and from which date?”

Neither the Representative nor the workman is reported to be present nor did the earlier occasions nor did file

the much-awaited Rejoinder due on their part on date; whereas Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld Advocate for the Management is

present. Though three Notices dated.5.12.07, 22.01.2008 and the last one posting date on 30.1.2015 were mailed to the

address of the Sponsoring Union referred in the Order of the Reference itself but all went in vain even the Management

side was also kept informed .The case is related to denial of regularization as PR Trammer to the workman concerned.

A through and emphatically scrutiny, it transpires that the case seems to be stalled over filing the rejoinder on

the part of the Sponsoring Union over more than two years or so . Even after stepping over the 1st stage, there seems to

be no urgency on the part of the Sponsoring Union to file the much awaited Rejoinder despite providing sufficient times

as much as more than ten times since 24.06.2008 . This indicates to the gesture that the Union/workman is no more

interested to get the case to final adjudication fuelling to speculation to testify that the case must have been resolved out

of Court or an issue of meritless, as of now .Simultaneously the Tribunal shares of the view of keeping the case rolling

merely for dates, does not have positive meaning rather extract the conclusion of closing down for the end of the

justice. Under these circumstances the case is closed; and an order of the “No Dispute Award” is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk-96

9696

969-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 51@2009½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvkFkkA

[la- ,y&20012@100@2008–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-,e--1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10^th May, 2016

S.O.969.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 51 of 2009) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/100/2008-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 51/2009

Employers in relation to the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL

And

Their workman

Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

2188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Shri D. K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

: Shri R. R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, the 15^th April, 2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/100/2008-IR (CM-1), dated 22.09.2009, 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:

SCHEDULE

"(i) Whether the action of the Management of Kachhi Balihari Colliery under P.B Area of M/s.

BCCL in dismissing the services of late Kalipado Ghatwar w.e.f 05.09.2005 is justified and legal?

(ii) Whether the demand of the Bhujan Mazdoor Union from the Management of Kachhi Balihari

Colliery of M/s. BCCL for providing dependant employment to Shri Gopal Ghatwar, S/O late

kalipado Ghatwar, loader is justified and lagal? (iii) To what relief is the concerned workman`s son

entitled?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 14.10.2009. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. The sponsoring Union files their written statement on 05.11.2009. Thereafter the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 07.10.2010. One witness each side examined on their behalf . And documents of workman

is marked as X to X/3.(For Identification).

3. The case of the workman is that the concerned workman was entered into his service on 17.04.1989 he was suffering

from fatal disease like Hepatitis –B who was referred to Central Hospital, Dhanbad on 18.09.2005 and the management

was fully aware of the facts that Kalipado Ghatwar is under the Medical care of Central Hospital, Dhanbad. But

unfortunately he died on 18.09.2005 during treatment period.

It is also submitted by the workman that in the meantime the management issued a chargesheet on 20.05.2005

alleging absenting from his duty. But the workman was under treatment during the said period. But the management

dismissed him on 05.09.2005 while he was under treatment.

It is further submitted by the workman that the dismissal of the concerned workman is most illegal and

unjustified without proper enquiry. Hence he is entitled to get relief with full back-wages.

Shri Gopal Ghatwar, the dependent son of the said deceased workman represented himself before the

management to provide him employment in accordance with provision of NCWA-VII but the management did not hear

his grievance though his name appears in the service excerpt of the deceased workman.

On the other hand the case of the management is that Late Kalipado Ghatwar was an employee of KB 5/6 pits

Colliery as miner/Loader . He was started absenting from his duty w.e.f. 26.03. 2005 without information and without

permission which is a misconduct clause 26.1.1 of the certified standing order, therefore chargesheet dt. 20.05.2005

was issued to him.

8. The concerned workman participated in the enquiry and during enquiry full opportunity was provided to him by the

enquiry officer. And the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against him was proved

beyond any doubt. And he was dismissed from service vide order No. 829 dated 22. 8/5.09.2005.

9. It is further submitted by the management that there is no provision for employment of the dependent of dismissed

employee. Hence the demand of the Union for employment of dependent is neither legal nor justified.

10. The applicant in this reference is one of the son of the deceased workman who died after being dismissed from his

respective job. Peruse the all document of the workman it is found that the concerned workman died on 29.09.2005 at

4.45 PM at Central Hospital, Dhanbad but any document related his treatment is not filed by the workman.

11. It is also found that the concerned workman was dismissed from service 08.09.2005 . It is clear that applicant

claimed job in place of his dismissed deceased father which is not permissible.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the workman has already been dismissed, he has no

right left from his employers. Hence the action of the Management of Kachhi Balihari Colliery under P.B Area of M/s.

BCCL in dismissing the services of late Kalipado Ghatwar w.e.f 05.09.2005 is justified and legal. Therefore his

dependant child has no claim what, so ever on the management.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2189

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk-970

970

970-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2010½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[la- ,y&20012@107@2009–vkbZ vkj (lh-,e--1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10^th May, 2016

S.O.970.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 5 of 2010) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/107/2009-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 5/2010

Employers in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area of M/S. BCCL

And

Their workman

Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers.

: Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman. : Shri D.Mukherjee, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, 11^th April, 2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/107/2009-IR (CM-1), dated o4/01/2010, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"(i) Whether the action of the management of Bastacolla colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the

service of late Brij Nandan Paswan, Cableman w.e.f 23.10.2003 is justified and legal? (ii) If not,

whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union from the managemeng of Bastacolla Colliery

of M/S BCCL for providing dependant emplopyment to sri Mukesh Paswan S/o Late Brij Nandan

Paswan, Cableman is justified and legal? (iii) To what relief is the concerned workman’s son

entitled?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 18.01.2010. After receipt of the reference, both parties

are noticed. The sponsoring Union files their written statement on 26.05.2010. Thereafter the management files their

written statement-cum-rejoinder on 23.09.2011. One witness each side examined on their behalf on Preliminary point.

And document of workman is marked as W-1 to W-6 as well as document of management is also marked as

M-1 to M-8.

The case of the workman is that Sri Late Brij Nandan Paswan has been working as parmamant cableman at

Bastacolla Colliery. But the concerned workman was suffering from occupational disease i.e T.B . in the coal Industry.

T.B is occupational disease.

The concerned workman Late Brij Nandan Paswan was also suffering from occupational disease of T.B and

accordingly he was under the treatment of Central Hospital, Dhanbad . Initially the concerned workman was treated as

out –door patient since the year 2000, thereafter he was admitted as indoor patient. Unfortunately the company’s doctor

2190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was very much negligent in the treatment of the concerned workman and accordingly discharged the concerned

workman from Hospital on the alleged ground of improvement.

It is further submitted that the workman was not in a position to perform his duty due to his illness and he again

approached the doctor of Central Hospital for his treatment and he was again admitted in the Hospital. The management

was fully awre of the treatment under going by the concerned workman in central Hospital as indore and out door

patient. But the management issued him a false and frivolous charge-sheet dated 08.05.2002 under clause 26.1.1 for

alleged habitual absence from duty and dismissed the concerned workman by completing the empty formalities.

It is also submitted by the workman that during the alleged absence the concerned workman under going

treatment in company’s hospital. And the enquiry conducted ex-parte after that the workman dismissed . And the

concerned workman was died before attaining the age of 60 years, as such the dependant of the concerned workman is

entitled for employment. But the management denying the employment of the dependant of the diseased workman.

Hence the Industrial dispute arose.

On the other hand the case of the management is that the concerned workman Late Brijnandan Paswan had

been issued a charge-sheet dated 08.05.2002 for unauthorized habitual absence as per para 26.1.1 of the certified

standing order of the company. The reply of the charge-sheet was not found satisfactory as such the disciplinary

authority has decided to have domestic enquiry by appointing the enquiry Officer. During the domestic enquiry the

charge sheeted workman has accepted his guilt as mention in the charge-sheet

It is further submitted by the management that the delinquent employee Lt Brijnandand Paswan has mentioned

in his statement that due to some personal problem he had been absenting from duty w.e.f. 13.12.2000 and accepted his

gult and assured that he would not commit such mistake in future.

The concerned workman was appointed on 24.09.1990 . The past record of attendance of last three year is as

under :-

1999 :- 185 days

2000 :- 022 days

2001 :- Nil

10.

As per the past record the enquiry Officer in his enquiry report, the above named workman was habitual

absentee, he did not improve in his performance. Hence he has imposed the penalty of dismissal vide letter No. 1798

dated 22/23.10.2003

11.

As per record it is evident that the management has rightly dismissed the workman concerned workman

namely Late Brij Nandan Paswan for his mis-conduct being an habitual absentee and as such the action of the

management in dismissing him is just , fair and proper . The demand of the Union for getting dependent employment to

sri Mukesh Paswan son of Lt Brij Nandan Paswan is not justified.

12.

The applicant in the reference is one of the son of the deceased workman who died after being dismissed from

his job. He participated in domestic enquiry with his co-worker. The domestic enquiry is accepted by the workman as

fair and proper 26/02/14.

13. As per letter of the deceased workman dated 20/03/2002 marked as Ext. M-2 in which he admitted that he was not

feeling well at night duty on 13.12.2000 but his attendance statement shows that his attendance in 1999 is 185 days

and in 2000 is only 22 days . It is cleared that he was ill from 13.12.2000 but before December 2000 his attendance was

only 22 days this proved that he was habitutal absentee . It is also noticed that applicant has not filed any application/

intimation to show his illness before the letter dated 20.03.2002. More over the I.D case raised by the Union after the

death of the concerned workman.

14.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the workman has already been dismissed, he

has no right left from his employer. accordingly the action of the management of Bastacolla colliery of M/S BCCL in

dismissing the service of late Brijnandan Paswan, Cableman w.e.f 23.10.2003 is justified and legal . Therefore his

dependant child has no claim what so ever on the management. He is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2191

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk-971

971

971-—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार मेसस

ए.सी.सी.

िलिमटेड और दूसरे

के बंधतं के संब िनयोजक" और उनके कमकार" के बीच अनुबंध म िन%द& औोिगक

िववाद म केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं (म यायालय -2, चंडीगढ़ पंचाट (संदभ सं+या 10/2014) को कािशत

करती है जो केीय सरकार को 10/05/2016 को ा/ 0आ था।

[la- ,y&29011@01@2014–vkbZ- vkj- (,e)]

नवीन कपूर, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O.971— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. ACC Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

10/05/2016.

[No. L-29011/01/2014-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No.10/2014

Registered on 18.06.2014

ACC Gagal Cement Karamchari Sangh, Barmana, District Bilaspur, HP through its President.

Applicant

Versus

1. Managing Director, ACC Limited, Registered Office, Cement House 121, Maharishi Karve Road,

Mumbai.

2. Plant Director, Associated Cement Company Ltd. Gaggal Cement Works, PO Barmana, Bilaspur, District

Bilaspur. HP.

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Chain Singh for the Union

For the Management

Sh. Liberhan, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on:-28.01.2016

Vide Order No.L-29011/01/2014-IR(M), dated 20.05.2014 the Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) and sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the demands raised by President, ACC Gagal Karamchari Sangh demanding the

termination of Memorandum of Settlement dated 8.6.2011 and referring the matter to the Cement

Wage Board Award for better wage structure for the workers, working in ACC Ltd. Gagal Cement

Works, Barmana is just, valid and legal. If not, to what other benefits to the workers entitled for

and what directions are necessary in the matter.”

In response to the notice, the workman submitted statement of claim, pleading that its legitimate demands are

denied by the management and claimed:-

(i)

Duration of the Wage Board must be of three years;

(ii)

Revision of the pay scales under the Wage Board shall be done after every three years;

(iii) Daily paid system be abolished and be substituted by Pay Board;

2192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iv) There must not be any difference in the salaries of the managerial staff and employees of the Wage

Board;

(v)

Annual increment be determined on appropriate lines;

(vi) Dearness allowance be brought under public enterprises;

(vii) Increase in the House rend, washing allowance etc. be correspondingly made;

(viii) Medical reimbursement be made on the basis of medical bills;

(ix) Number of casual leave be increased from 7 to 15 days;

(x)

Paid leave be also increased from 15 to 30 days per annum;

(xi) Production be calculated on the basis of clinker production and not on the basis of dispatch of the cement;

(xii) Provisions of Steel Wage Board be applied.

(xiii) Medical leave be also increased to 30 days.

(xiv) Special gratuity be restored and gratuity of 30 days be given;

(xv) Workmen working on higher platforms be granted special height allowance; &

(xvi) Dust and sound allowance be provided.

Increase in salaries is also claimed.

The management filed written statement, pleading the demands now raised, are beyond the scope of demand

notice and further pleaded that a settlement has been entered into on 8.6.2011, between the parties and the Union is not

entitled to raise the demands and claim more salary.

On 19.1.2016, Chain Singh appeared and submitted that now he is the President of the Union on whose behalf

the case was filed. He has further made a statement for not pressing the reference and claiming no relief in the present

reference. He has also moved an application to this effect.

Since the Union did not press the reference and did not claim any relief and therefore, the present reference is

decided against the Union and it is not entitled to any relief and the reference is accordingly answered.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 972

972

972- —औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार मेसस

दालमा एनज4 के बंधतं के संब िनयोजक" और उनके कमकार" के बीच अनुबंध म िन%द& औोिगक िववाद म केीय

सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं (म यायालय, अहमदाबाद पंचाट (संदभ सं+या 83/2010) को कािशत करती है जो

केीय सरकार को 10/05/2016 को ा/ 0आ था।

[la- ,y&30012@36@2009–vkbZ- vkj- (,e)]

Ukohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O.972.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 83/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Dalma Energy and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10/05/2016.

[No. L-30012/36/2009-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2193

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No- 83/2010

The General Manager,

M/s. Dalma Energy LLC,

Project Office, 303-305,

“Rubellite Hub”, 32, Ajit Nagar,

BPC Road, Nr. Urmi Crossing,

Akogta, Baroda(Gujarat).

… First Party

v/s

Shri K.C. PratapSimhan,

Kundu House,

Puranathukara, Trichur,

Kerala – 680551.

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri Yogen Pandya

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-30012/36/2009-IR(M) dated 18.03.2010 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Dalma Energy, LLC, Vadodara through the Area Manager –

India Operation in terminating the services of Shri K.C. PratapSimhan with immediate effect vide letter dated

07.03.2008 is legal, proper and just? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 18.03.2010. Both the parties were served. But second party did not prefer to submit

statement of claim. Second party has also been absent since the service made on him. Thus it appear that second

party was not willing to prosecute the case.

2. Thus the reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 973

973

973-—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार मेसस ओ. एन. जी.

सी. िलिमटेड और दूसर के बंधतं! के संब" िनयोजक और उनके कमकार के बीच अनुबंध म िन&द' औोिगक िववाद म केीय

सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं )म यायालय, अहमदाबाद पंचाट (संदभ सं,या 15/2011) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार

को 10/05/2016 को ा0 1आ था।

[la- ,y&30011@33@2010–vkbZ vkj (,e)]

Ukohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

2194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. ONGC Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

10/05/2016.

[No. L-30011/33/2010-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-15/2011

1. The Executive Director,

ONCG Ltd.,

Mehsana Asset,

Palavasana, Mehsana (Gujarat)

2. M/s. New Industrial Security Services,

First Floor, 103,113, Omkar Chambers,

Opposite Railway Station,

Surat (Gujarat) – 395003

3. ChansmaTalukaSarvodaya Majdoor SahakariMandali,

Urmi Shopping Center, New B.K. Cinema,

S.T. Workshop Road,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

4. The Director,

M/s. Industrial Security Services,

1^st Floor, Upal Tower, Opposite UmiyaDham,

Vaishali Cinema,

Surat (Gujarat) - 395006

5. The M/s. Trig guard Force Ltd.,

23-24, Devi Co-op. Housing society,

Opp. Indian Oil Nagar, Near Bus Stand,

Andhari(W), Mumbai.

…First Parties

Vs.

The Secretary,

ONGC Employees Union,

8, Samarpan shopping complex,

Highway Raod, Mehsana,

Mehsana (Gujarat) – 384002.

...Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The

Government

India/Ministry

Labour,

New

Delhi

reference

adjudication

Order

No. L-30011/33/2010-IR(M) dated 08.03.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2195

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Secretary, ONGC Labour Union, Mehsana for regularization of Shri Gopal

Krishna AmrutlalNayak by the management of ONGC, Ltd., Mehsana is justified and legal? To what relief

the workmen concerned is entitled to?”

1. The reference dates back to 08.03.2011. All the concerned parties particularly The Secretary, ONGC

Employees Union, Mehsana, M/s Trig Guard Forces Limited & The Executive Director, ONGC Ltd.,

Mehsana were served through registered post.

2. However the second party did not prefer to submit the statement of claim despite the fact that ONGC, Ltd.,

Mehsana, filed the vakalatnama Exhibit -3 of his advocate K.V. Gadhia Associates. It is also noteworthy that

the employee Gopal Krishna AmratlalNayak also not appeared to proceed with his case. Thus it appear that

the second party is not willing in the prosecution of the reference.

3. Thus the reference is dismissed in default of the second party the Secretary, ONGC Employees Union.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 974

974

974-—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार मेसस ओ. एन. जी.

सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं )म यायालय, अहमदाबाद पंचाट (संदभ सं,या 74/2011) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार

को 10/05/2016 को ा0 1आ था।

[la- ,y&30011@3@2009–vkbZ- vkj- (,e)]

Ukohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O.974.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. ONGC Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

10/05/2016.

[No. L-30011/3/2009-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-74/2011

The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad Asset,

AvaniBhawan, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad.

The Chief Manager (Security),

ONGC Ltd.,

AvaniBhawan,

Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad.

The Organizing Secretary,

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,

28-B, Narayan Park,

Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad.

...First Party

And

2196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Their Workman,

The President,

Ahmedabad Jilla Asangathit Mazdoor Sangh (BMS),

JP Chowk, Khanpur,

Ahmedabad.

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri K. V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/3/2009-

IR(M) dated 28.09.2011 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 Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh through Ahmedabad JillaAsangathit Mazdoor Sangh

Ahmedabad for regularization of 95 contractual security guard employed through M/s Trig Guard Force Ltd.

By the management of ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad is legal and justified? If so what relief the workers involved in

this dispute are entitled to and what direction are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 28.09.2011. The first party ONGC, Ahmedabad filed the vakalatnama Exhibit

– 5 of his advocate Shri K.V. Gadhia but the second party Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh despite service did

not submit the statement of claim.

The second party Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh was severed on 05.03.2012 with registered post and the

envelope was received by Shri R. S. Sisodia. But Mr. Sisodia did not appear to file the statement of claim.

Later on 08.10.2015, second party Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh moved three applications Exhibit 11, 14

and 17 annexed with the details of names of the workmen for withdrawing their case. The learned counsel

for the first party, Shri M.K. Patel expressed no objection against the aforesaid applications and agreed to

grant permission of the withdrawal of the case by the aforesaid workmen detailed in the Annexures with

the application Ext. 11, 14 and 17 by Tribunal. These applications were allowed.

Since 08.10.2015, second party has neither responded on the subsequent dates on 04.12.2015 and

18.03.2016 nor has second party filed the statement of claim.

Thus it appears that second party has no intent in the prosecution of the reference as most of the workmen

have withdrawn with the reference.

Thus reference is dismissed in default of the second party representing the remaining workmen.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 975-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljs ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@30@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. ONGC Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

10/05/2016.

[No. L-30012/30/2010-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2197

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 1^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-33/2012

1. The Asset Manager,

ONGC Ltd.,

Ankleshwar Asset,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat)

2. The Proprietor,

M/s. Nirmal construction,

N 17, Vaishali Society,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat)

… First Party

Vs.

Shri BechharbhaiChhaganbhai Patel,

Nava Tari,

School Mohalla, Tal - Ankleshwar,

Dist- Bharuch(Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party : --------

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L – 30012/30/2010 – IR(M) dated 16.01.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s Nirmal Construction Co., Ankleshwar, Contractor of ONGC

Ltd, Ankleshwar in terminating the services of Shri BecharbhaiChhaganbhai Patel w.e.f. 30/08/2007 is legal,

just and proper ? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?’’

2. This Reference dates back to 16.01.2012. Parties to the dispute where issued the Hearing Notice and same were

served to the respective parties. As per the Hearing Notice date for filling Statement of Claim was 11.05.2012.

The appropriate Government has also directed the Second Party has to raise the dispute and to file the

Statement of Claim with relevant Documents, list of reliance and witness in the Tribunal within 15 days of the

receipt of the order of the Reference.

3. However, the ample opportunity were given by this Tribunal to file a statement of Claim to the Second Party.

The second party failed to submit the Statement of Claim after about 3 years and 3 month from the date of

reference. Thus, this Tribunal has reasons to believe that the Second Party is not interested in the Case.

4. On behalf of First Party, ONGC, Mr. K.V. Gadhia submitted his Vakilpatra on 23.08.2012. Since 16.01.2012

numbers of opportunity were given to the second party but the second party fails to avail that opportunity. The

second party has not filed Statement of Claim till date therefore this Tribunal has no other alternative but to

dismiss the reference for want of prosecution.

The reference is dismissed in default of the Second Party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

2198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dk-vk- 976-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lka?kh

baMLVªht fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 166@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

10-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@26@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 166/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Sanghi Industries Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

10/05/2016.

[No. L-29011/26/2012-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 166/2012

The Sr. President (Operation),

M/s. Sanghi Industries Ltd.,

President House, Ambawadi Circle,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat) – 380006.

…First Party

v/s

The President,

Kutch Jilla General Kamdar Sangh,

Regd. Off: TCX – South 94,

Gandhidham (Kutch) – 370201.

…Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-29011/26/2012-IR(M) dated 10.12.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of contract workers working in M/s. Sanghi Cement

Industries, Sanghipuram, Kutch is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?”

1. The reference dates back to 10.12.2012. Both the parties were served to registered post on 20.05.2013 but

neither of the parties put in their appearance. The conduct of the second party indicates that he has no

willingness to prosecute the reference. Thus, the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in default of the

second party.

2. Thus, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2199

dk-vk- 977-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 367@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@6@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 367/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s ONGC Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

10/05/2016.

[No. L-30011/6/2001-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-367/2004

The Group General Manager(P),

ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad Project, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat) – 380001

The Group General Manager(Projects),

O.N.G.C. Ltd.,

Ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar (Gujarat),

Ankleshwar – 393010

M/s. Industrial Security Services,

Parichay Shopping Centre,

Near ‘D’ Cabin,

IOC Rd., Post New Rly. Colony,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

M/s. Industrial Security Services,

Opp. Jagdamba Mills, A.K. Road, Surat

Gujarat

M/s. New Industrial Security Services,

103, 113, Omkar Chambers, 1^st Floor,

Opp. Rly. Station,

Surat (Gujarat)

…First Party

v/s

The Workmen through

Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,

434/46, Gandhi Vas Naka, Gujarat Stadium Road,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri C.S. Naidu

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

2200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-30011/6/2001-IR(M) dated 16.01.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., in not considering demand of 90 workmen as per list

for absorption and regularisation is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference dates back to 16.01.2001. Some of the workmen Parmar Pratapbhai Sankarbhai and Parmar

Manubhai Fulabhai withdrew themselves from the reference on 27.04.2010. On 11.02.2013, 5 workmen out of

90 workmen withdrew themselves from the reference. Now, rest of the workmen express unwillingness to

prosecute the reference. Therefore, the reference is dismissed as not pressed as regards rest of the workmen.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 978-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,y ,.M

Vh] tsVhvkbZ] vkW;y izkstsDV fyfeVsM vkSj nwljs ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 489@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@117@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 489/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. L & T, JTI, Oil Project Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 10/05/2016.

[No. L-30011/117/2001-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 5^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-489/2004

Reference (ITC) No-39/2002

1. The Dy. Geenral Manager,

L & T,, JTI, Oil Field,

Project Ltd., Karaka Building No.2, Ground Foor,

Ashram Road, Ahmedabad

2. M/s. M.D Engineering Services, 20, Somvila Bunglow,

OppAsopala Bunglow, Nr. Radhey Party Plot,

Ahmedabad 380059

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Shri Ajay Kumar Shethi,

C/o. Sardar Labour Sangh,

6/910, Bhala Pole, Dholka, Ahmedabad

…Second Party

AWARD

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2201

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-30011/117/2001-IR(M) dated 02.05.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. M.D. Engineering Services, Contractor of M/s. L & T JTI

Oil Project Ltd., in terminating the services of Shri Ajay Kumar Shethi is legal, proper and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

3. This reference dates back to 02.05.2002. Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext.7) on 10.12.2003.

First party submitted written statement (Ext.8) on 17.01.2005 since then second party has not been responding

and has also not led his evidence. Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to proceed with the reference

as they have been absent since last several dates. Thus Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in

default of the second party.

This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 979-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 735@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@63@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 735/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. ONGC Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

10/05/2016.

[No. L-30011/63/2001-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 735/2004

1. The Group General Manager (Projects),

O.N.G.C. Ltd.,

Ankleshwar Project,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat) – 393010.

2. M/s. Central Industrial Security Services,

Near Hawa Mahal,

Opp. GIDC ST Depot,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat) – 393010.

…First Party

v/s

2202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ONGC Mazdoor Sangh,

c/o Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,

The General Secretary, Nr. Asian Paint Chokdi,

GIDC, Ankleshwar (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-30011/63/2001-IR(M) dated 04.07.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union to absorb/regularise the services of Shri Barad Rajendra C & 42 others (as

per list enclosed) as permanent and direct employee of ONGC Ltd. Ankleshwar from the date of their entry in

the service as contractual workman and all other benefits as enjoyed as the regular employees of ONGC Ltd.

is legal proper and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date

and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

1. The Reference dates back to 04.07.2001. Second party filed the statement of claim (Ext. -8) on 15.02.2002 and

first party submitted the written statement (Ext. -14) on 28.06.2002.

2. 27 workmen involved in the reference detailed in the application Ext. -51 & 52 moved the aforesaid application

for withdrawal of their names in the said reference. Same was allowed vide order dated 05.11.2015.

3. The case is old one. Both the parties appears on every dates through their representatives but second party

avoids to lead evidence. Thus the tribunal has no option but to close the evidence of the second party and

dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

4. Thus the reference is dismissed in default of leading evidence by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई 6द7ली, 11 मई, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 980.

980.

980.— औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस 8े9जग काप;रेशन ऑफ इंिडया िलिमटेड के बंधतं के संब िनयोजक" और उनके कमकार" के बीच अनुबंध म िन%द&

औोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं (म यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं+या

954/2004) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 10/05/2016 को ा/ 0आ था।

[सं.एल-37012/5/1992-आईआर(एम)]

नवीन कपूर, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 954/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 10/05/2016.

[No. L-37012/5/1992-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 7^thApril, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 954/2004

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2203

The Project Manager,

Dredging Corporation of India Ltd.,

Seva – Sadan II,

New Kandla (Kutch).

…First Party

Vs.

The President,

Kandla Port Karmachari Sangh,

T.C.X. – S – 94,

Gandhidham (Kutch).

…Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-37012/5/92 IR(Misc.) dated 20.12.1993 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Dredging Corporation of India Ltd., Project Office, Kandla in

terminating the services of Shri J. Nooka Rao, daily rated messenger, with effect from 19.09.1990 is justified?

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

2. The case is very old one. Second Party files statement of claim (exhibit 4) on 24.01.1994 and First Party filed

the Written Statement (exhibit 18) on 12.12.1997. Since then neither of the parties have been leading their

evidence. They were also issued noticed to appear on 07.04.2016 but to no result.

Thus, it appears that both the parties are not willing to prosecute/proceed with the reference. Thus the

reference is dismissed in default of the parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 981

981

981-— औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस कांडला पोट AB ट के बंधतं के संब िनयोजक" और उनके कमकार" के बीच अनुबंध म िन%द& औोिगक िववाद म

केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं (म यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं+या 1146/2004) को कािशत

करती है, जो केीय सरकार को 10.05.2016 को ा/ 0आ था।

[la- ,y&37011@7@1998–vkbZvkj (,e)]

Ukohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 981.—In pursuanc of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1146/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Kandla Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

10.05.2016.

[No. L-37011/7/1998-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

2204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 1^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-1146/2004

1. Kandla Port Trust,

Chairman, Administrative Office,

P.B. No.50, Gandhidham (Kutch)

Gandhidham-370201.

… First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen,

Through The President,

Kandla Port Karmachari Sangh,

T.C.X-S-94,

Gandhidham-370201.

… Second Party

For the First Party :

Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party :

Shri S.N. Gandhi, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L – 37011/7/98/IR(M) dated 11.12.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham in not implementing the award of

Industrial Tribunal, Bombay regarding working hours of the Time Keeping Staff on par with those prescribed

for Indoor Clerical Staff is just, valid and legal ? If not, to what benefits the Time Keeping Staff are entitled to

and what directions are necessary in the matter?’’

2. This Reference dates back to 11.12.1998. Parties to the dispute where issued the Hearing Notice and same

were served to the respective parties. In pursuance to the Notice both the parties were served and appeared

through their respective Advocates. The Kandla Port Trust has filed its Vakilpatra of Mr. K.V. Gadhia vide

Ext.9 and Second party has filed Vaklipatra of Shri S.N.Gandhi vide Ext.8 The Second Party filed Statement

of Claim vide Ext. 2. The First Party filed its Written Statement vide Ext.5 on 09.04.2001.

3. Despite giving dozens of opportunities to the Second Party to lead evidence, no evidence was given by the

Second Party.

4. This is an old reference and Second Party appears to have not been willing to lead evidence, therefore, the

tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the Second Party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the Second Party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 982-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1410@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@29@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2205

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 982.—In pursuanc of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1410/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. ONGC Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10/05/2016.

[No. L-30011.29.2001-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-1410/2004

The Group General Manager(Projects),

O.N.G.C. Ltd.,

Ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar (Gujarat),

Ankleshwar – 393010.

…First Party

v/s

The General Secretary,

Bhartiya Karmachari Sangh,

Shastri Pole,

Kothi char rasta,

Baroda(Gujarat) – 390001.

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri C.S. Naidu

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-30011/29/2001-IR(M) dated 13.06.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Group General Manager(P), ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar in imposing the punishment

of stoppage of 2 increments on Shri B.B. Patel, Junior Technician (Production) justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

1. The reference dates back to 13.06.2001. First party submitted the vakalatpatra of his advocate Ext. 4 on

23.10.2001. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 5 sometimes in 2001 and first party filed the

written statement Ext. 8 on 07.10.2003. Since then second party has been absent and also has not lead evidence.

The conduct of the second party indicates that he has no willingness to prosecute the reference. Thus, the

tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in default of the second party.

2. Thus, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 983-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if'pe jsyos ds

ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 159@2006½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@4@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

2206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 159/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 11.05.2016.

[No. L-41011/4/2006-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR 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 22^nd January , 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-159/2006

1. The General Manager,

Western Railway, Churchgate,

Mumbai,

Mumbai.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

DRM office,

Kothi Compound,

Rajkot,

Gujarat

3. The Divisional Manger,

Western Railway,

Kalupur,

Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad(Gujarat).

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Sh. Shankar M.

Through the general secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Western Railway,

Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad( Gujarat).

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Sh. N.J. Acharya, Advocate

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-41011/4/2006-IR(B-I) dated 03.08.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of western Railway, Rajkot by imposing of terminating the services of

Shri Shankar M., Senior Khalasi from the establishment of C.W.S. , Sabarmati, Ahmedabad for taking medical

treatment from a private Doctor other than Railway Doctor and without extending fair opportunity for his

explanation is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2207

2. This reference dates back to 03.08.2006. Both the parties were served. Acknowledgment of the notice sent by the

registered post are received. First party filed the Vakalatnama Ext.6 & 8. Second party also represented to its

General Secretary, Sh. R.S Sisodia but even after lapse of a long period second party has not filed the statement

of claim.Thus it appears that both the parties have no inclination or willingness to proceed with the reference.

Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11] ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 984-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if'pe jsyos s s s ds s s s izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@116@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.05.2016.

[No. L-41012/116/2005-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR 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 21^st January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-25/2006

1. The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate, Mumbai,

Mumbai

2. The workshop Manager,

Western Railway, workshop,

Pratapnagar, Baroda,

Vadodara (Gujarat).

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Gangasingh M. Thakur,

Throughthe Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shashri Pole, Kothi, Vadodara,-390001

Vadodara(Gujarat).

…Second Party

For the First Party : Sh. H.B. Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party :

2208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L- 41012/116/2005-IR(B-I) dated 17.02.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Vadodara for enhancement of pension in

the pay scale of ‘Chargeman’ i.e. Rs. 5000-8000 to Shri Gangasingh M. Thakur, who was retired from Railway

service on 31.03. 1994 is legal, proper and just? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

2. This reference dates back to 17.02.2006. Both the parties have been served. Second party has been served to

Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Vadodara. First party filed his Vakalatnama

(Ext.7). Second party did not prefer to submit a statement of claim and has also been absent since dozen 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

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 985-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if'pe jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 442@2004½ ¼vkbZ Vh lh la- 27@2001½ dks izdkf’kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@30@2000&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 442/2004 ) (ITC No. 27/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/05/2016.

[No. L-41011/30/2000-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR 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 22^nd January , 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No-442/2004

Reference: (ITC) No.- 27/2001

4. The Chief workshop Managar,

Western Railway, Engg. workshop,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad-380001.

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen,

Through the General Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E/209, Sarvottam Nagar,

Nr. New Railway Colony, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380018.

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Sh. H.B. Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party

: C/o. P.R.K.P.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2209

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-41011/30/2000-IR(B-I) dated 22.02.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Chief Workshop Manager, Western Railway, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad in

discontinuing the procedure of mutual exchange of the quarter in denying promotion to Shri Raj Kishore R. as

Khalasi with all benefits w.e.f. 4-3-92 in denying promotion of Grinder Gr. II to Shri Mafatlal V. w.e.f.

18-8-98 in denying promotion of Crane Driver Gr.I to Ramesh Mansingh from April, 1997 in denying annual

increment to Shri Mehandra Kumar Verma w.e.f. 1-5-1999 are justified? If not, then what relief the employees

are entitled?”

3. This reference dates back to 22.02.2001. Both the parties are served. Second party filed statement of claim

(Ext.5) on 28.08.2001. First party also filed written statement (Ext.7) on 05.03.2003 since then second party has

not been leading evidence and second party has been absent since 25.07.2012.Thus it appears that both the parties

have no inclination or willingness to proceed with the reference. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss

the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 986-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if'pe jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@2004½ ¼vkbZ Vh lh la- 24@1997½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@05@2016 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@36@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch-I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 986.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2004) (ITC No. 24/1997) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/05/2016.

[No. L-41012/36/97-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR 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 22^nd January , 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No-55/2004

Reference: (ITC) No.- 24/1997

5. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Near Railway Station,

Ratlam (MP)

….First Party

Vs.

Sh. Amarsingh Narsingh,

C/o. J.K. Ved,

Railway Quarter No. 328/A, Godhara,

Dist. Panchmahl (Guj)

….Second Party

For the First Party

: Sh. H.B. Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party

: Sh. J.K. Ved, Advocate

2210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-41012/36/97-IR(B-I) dated 09.10.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of western Railway Ratlam Division in terminating re service of Shri

Amar Singh Narsingh, Gangman under PWI, Dahod by way of removal from service with effect from

10.09.1991 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

4. This reference dates back to 09.10.1997. Second party field the statement of claim on 13.11.1997 (Ext. 4)first

party also field the written statement (Ext. 5) on 02.12.1997 since then second party has not been leading

evidence he also been absent since 22.02.2012.Thus it appears that both the parties have no inclination or

willingness to proceed with the reference. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default

of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 987-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if'pe jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 164@2004½ ¼vkbZ Vh lh la- 60@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@05@2016 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@155@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 987.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 164/2004) (ITC No. 60/1999) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/05/2016.

[No. L-41012/155/98-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR 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 22^nd January, 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No-164/2004

Reference: (ITC) No- 60/1999

6. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Ratlam Divisin,

Ratlam (MP)

… First Party

Vs.

Their workman

Through the President,

E/209, Sarvotttam Nagarm

Near Railway Colony,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat) -380005.

… Second Party

For the First Party

: Sh. N.S. Shevade, Advocate

For the Second Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2211

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-41012/155/98-IR(B-I) dated 15.02.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Railway Administration of Ratlam Division, W. Railwy, in imposing the

punishment of removal from service on Shri Vashiya Karsan, D.C. Gangman under AEN Meghanagar w.e.f.

17.07.1993 on the alleged charges of misconduct vide charge sheet No. E/308/1 dated 26.04.1993 is legal

and justified? If not, to what the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”

5. This reference dates back to 15.02.1999. Both the parties were served. Second party filed the statement of claim

(Ext.5) on 28.06.1999 and first party filed the written statement (Ext.15) on 20.04.2001 but despite giving

sufficient opportunity to the second party for leading evidence, he did not prefer to lead evidence. He also has

been absent since 14.10.2011.Thus it appears that both the parties have no inclination or willingness to proceed

with the reference. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 988-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks

,u th lh fya ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 141@2004½ ¼vkbZ Vh lh la- 14@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@05@2016 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@8@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 988.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141/2004) (ITC No.14/1999 )of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ONGC Ltd

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/05/2016.

[No. L-30012/8/98-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 3^rd February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 141/2004

Reference : (ITC) No. 14/1999

1. The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

AvaniBhavan, Koba Road,

Ahmedabad-380001

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Rameshbhai Motibhai Vaghela

Through the secretary,

Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,

434/46. Gandhi vas, Koba road, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad-380001

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Sh. K.V. Gadhia, Advocate-

For the Second Party

: Kum Santoshben, Advocate

2212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

30012/8/98-IR(B-I) dated 18.12.1998 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 regarding treating contract worker Rameshbhai

Motibhai Vaghela as worker of ONGC since 20.09.83 is legal and justified? If yes, then whether his removal on

30.05.1993 was legal and justified? If not, to what relief is he entitled?”

3. This reference dates back to 18.12.1998. The second party filed the statement of claim (Ext.3) on 12.08.1999.

First party filed the written statement (Ext.17) ON 03.01.2002. 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

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 989

989

989-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks

,u th lh fya ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 241@2004½ ¼vkbZ Vh lh la- 173@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@05@2016 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@86@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 989.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 241/2004) (ITC No. 173/1999) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ONGC Ltd and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 11/05/2016.

[No. L-30012/86/98-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR 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 3^rd February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 241/2004

Reference : (ITC) No. 173/1999

1. The junior General Manager, (I.R.S.),

ONGC Ltd.,

Near ONGC colony gate,

Chankheda,

Dist: Gandhinagar

Ahmedabad

2. Shri Y.K. Patil,

Hotel Sugandh& Sweet Mart,

Ramnagar, Sabarmati ,

Ahmedabad-380001

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2213

3. M/s. Dilwara Singh,

Hotel Satlaj,

Near Bhagat Petrol Pump,

Naroda, Ahmedabad-380001

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen

Through the general secretary,

Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,

434/46. Gandhi Vas, Koba Road, Sabarmati

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- 30012/86/98-IR(B-I) dated 17.11.1999 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 regarding treating Shri A.R. Patil,

and 11 other in direct employment of ONGC is just and legal? If yes, then termination of aforesaid persons by

the management is proper and legal? If not, then to what relief the workman are entitled?”

This reference dates back to 17.11.1999. Both the parties were served and filed the vakalatnama of their

advocate. Second party filed the statement of claim (Ext.4) and first party filed the written statement (Ext.6)

Thereafter, first party got the written statement amended and filed the amended written statement (Ext.13) on

20.06.2006.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

secondparty is not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to

dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 990

990

990-— vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if'pe jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 687@2004½ ¼vkbZ Vh lh la- 28@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk1

[la- ,y&41012@138@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 990.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 687/2004) (ITC No. 28/1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/05/2016.

[No. L-41012/138/99-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR 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 3^rd February, 2016

2214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No-687/2004

Reference : (ITC) No- 28/1999

1. The General Manager ,

Western Railway,

Churchgate,

Mumbai-400001

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)-394220

3. The Asst. Mechanical Engineer (III),

Western Railway, Diesel Loco Shed,

Vatva, Ahmedabad

Gujarat-380001

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Shri Nasir Khan,

C/o. J.K. Ved,

Sinduri Mata Devasthan,

S.T. Nagar Rd,

Godhra,

Dist. Panchmahal (Gujarat) -389001

…Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L- 41012/138/99/-IR(B-I) dated 31.08.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal, Baroda (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of western Railway through the General Managerm Mumbai and other

officers in terminating the services of Mr. Nasir Khan Y. by way of removal from the services with immediate

effect is legal, proper and justified?

“Whether the penalty /punishment of ‘removal’ from service is proportionate to the gravity of offence? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman Mr. Nasir Khan Y. is entitled to and what directions are necessary in the

matter?”

This reference dates back to 31.08.1999. Both the parties were served. First party as well as second party

submitted their written statement and statement of claim (Ext.13 & Ext. 4) respectively On 15.02.2003. Since

then, neither of the parties have been responding nor coming forward to adduce evidence. 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 both parties.

The reference is dismissed in default of the both parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 991

991

991-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if'pe jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1074@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@126@96&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2215

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 991—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1074/2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 11/05/2016.

[No. L-41012/126/96-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR 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 29^th March, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-1074/2004

Reference (ITC) No-3/1998

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Divisional Office,

Ajmer Division,

Ajmer (Rajasthan)-305001

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the general secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

TBZ-17, Gurunagar,

Gandhidham (Kutch)-370201

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate

For the Second Party

: C/o. Western Railway Kamdar Sangh

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-41012/126/96-IR(B-I) dated 27.11.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the western Railway Kamdar Sangh, Gandhidham that Shri B.O. Vashishtha, Khalasi

under SS/GIM should have been promoted w.e.f. 1.3.93 on restructuring and upgradation of posts, as his

juniors have been proted, just, valid and legal? If so, to what benefits the workman is entitled for and what

directions are necessary in the matter?”

2. This reference dates back to 27.11.1998. Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext.2) ON 18.03.1998 and

first party submitted written statement (Ext.7) on 02.05.2001. Thereafter, second party moved an application

(Ext.16) on 20.05.2010 for production of documents. On 20.01.2012 the then Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-

Labour Court emphasised second party to lead evidence but second party since then has failed to lead evidence.

On 05.01.2016 second party was given last opportunity to lead evidence but to no result.Thus, it appears that

second party is not willing to proceed with the reference as they have been absent since last several dates. Thus,

Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

2216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 992

992

992-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 181@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@39@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 992.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 181/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/05/2016.

[No. L-12012/39/2006-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR 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 1^st February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 181/2006

1. The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region-I, Zonal Office,

C.N. Vidhyalaya Campus, Ambawadi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Ranjit Vithalbhai Parmar,

Hiraji Vastaji ni Chali,

Nr. Old Airport,

Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad-380016

(Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party:

For the Second Party:

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L- 12012/39/2006-IR(B-I) dated 22.09.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of state Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri Ranjit

Vithalbhai Parmar without following the provisions of section 25-F & 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent?”

2. This reference dates back to 22.09.2006. Both the parties are served and second party on 26.09.2008 thereafter

on 01.03.2012 moved applications Ext.6 and Ext. 10 respectively for seeking time for filing statement of claim

but he did not file the statement of claim despite grant of time, he has been absent since 12.08.2013.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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2217

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 993

993

993-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 787@2004½ ¼vkbZ Vh lh la- 36@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@91@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th May, 2016

S.O. 993.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 787/2004) (ITC No. 36/2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/05/2016.

[No. L-41012/91/2002-IR(B-I)]

RANBIR 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 21^st January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 787/2004

Reference: (ITC) No . 36/2002

1. The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Mumbai-400001.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railwy, Pratapnagar,

Baroda-390004

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh.RatilalChatur,

Through the divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmchari Parishad,

Shasri Pole,

Kothi,

Baroda-390001 (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party :

Ms. K.J. Parikh, Advocate

For the Second Party :

Sh. H.D .Kathrotia, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L- 41012/91/2002-IR(B-I) dated 10.10.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal, Baroda(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Western Railway, Divisional Railway Manager, Baroda in imposing

the penalty/punishment of ‘removal from service’to Shri Ratilal Chatur, Diesel Khalasi is proportionate to the

gravity of misconduct? It not, what relief the concerned workman Mr. RatilalChatur is entitled?”

2218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

This reference dates back to 10.10.2002. Both the parties have filed the Vakalatnama of their counsels but

second party despite giving dozen of opportunities since 2002 has not submitted statement of claim.Thus, it

appears that second party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option

but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 994

994

994-—केीय सरकार, , , , कमचारी रा8य बीमा अिधिनयम, , , , 1948 (1948 का 34) क धारा 91-क के साथ पCठत

धारा 88 Eारा दF शिGय" का योग करते 0ए esllZ bafM;u QkjelZ QfVZykbtj dkWijsfVo fyfeVsM

esllZ bafM;u QkjelZ QfVZykbtj dkWijsfVo fyfeVsM

esllZ bafM;u QkjelZ QfVZykbtj dkWijsfVo fyfeVsM ¼bWQdks½

¼bWQdks½

¼bWQdks½ ¼lHkh

¼lHkh

;wfuV@dk;kZy;½

;wfuV@dk;kZy;½ के िनयिमत कमचाCरय" को इस अिधिनयम के वतन से छूट दान करती है। यह छूट, 27 twu

twu

twu, 2016 से

एक वष क अविध के िलए लागू रहेगी।

उG छूट िनJिलिखत शतL के अधीन है; अथात्:-

(1)

पूव;G Bथापना िजसम कमचारी िनयोिजत हN, एक रिजBटर रखेगी, िजसम छूट ा/ कमचाCरय" के नाम और

पदनाम 6दखाये जायगे;

(2)

इस छूट के होते 0ए भी, कमचारी उG अिधिनयम के अधीन ऐसी सुिवधाएं ा/ करते रहगे िजनको पाने के

िलए वे इस अिधसूचना Eारा दी गई छूट के वृF होने क तारीख से पूव संदF अंशदान" के आधार पर हकदार

हो जाते हN;

(3)

छूट ा/ अविध के िलए, य6द कोई अिभदाय पहले ही 6कए जा चुके ह", तो वे वापस नहP 6कए जाएंगे;

(4)

उG कारखाने/Bथापना का िनयोजक उस अविध क बाबत िजसके दौरान उस कारखाने/Bथापना पर उG

अिधिनयम (िजसे इसम इसके पQात उG अविध कहा गया है) वतमान था ऐसी िववरिणयां, ऐसे ाRप म

और ऐसी िविशि&य" सिहत देगा जो कमचारी राSय बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उG

अविध क बाबत देनी अपेिTत होती थP;

(5)

िनगम Eारा उG कमचारी राSय बीमा अिधिनयम क धारा 45 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन िनयुG 6कया गया

कोई सामा िजक सुरTा अ िधकारी या िनगम का इस िनिमF ािधकृत कोई अय पदधारी;

(i) धारा 44 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, उG अविध क बाबत दी गई 6कसी िववरण क िविश&य" को सUयािपत

करने के योजनाथ; अथवा

(ii) यह अिभिनिQत करने के योजनाथ 6क कमचारी राSय बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 Eारा यथाअपेिTत

रिजBटर और अिभलेख उG अविध के िलए रखे गये थे या नहP; या

(iii) यह अिभिनिQत करने के योजनाथ 6क कमचारी, िनयोजक Eारा 6दये गए उन फायद" को, िजसके फलBवRप

इस अिधसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद म और वBतु Rप म पाने का हकदार बना 0आ है या नहP;

या

(iv) यह अिभिनिQत करने के योजनाथ 6क उस अविध के दौरान, जब उG कारखाने के संबंध म अिधिनयम के

उपबंध वृF थे, ऐसे 6कहP उपबंध" का अनुपालन 6कया गया था या नहP, िनJिलिखत काय करने के िलए

सशG होगा:-

(क) धान या आसV िनयोजक से अपेTा करना 6क वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे िजसे उपरोG िनरीTक या

अय पदधारी आवWयक समझता है ; अथवा

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2219

(ख)

ऐसे धान या आसV िनयोजक के अिधभोगाधीन, 6कसी कारखाने, Bथापना, कायालय या अय

पCरसर म 6कसी भी उिचत समय पर वेश करना और उसके भारी से यह अपेTा करना 6क वह

XिGय" के िनयोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंिधत ऐसे लेखा, बिहयां और अय दBतावेज, ऐसे

िनरीTक या अय पदधारी के समT Bतुत कर और उनक परीTा करने द या ऐसी जानकारी द िजसे

वे आवWयक समझते हN; या

(ग)

धान या आसV िनयोजक क, उसके अिभकता या सेवक क, या ऐसे 6कसी XिG को, जो ऐसे

कारखाने, Bथापना, कायालय या अय पCरसर म पाया जाए, यह िवYास करने का युिGयुG कारण है

6क वह कमचारी है, परीTा करना; या

(घ)

ऐसे कारखाने, Bथापना, कायालय या अय पCरसर म रखे गए 6कसी रिजBटर, लेखा, बही या अय

दBतावेज क नकल तैयार करना या उ रण लेना;

(ङ)

यथािनधाCरत अय शिGय" का योग करना ।

िविनवेश/िनगमीकरण के मामले म, दF छूट Bवत: रZ हो जाएगी और तब नए ित[ान को छूट हेतु समुिचत

सरकार क अनुमित लेनी होगी।

[la- ,l&38014@05@2014&,l-,l-&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12^th May, 2016

S.O. 994.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of

factories/establishments of M/s Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd. (IFFCO), (All Units/offices) from the

operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective w.e.f. 27.06.2016 for a period of one year.

The above exemption is subject to the following conditions namely:-

(1)

The aforesaid establishments wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name

and designations of the exempted employees;

(2)

Not withstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to

which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption

granted by this notification operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory

was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in such forms and

containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees’ State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the said ESI

Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of :-

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub-section (1) of section 44 for the

said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’ State

Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash

and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when

such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

2220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by

such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in

charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts,

books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to

furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such

factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other

official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained

in such factory, establishment, office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then

the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/05/2014-S.S. -I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 995

995

995-—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

thou chek fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 6@2001½ izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 16@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17011@8@2000&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16^th May, 2016

S.O. 995.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of LIC of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/05/2016.

[No. L-17011/8/2000-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk 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. 6/ 2001

Employer in relation to the management of L.I.C of India, Muzaffarpur

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers:- Shri Nagendra Ram, A.O.

For the workman. :-Shri B.N.P. Srivastava, Concerned workman

State : Bihar.

Industry- L.I.C

Dated:-23/10/ 2015

AWARD

By order No. L-17011/8/2000 /IR (B-II) dated 10/01/2001 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2221

“Whether the action of the management of L.I.C of India, Muzaffarpur in paying 4 days TA/DA to the General Secretary

of the Union to attend proceeding before CGIT New Delhi (Union claimed 5 days) from muzaffarpur is justified? If not

what relief the union is entitled for?”

2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 05.02.2001. After receipt of reference, both parties are noticed.

The workman files their written statement on 03.04.2001. After long delay, the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 03.10.2005. One witness examined on behalf the workman. And document of workman is

marked as W-1 & W-2.

3. The case of the workman is that the petitioner is union's General secretary who has been attending the CGIT, New

Delhi etc for cases of the union whether he is entitled TA/DA/Sp. Leave as per rule of the Corporation, the Tribunal

issued certificate to the representative of the union evidencing attending each & every dates as fixed by the Tribunal but

the management of LIC started victimising the petitioner by not settling his TA Bills correctly and properly.

It is also submitting by the workman that all the T.E bills were passed for payment & paid to the workman long

ago. But when the petitioner was attaining age of superannuation the management all of a sudden submitted a list started

deducting a sum of Rs. 27,281 in installment basis from the salary of the workman and rest amount from his retirement

benefit as it was over paid, thereafter the dispute arose.

The management's case is that the petitioner has indulged the management in unnecessary litigation by filing

frivolous and vexatious cases and the present dispute raised by the petitioner is one among those frivolous cases, and

all his dues settled the T.E bills of the petitioner was paid for attending the CGIT proceeding and the T.E bills have

been settled by allowing special leave/TA/DA for attending proceeding for the Tribunal and also for the actual period

spent by him for to& fro journey.

It is mentioned by the management that the claim of the workman of total time taken in journey to & fro

together with the date on which he attended the proceeding cannot exceed more than the period allowed by the

management.

Short point to be decided in this case that, the workman who is an union leader claimed 5 days TA & DA and

that was denied by the management. The workman claim is that in the union work , he proceeded various cities of all

over India, taking permission of LIC and accordingly claimed TA & DA.

In cross Examination of WW-1 he said that “I attended the court of CGIT Delhi in connection with I.D case

No. 27/91. Each time I am going to attend the CGIT and each time they disallow on day TA/DA. It is a fact that from

going to Delhi, attending the court work, to come to hqrs Muzafferpur 5 days will be spent i.e. two days proceed + one

day work + 2 days return, total 5 days. So also for attending Mumbai, Hydrabad, Ahemadabad, Bangalore 5 days time

will be consumed.”

In re-examination on recall he also said that “ for attending the CGIT , I undertaken tour, by the ticket

provided by management and only claimed the DA amount was deducted.

10. As per Ext. W-2 the management has not allowed any TA/DA for proceeding to Delhi in ID No. 27/91 but by filing

a petition by the workman before the CGIT New Delhi, the Presiding Officer allowed TA/DA to all representative of

Union attending court subject to production of Court certificate. Thereafter the management allowed to grant TA & DA,

to the union representative. It is also seen that court certificate after all visit is attached with the bills and bill passed and

payment are made.

11. As per photo copy of bills and cross examiniation of WW-1, it is also clear that all tickets provided by the LIC of

India i.e management, DA calculated as per rule for to & fro journey. Moreover though on the train ticket arrival time of

train is mentioned, it is not possible to check when that train actually reaches platform nor the management proved the

same.

12. The management after checking the same, allowed the claim and that was received by the workman long back. No

audit objection/inspection report in adverse about all these bill filed. Even through the workman, if claimed more and

paid, he was not asked how he claimed TA & DA in excess. No proceeding was initiated against him and it was not

recovered at that point of time nor the persons prepared the bill taken to task. At the time of retirement deduction of the

amount was uncalled for

13. This Tribunal directed the parties to settle the dispute. The management failed produced the old records. Though

both parties sat twice the settlement was failed. On perusal of the claims going for Mumbai, New Delhi, Calcutta,

Hydrabad, completing the court work, it may not be possible on the part of workman to return and work in the office.

Moreover deducting the claim after payment lastly at the time of retirement is uncalled for.

14.

In this context (2005)-2 BLJR 1360 (Jhar) Baleshwar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand & ors. The Court passed

order that “when any benefit of higher pay was given to Govt. servant by competent authority not on account of any

misrepresentation or any unfair role on part of Govt. servant but on account of wrong notion on part of competent

authority, the Govt. servant is not liable for any such wrong.

2222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case. I hold that the action of the management of L.I.C of

India, Muzaffarpur in paying 4 days TA/DA to B.N.P Srivastava General Secretary of the Union to attend proceeding

before CGIT New Delhi (Union claimed 5 days) from muzaffarpur is not justified. Hence he be paid his dues which was

deducted, within one month after the publication of the award in the Gazette of India, If after one month the amount is

not paid that will carry 10% interest P.A.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 996

996

996-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVy

cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 06@1994½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 16@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@20@1993&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16^th May, 2016

S.O. 996.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 06/1994) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/05/2016.

[No. L-12011/20/1993-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Oficer

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. 06/1994

Employer in relation to the management of Central Bank of India

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Shri Nitin Singh, Advocate

For the workman . :- None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Banking

Dated- 08/04/ 2016

AWARD

By order No. L-12011 /20/1993-IR(B-II) dated 09/02/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Central bank of India, Muzaffarpur in deducting one days

wages for 07/12/1992 in respect of the following workmen is justified? If not, what relief are these workmen

entitled to?”

1. Shri N. K. Roy

2. Shri S.K.Singh

3. Shri S.N.Mishra

4. Shri Rajiv Ranjan

5. Shri K.K. Chourdhry

6. Shri R.S.Gupta

7. Shri Ajay Kumar

8. Shri B.K.Karn

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears by the

workman subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved

in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2223

R. K.SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 997

997

997-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad

vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /kuckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la- ¼24@2014½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 16@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@191@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16^th May, 2016

S.O. 997.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/05/2016.

[No. L-12011/191/2001-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Oficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 24 of 2014

Employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India, Patna

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers.:- Sri S.K.Garg, Law Officer

For the workman. :- Sri B.Prasad, Rep.

State :- Bihar

Industry:-Banking.

Dated. 23/02/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/191/2001 -IR -(B-II), dated 19/06/2002, 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 Central Bank Of India in not regularizing , Shri Madan Gopal

Prasad, Sh. Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Sh. Pradeep Mondal and Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta is justified? If

not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2. This case is received by the CGIT No.2, Dhanbad on 30.07.2002 registered as Reference Case No. 49/02. After

receipt of the case, both parties were noticed, the workman files their written statement on 05.08.2002. The management

files their written statement on 25.09.2002. Sri Pradeep Mondal witness examined on behalf of the workman and

documents of workman is also marked as W-1 to W-12 before the CGIT No.2.

3. Thereafter vide letter No. L-12011/191/2001 IR (B-II) dated 12/02/2014, received from CGIT No.2 on 12/03/2014, on

transfer basis to proceed from the stage at which it is transferred. Thereafter the case is registered as Reference case

No. 24/2014 before the CGIT No.1, Dhanbad.

4. The case of the workman is that Sri Madan Gopal Prasad, Sri Rajendra Pd. Srivastava, Sri Pradeep Mondal and

Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta was orally appointed as driver for driving from different dates on different remuneration on

monthly salary basis in bank. And all workmen have been regularly driving the vehicle from 9.00 AM to 8.00 P.M and

even beyond that as per requirement of Bank. All vehicles were purchased by Central Bank of India and the owner of all

the vehicle is Central Bank of India.

5. It is further submitted by the workman that the workmen are required to drive the vehicles from their Head Quarter

2224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to different place of the Bank where Branches/ Offices of Central Bank of India exist. And they are discharging all the

duties of permanent driver but without any service condition.

6. The matter of regularisation was taken up with the management on a number of occasion but without result . As there

was no scope of regularisation of their service, the workmen approached the sponsoring Union for raising Industrial

dispute, accordingly the dispute arose. The union also submits that Sri Pradeep Mondal has been working as Driver of

Central Bank of India, Regional Manager , Purnea from 05.05.1988 and was the senior most driver as per the list

prepared by the Bank, as his name appears at Serial No.1.

7. On the other hand the case of the management is that the four drivers whose case is being represented by the union are

personal driver of the Executive of the Bank as such the present dispute is not fit to be entertained.

8. It is submitted by the management that the persons concerned were never paid any wages /salary by the management,

whatever amount are paid, they are paid by the concerned executive who is taking work from them in their personal

capacity. And the owner ship of the vehicle has not relevancy to the point involved in this case. Since the concerned

persons are not an employee of the Bank, the question of payment of bonus and Provident fund or regularisation does

not arise.

9. It is further stated by the management that the management is a Nationalized Bank and they recruit staff etc. as per

rule of the Bank. If any vacancy of driver are occasioned same in sanctioned by the authority, such vacancies are

required to be advertised with requite qualification names of candidates to be sponsored by employment exchange, their

age must be between 18 to 26 years, they must have experience of five years as driver and application for eligible

candidates are invited and then they are considered for employment as per rule/ policy of the Bank. Accordingly the

concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief as claimed.

10. The short point to be decided in this reference is whether the driver engaged by the Bank officials, who are driving

the Bank's vehicle, for the bank Officers will be regularised or not.

11. During pendency of this case the union files Written notes of argument and submits that out of the four workmen ,

the services of three workmen namely 1. Sri Madan Gopal Prasad 2. Sri Rajendra Pd. Srivastava and 3.Sri Vijay Kumar

Gupta were regularised as Driver. For which the management also filed a petition dated 21.11.2007 for dropping the

names of these three persons from this case as such affidavits of there also filed by the management.

12. As such union did not object and the union submits that now the case is only for one workman Pradeep Mondal

requires consideration.

13. The workmen submitted that he is giving service to the bank by driving their vehicles and also getting wages

through bank and filed the bank's voucher marked Exhibits., Moreover from the documents filed by the workman, it is

seen, bank has settle guide lines for selection of drivers of bank vehicles.

14. The workman also filed the photo copy of log book marked as Ext. W-12 series. The bank management though

accepted that the workman was driving the vehicle but argued that they were driving their personal vehicle but the

bank paying them wages since long time. The workman Sri Pradeep Mondal examined as WW-1 say that my claim is for

permanent Driver as other driver has given employment. He also says in cross examination that I did not serve the

regional Manager for any personal work relating to his domestic matter.

15. As per Ext W-9 , the latter of management No. RO/Prs./2001-2002/426 dated 21.8.2001 proves that he works

regularly from 1988 and it is certified that Sri Mondal has been driving the RM's vehicles since 5.5.1988 under various

Regional Managers.

16. It is also proved , the owner of the vehicles is Central Bank of India. In Ext.W-9/1, to 9/7 series the is certificates of

Sri A.K.Saverwal and from many Regional Manager , in which he recommend to regularise Sri Pradeep Mondal as he

is working from last 19 years, they have also certified that he is very honest workman and he may be observed as

regular basis.

17. On Perusal of all voluminous document of workman it is clear that the workman Pradeep Mondal has just claim,

Similar persons have already regularized by Bank.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Central Bank of

India in not regularizing , Sh. Pradeep Mondal is not justified. Therefore the management is directed to regularise

Sri Pradeep Mondal against the regular vacant post of driver or peon within 30 days from the publication of the award.

As otherwise the workman will claim full wages from the 31^st day of the award.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2225

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 998

998

998-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU?kzk

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 16@2016½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@107@2015&vkbZvkj ¼ch-&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2016

S.O. 998.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2016) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/02/2016.

[No. L-12011/107/2015-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Oficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 7^th April, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 16/2016

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary,

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Andhra Bank Employees Union

227, Angappa Naicken Street

Chennai-600001

AND

1. The Branch Manager,

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Andhra Bank Chengalpattu Branch

Aarupadai Palace, No. 553A, TKM Road

Chengalpattu-603001

2. The Zonal Manager,

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office

168, Linghi Chetty Street

Chennai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Sri K. Thamaraiselvan, General Secretary

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Management

In Person

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/107/2015-IR (B-II)

dated 28.02.2016 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

2226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the demand of the Union in seeking regularization of the services of Ms. Lavanya at

Chengalpattu Branch by the Management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 16/2016 and issued notice to both sides.

The petitioner has directly entered appearance on receipt of notice.

The General Secretary of the Petitioner Union has filed a memo stating that the Union and the Respondent

Bank have been discussing the issues and that there will be positive decision regarding the dispute shortly. It is further

stated in the memo that the dispute is not being pressed for the above reason. The ID is to be decided against the

petitioner in the circumstances.

Therefore, reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the

7^th April, 2016)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Party Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management’s side

Ext. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 99

9999

999-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU?kzk cSad ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 14@2016½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3-2-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@105@2015&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16^th May, 2016

S.O. 999.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2016) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/02/2016.

[No. L-12011/105/2015-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Oficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 7^th April, 2016

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 14/2016

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2227

The General Secretary,

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Andhra Bank Employees Union

227, Angappa Naicken Street

Chennai-600001

AND

1. The Branch Manager,

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Andhra Bank

No. 321, Neelangarai Branch

Karunanithi Salai, Kapaleeswarar Nagar

Chennai-600115

2. The Zonal Manager,

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office

168, Linghi Chetty Street

Chennai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

: Sri K. Thamaraiselvan, General Secretary

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Management

: In Person

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/105/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 26.02.2016 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the demand of the Union in seeking regularization of the services of Sri Prasad at Neelangarai Branch by the

Management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 14/2016 and issued notice to both sides.

The petitioner has directly entered appearance on receipt of notice.

The General Secretary of the Petitioner Union has filed a memo stating that the Union and the Respondent

Bank have been discussing the issues and that there will be positive decision regarding the dispute shortly. It is further

stated in the memo that the dispute is not being pressed for the above reason. The ID is to be decided against the

petitioner in the circumstances.

Therefore, reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the

7^th April, 2016)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Party Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Nil

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2228

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1000-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 51@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22015@17@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2016

S.O. 1000.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation

of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2016.

[No. L-22015/17/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 51/2014

L-22015/17/2014 – IR (CM-II), dated 26.09.2014

Date of Passing Order – 16^th April, 2016

Between:

1. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Budharaja, Sambalpur, Dist. Sambalpur,

Orissa.

2. The Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

…

1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

Shri Tikeswar Seth, S/o. Makunda Seth & Others,

At. Attabira (Bajarangipada),

Po./Ps./Tehsil: Attabira (Bajarangipada),

Dist. Bargarh, Odisha.

…

2^nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-

Managements.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-

Workman.

ORDER

Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2^nd Party-Workman has not filed any statement of claim despite sending

notices through ordinary as well as regd. post. As such it seems that the 2^nd party-Workman is not interested in

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2229

prosecuting his case. However the dispute cannot be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the parties. As

such there is no alternative except to return the reference to the Government for necessary action at its end.

Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government unanswered for necessary action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1001-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 33@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22015@13@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2016

S.O. 1001.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation

of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2016.

[No. L-22015/13/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 33/2014

L-22015/13/2014 – IR (CM-II), dated 09.06.2014

Date of Passing Order – 13^th April, 2016

Between:

1. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Budharaja, Sambalpur, Dist. Sambalpur,

Orissa.

2. The Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

…

1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

Shri Ashis Meher, R/o. Attabira

(Bajarangipada), Po/Ps/Tehsil Attabira,

(Bajarangipada), Dist. Bargarh, Orissa.

…

2^nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-

Managements.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-

Workman.

2230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2^nd Party-Workman has not filed any statement of claim despite sending

notices through ordinary as well as regd. post. On 29.2.2016 notice was issued to the 2^nd party-workman through

R.L.C(C), Bhubaneswar, but the 2^nd party-workman fails to attend today i.e. on 13.04.2016 and files his statement of

claim. As such it seems that the 2^nd party-workman is not interested in prosecuting his case. However the dispute cannot

be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the parties. As such there is no alternative except to return the

reference to the Government for necessary action at its end.

Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government unanswered for necessary action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1002-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 28@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22015@6@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2016

S.O. 1002.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation

of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2016.

[No. L-22015/6/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 28/2014

L-22015/6/2014 – IR (CM-II), dated 02.05.2014

Date of Passing Order – 31^st March, 2016

Between:

1. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Budharaja, Sambalpur, Dist. Sambalpur,

Orissa.

2. The Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Vani Vihar,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

…

1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

Shri Sivaram Sethi, A/o Late Sh. Krutibash Sethi

R/o Attabira (Bajarangipada),

Po/Ps/Tehsil Attabira (Bajarangipada),

Dist. Bargarh, Orissa.

…

2^nd Party-Workman.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2231

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-

Managements.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-

Workman.

ORDER

Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2^nd Party-Workman has not filed any statement of claim despite sending

notices through ordinary as well as regd. post. On 29.2.2016 notice was issued to the 2^nd party-workman through

R.L.C(C), Bhubaneswar, but the 2^nd party-workman fails to attend today i.e. on 31.3.2016 and files his statement of

claim. As such it seems that the 2^nd party-workman is not interested in prosecuting his case. However the dispute cannot

be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the parties. As such there is no alternative except to return the

reference to the Government for necessary action at its end.

Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government unanswered for necessary action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1003-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 29@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22015@7@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2016

S.O. 1003.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation

of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2016.

[No. L-22015/7/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 29/2014

L-22015/7/2014 – IR (CM-II), dated 09.05.2014

Date of Passing Order – 31^st March, 2016

Between:

1. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Budharaja, Sambalpur, Dist. Sambalpur,

Orissa.

2. The Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Vani Vihar,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

…

1^st Party-Managements.

2232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(And)

Shri Jayanta Kumar Rout,

R/o Attabira (Bajarangipada),

Po/Ps/Tehsil Attabira (Bajarangipada),

Dist. Bargarh, Orissa.

…

2^nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-

Managements.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-

Workman.

ORDER

Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2^nd Party-Workman has not filed any statement of claim despite sending

notices through ordinary as well as regd. post. On 29.2.2016 notice was issued to the 2^nd party-workman through

R.L.C(C), Bhubaneswar, but the 2^nd party-workman fails to attend today i.e. on 31.3.2016 and files his statement of

claim. As such it seems that the 2^nd party-workman is not interested in prosecuting his case. However the dispute cannot

be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the parties. As such there is no alternative except to return the

reference to the Government for necessary action at its end.

Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government unanswered for necessary action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1004-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 34@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22015@12@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2016

S.O. 1004.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation

of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2016.

[No. L-22015/12/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 34/2014

L-22015/12/2014 – IR (CM-II), dated 09.06.2014

Date of Passing Order – 13^th April, 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2233

Between:

1. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Budharaja, Sambalpur, Dist. Sambalpur,

Orissa.

2.The Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Vani Vihar,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

…

1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

Shri Subash Seth, R/o. Attabira

(Bajarangipada), Po/Ps/Tehsil Attabira,

(Bajarangipada), Dist. Bargarh, Orissa.

…

2^nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-

Managements.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-

Workman.

ORDER

Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2^nd Party-Workman has not filed any statement of claim despite sending

notices through ordinary as well as regd. post. On 29.2.2016 notice was issued to the 2^nd party-workman through

R.L.C(C), Bhubaneswar, but the 2^nd party-workman fails to attend today i.e. on 13.4.2016 and files his statement of

claim. As such it seems that the 2^nd party-workman is not interested in prosecuting his case. However the dispute cannot

be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the parties. As such there is no alternative except to return the

reference to the Government for necessary action at its end.

Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government unanswered for necessary action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1005-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

uS'kuy cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 26@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@25@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1005.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12011/25/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

2234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/26/2012

General Secretary,

Rashtriyakrit Bank Karmachari Sangathan,

Central Office, F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

Punjab National Bank, Head Office,

Bikaji Kama Palace,

New Delhi

…Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 2^nd day of March 2016

As per letter dated 18-1-2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12011/25/2011-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the applicant Shri Rajeel Stephen is entitled for full wages for the period from 6-11-2000 to 25-6-

2001? If so, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim through

General Secretary of Nationalised Bank Employees Union Ujjain. The case of Ist party workman is that he was

suspended for imaginary allegations. Chargesheet was issued to him. He was appointed as clerk-cum-cashier on 12-4-89.

He worked with devotion under Branch Manager Shri D.K.Jain, Joshi and Sunil Soni. 6^th Bipartite settlement was

executed on 12-2-95. Said bipartite settlement was implemented from 1-11-92. As per 6^th bipartite settlement, he was

paid Rs. Rs.3115/-. On 27-3-07, bipartite settlement was executed. His basic pay as per 7^th bipartite settlement was

Rs.560/- from 1-11-97 to March 2000. Management malafidely intended to shift him to Ratlam and one Shri Sunil Soni

was shifted to Kuchdot branch. Instead of Rs.5060/- he was paid Rs.4960/-, he was paid arrears Rs.6416.31. he was

deliberately paid less amount of Rs.3000. though he was entitled to basic pay of Rs.5060 as per 7^th bipartite settlement.

The arrears were not correctly paid. Ist party workman was repeatedly oisubmitting representations for payment of

arrears,. On 22-7-00, Branch Manager Shri D.K.Jain directed workman to prepare vouchers of Rs.3000 and arrears as

petty advance. Workman had obeyed his directions and prepared credit vouchers of Rs.3000/-. Amount of Rs. 3000/-

was debited to the credit vouchers. It is alleged that the workman was suspended from 19-8-00 hatching conspiracy for

transfer of Shri Sunil Kuchdot from Ratlam. Chargesheet was issued to him on 5-9-00 with groundless allegations. Sthe

order of his suspension was not issued by the Competent Authority. The order of his suspension was illegal. His

suspension was revoked on 16-11-2000,. Workman was transferred from Ratlam to Kuchdot branch. Workman was

suffering from Jaundice. When order of his suspension was revoked on 16-11-2000, workman could not join kuchdot

branch. Again charge sheet was issued to workman on 8-5-01 for his failure to resume ditches in kuchdot branch. Vide

order dated 25-6-01, Ist party workman was transferred to Jawra branch revoking his suspension. Enquiry Officer

submitted report on 2-12-02 holding that the charges alleged in chargesheet dated 5-9-00 were not proved. Workman

submits that he is entitled to full salary from 16-11-00 to 25-6-01. He also claims eligible for subsistence allowance

during above said period.

For the chargesheet issued to workman for his failure to join duty at Kuchdot branch after report submitted by

Enquiry Officer was issued to him. No suspension order was issued for his failure to join duty at Kuchdot branch. On

such ground, workman prays that salary for the period 16-11-2000 to 25-6-01 for Rs.27,320.78 be paid to him with

interest.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that workman was suspended

on 19-8-00. Chargesheet was issued on 5-9-2000. Charges against workman were that he had withdrawn amount of

Rs.3000 preparing vouchers and taking credit entries. The deposit voucher was signed unauthorisely. Amount of

Rs.1500/- was withdrawn. Suspension of workman was revoked on 16-11-2000. Workman was directed to join duty in

Kuchdot branch. After joining in Kuchdot branch, his revocation was to be treated. Chargesheet was issued to workman

on 5-9-2000. Workman did not report to duty in kuchdot branch on 16-11-90. That workman did not join kuchdot branch

on the ground of want of medical facility at the place. Workman was transferred to Jawra branch on 25-6-01. He

submitted his joining report in Jawra branch on 26-6-01. The punishment of warning was imposed against workman in

chargesheet dated 8-5-01. Said punishment was confirmed by Appellate Authority. Directions were given for payment

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2235

of salary to the workman for the period 19-8-2000 to 15-11-2000. The charges were found proved. It is reiterated that

punishment of warning was imposed on Ist party workman as per clause 19.6(h) of the Bipartite Agreement. Ist party

workman has made serious allegations that the officers lingered the conciliation proceedings and huge amount of TA

DA was drawn. As the pleadings on above points are not connected with the dispute under reference, its details are not

required to be mentioned. Such pleadings deserves to be replicated. 2^nd party submits that as punishment of warning was

imposed and suspension of workman was revoked from 16-11-90, workman failed to join duty in kuchdot branch.

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the applicant Shri Rajeel Stephen is

entitled for full wages for the period from 6-

11-2000 to 25-6-2001?

In Negative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The documents produced by Ist party workman Exhibit W-1 to W-18 are admitted by management. Workman

did not adduce evidence. Evidence of workman was closed on 7-10-2014.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Smt. Mahalakshmi supporting contentions in Written Statement

filed by management w.r.t. the charges issued to workman dated 5-9-00 and charge sheet issued on 8-5-01. The

suspension of workman was revoked on 16-11-2000. Workman was directed to join duty at Kuchdot branch. Workman

did not join duty in said branch. Workman was transferred to Jawra branch on 25-6-01. He joined duty on 26-6-01. In

enquiry conducted against workman, charges alleged in charge sheet dated 8-5-01 were proved. Punishment of warning

was imposed against him. Management’s witness in his cross-examination says she was not posted in Kuchdot, Jawra

branch during the period 2001-02. She was unable to tell whether pay of workman was fixed less by Rs.100/-

management’s witness admits that amount of Rs. 3000 was paid to workman from Sundry Account.

The documents Exhibit M-1 produced by 2^nd party is circular as per bipartite settlement. Exhibit W-1 , w-2 are

w.r.t. 6^th & 7^th bipartite settlement between management and Union. Exhibit W-3 is the chart of arrears paid to workman.

As per Exhibit W-4,5 amount of Rs.3000 was transferred to workman towards arrears of salary. As per Exhibit W-6,

workman was suspended on 19-8-00. Exhibit W-8 is chargesheet issued to workman on 5-9-2000. Exhibit W-9 is

circular issued by Bank as per Bipartite Settlement. As per Exhibit W-11, suspension of workman was revoked directing

him to join at Kuchdot branch. Departmental enquiry was continued. Exhibit W-12 is chargesheet dated 8-5-01 issued to

workman for disobeying the orders of his superior not joining Kuchdot branch. Exhibit W-13 is order dated 25-6-01

transferring the workman to Jawra branch revoking his suspension. As per Exhibit W-15- enquiry Report, it was noted

that the workman was suffering from Jaundice and did not join the branch office. There is no dispute that as per Enquiry

Report. Exhibit W-16 charges alleged against workman were not proved. That punishment of warning was imposed

against workman for his failure to join Kuchdot branch. When workman has failed to join Kuchdot and punishment of

warning is imposed on him, his suspension was revoked on 16-11-2000, claim of workman for full wages from 16-11-

2000 to 25-6-01 is not justified. When workman himself failed to join duty, following principles of no work no pay, the

claim of workman for full wages is not legal. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The workman Shri Rajeel Stephen is not entitled for full wages for the period from 6-11-2000 to

25-6-2001.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1006-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 308@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@133@99&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

2236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1006.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 308/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/133/99-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/308/99

General Secretary,

Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,

Hardev Niwas, 9, Sanwer Road,

Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, Zonal Office,

MP Zone, Bank of India Bhawan

Jail Road, Arera Hills,

Bhopal (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of March, 2016

1. As per letter dated 29-9-99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12012/133/99-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of sShri Tejprakash

Choudhary w.e.f. 1-12-98 and not regularizing him after completion of 240 days in a calendar year is justified?

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

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1

to 3/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed as permanent peon by Branch Manager Sujalpur Mandi on

1-6-86. He was engaged on daily wages. He was working with devotion. As per letter dated 8-5-86, candidates were

called from Emplooyment Exchange for engaging on daily wages for six months. After receiving list of candidates, all

the candidates were interviewed. Panel list was prepared. That from 1-6-86 to Feb 90, he worked for 235 days as Badli.

Branch Manager told him that permission was issued from Regional Manager for his engagement on regular basis.

Workman was paid wages for working days. He worked more than 240 days during 1996 to 1998. His services are

terminated without notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Termination of his service is in violation of

Section 25-F,N of ID Act. Para 507, 524 of Sastry Award. The policy of last come first go was not followed. Thereby

2^nd party violated Section 25-G of ID Act. After termination of his service, 2^nd party engaged other daily wage

employees. Workman was not engaged thereby 2^nd party violated Section 25 H of ID Act. On such grounds, Ist party

prayed for reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/4 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that reference

is not tenable as Ist party was never appointed following recruitment rules. there was no question of termination of his

services or payment of arrears of salary, DA, Bonus etc. 2^nd party recruits employees following recruitment rules and

reservation policy for SC ST Ex Serviceman. If claim of workman is accepted, it will amount to back door entry in

private employment which is prohibited by Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments. That Union is not existing in the

Bank. Union has no locus to raise the dispute. Ist party workman was casually engaged on daily wage basis against

leave vacancy of permanent staff. It is denied that workman completed 240 days continuous service. It is denied that

workman was paid bonus. Workman was paid wages for his working days. Claim of workman is devoid of merit. 2^nd

party has not committed violation of law. On such ground, 2^nd party prays for pass award in its favour.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/2 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2237

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Bank

of India in terminating the services of Shri

Tejprakash Choudhary w.e.f. 1-12-98 and not

regularizing him after completion of 240

days in a calendar year is justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitlled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1- Ist party workman is challenging his termination for violation of Section 25-F G of ID Act. He also

alleged violation of Section 25 H of ID Act as respondent engaged other persons on daily wages after his termination

and he was not engaged by 2^nd party. Management submits that workman was engaged on casual basis, wages for his

working days were paid. Workman has not completed 240 days service at any time.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in statement of claim. In his affidavit, workman

says he was engaged as badli sepoy on scale wages on 1-6-86. On 8-5-87, names were called from Employment

Exchange Shajapur for suitable candidates as badli peon. That he was not paid bonus for the year 1986 to 1990 though

he was eligible for payment of bonus. On 1-12-98, his services were terminated without notice. Workman has shown

details of his working days in Para-7 of his affidavit. In 1986- 9 days, in 1987- 98 days, 1988-39 days, in 1989- 96 days,

in 1990-144 days, in 1991- 242 days, in 1992-247 days, in 1993 more than 240 days. He shown more than 240 days in

the year 1994 to 1998. That his services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to

him. In his cross-examination, workman says on 1-1-1986, he was engaged as badli by Branch Manager. The post was

not advertised. Panel list was prepared in 1987 calling names from Employment Exchange. At that time, his name was

included at Sl.No.4 of the panel list. The panel list was of 8-10 persons. Out of them, 4-5 persons were absorbed in

service. Shri Hemraj was the person absorbed in service, he was unable to tell name of other person, panel list included

badlis working prior to him. Initially his name was not sent through Employment Exchange. Branch Manager called

him and engaged him in the Bank. He did not recollect his documents were produced in the case. In his further cross,

workman says he worked on Sujalpur branch from 1-1-1986 to 1-12-1998. In absence of temporary employees, he was

engaged. In few months, he was paid basic, HRA, DA. For some period, he was paid daily wages. He did not recollect

payment of basic pay, what was rate of basic pay in 1991, he was unable to tell for how many days he worked in 1997,

he was unable to tell working days during rest of the years but reiterates that he worked more than 240 days. Suggestion

is denied that he did not work for more than 240 days during any of the year. The certificate was not issued by the Bank

about his working more than 240 days.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri R.L.Gurnani, Rajendra Kumar Nayak supporting contentions of 2^nd

party in Written Statement about the appointment are made in the Bank following recruitment rules. casual labours are

engaged temporarily on daily wages. Workman not completed 240 days continuous service. Shri R.L.Gurnani in his

cross says to which Bank Exhibit M- 1 relates, he could not say. He was working in Sujalpur branch during 1981 to

1990. He did not recollect whether workman was working during his period. Workman was not paid bonus during his

tenure. He did not recollect whether workman was paid bonus for the year 1992 to 1997. For regular appointments,

name are called from Employment Exchange. Recruitment process is carried by Regional Manager. He was unable to

tell on what basis he has stated in his affidavit workman has not completed 240 days service.

Management’s witness Shri Rajendra Nayak in his cross says during 1986 to 1997, he was not posted in

Sujalpur branch. In the year 2000, he was posted at Sujalpur. He did not receive information from other Branch

Manager working at Sujalpur. He claims ignorance whether register of payment of bonus is destroyed or it is available in

the branch. The daily wage employees are engaged as per need. They are not continued for 240 days. He claims

ignorance whether workman was paid scale wages.

10.

The copies of documents produced by workman are denied by management. Workman has not adduced valid

evidence to prove the documents relied by him. Exhibit M-1 is circular dated 31-12-90 pertaining to recruitment of

subordinate staff. Para 2 of Exhibit M-1 is clear that the vacancies in subordinate staff, it is not obligatory on part of

public sector establishments to notify vacancies in the subordinate staff cadre to the Employment Exchanges, but such

vacancies irrespective of the nature and duration, should be filled in from the candidates sponsored by the Employment

Exchange Authorities. The vacancies are to be notified irrespective of the nature of duration. Workman has not

2238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

produced documents about payment of salary, payment of bonus to him. Workman has not examined any co-employee

in support of his claim that he worked more than 240 days prior to 12 calendar months preceding his termination. The

evidence of workman is in the nature of self declaration without any corroboration.

11.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi submits that in his pleading and evidence, workman has stated

that he was engaged as badli. The status of badli employee is that badli doesnot hold any post. In support of above

argument, reliance is placed on ratio held in

Case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another versus S.G.Kotturappa and another reported

in 2005(2)SCC-406. Their Lordship dealing with badli workers held their service if found not suitable can be

discontinued. Badli enjoys no status, his service not protected by any statute, holds no civil post.

In case of Bangalore Mewtropolitan Transport Corpn. Versus T.V.Anandappa reported in 2009(17)SCC-473.

Their Lordship dealing with casual labour/ daily wager/ temporary employee – Badli worker, held protection

under ID Act held not available. The reference made to Labour Court was itself competent and it should not

have adjudicated dispute.

In case of Binod Kumar Gupta and others versus Ram Ashray Mahoto and others reported in 2005(4)SCC-209.

Their Lordship dealing with recruitment process of Class IV civil court employees. Lack of bonafides and

transparency no selection procedure and norms followed. Their Lordship held merely because appellants were

working in the post of last 15 years they cannot be allowed to continue in service.

The facts of present case are not comparable. Ist party workman was not engaged following any kind of

recruitment process. The documents about his name sponsored through Employment Exchange and name of workman

was included in the panel list are not produced. Therefore ratio held in the case cannot be beneficially applied to case at

hand.

In case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd versus workmen of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd

reported in 2007(1)SCC-408. Their Lordship dealing with public employment and Articles 16,14 & 309 of the

constitution held that creation of posts, appointment of post, fixation of pay scales, promotions etc. are the

functions of executive or legislative and it is highly improper for judges to step into this post where none exists

nor issue directions to absorb or regularize regular employees.

In case of Surendranagar District Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported in 2005(8)SCC-750. Their

Lordship dealing with Section 25-F,B held courts below have wrongly drawn the adverse inference to scope of

enquiry before Labour Court was confined to only 12 months preceding the date of termination to decide

question of continuation of service for purpose of Section 25 F of ID Act. For violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act, facts must be proved to claim relief from court held facts to claim protection of Section 25-

F are that (i) there exists relationship of employer and employee, (ii) he is a workman under Section 2(s) of ID

Act. The establishment in which he is employed is an Industry. That he has put in not less than one year

continuous service.

In present case, the evidence of Ist party workman that he completed more than 240 days continuous service is

not corroborated by any co-employee, no documentary evidence is produced by workman. The evidence of workman

about completing more than 240 days service is not acceptable therefore I termination of his service in violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act is not established from evidence on record. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1

in Affirmative.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of management in terminating the services of Shri Tejprakash Choudhary w.e.f. 1-12-98 is

proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1007-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vk¡iQ

egkjk"Vªk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 58@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@30@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2239

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1007.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12011/30/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/58/2012

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sanghathan,

Central Office, F-1, Karmbhoomi,

Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra, Head Office,

Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar,

Pune

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 1^st day of March 2016

As per letter dated 18-25/4/2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12011/30/2011-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the applicant Shri Ashok Soni is entitled for pay scale as per the 5^th, 6^th and 7^th Bipartite Settlement

between the Union and the management of Bank of Maharashtra? If so, what relief he is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim through

General Secretary, Daily Wage Employees Union. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged as sub staff peon

from January 96. He was working from opening till closing of the Bank. He worked 8 hours every day. He worked more

than 240 days during each of the year. He was paid wages Rs.50 per day. After he claimed bonus and regularisation, his

services were terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation. He challenged termination of his

service in R/17/05 which is pending. He claims difference as per pay scales as per bipartite settlement 6 to 8. That the

violation of settlement is punishable under Section 29 of ID Act. That State Bank of India, Karur Vaishya Bank, Bank of

Maharashtra have paid arrears of scale pay to its employees. On such ground, he is praying for difference of pay scales

with interest.

Management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised by 2^nd party

that workman has challenged termination in R/17/05 which is pending. The present reference involves same question

whether workman is entitled for regularization. The reference is premature. 2^nd party submits that workman was

engaged as per exigencies temporarily on daily wages. He was paid Rs.50 per day. Workman did not work for any day

in January 1996. It is denied that workman was working 8 hours per day. It is denied that he completed more than 240

days during any of the year. As R/17/05 is pending, present reference is not tenable, it is premature. Workman is not

entitled to scale wages as he is not regular employee of the Bank.

Case No, R/58/12 is merged with present reference as dispute under reference is identical.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the applicant Shri Ashok Soni is entitled

for pay scale as per the 5^th, 6^th and 7^th Bipartite

Settlement between the Union and the management

of Bank of Maharashtra?

In Negative

2240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

As per terms of reference, question for consideration is whether Ist party is entitled to pay scale as per 5^th to 7^th

bipartite settlement. Management has denied claim of Ist party workman. Exhibit M-1 produced by management shows

payment of wages made to Ist party workman from 1-4-96 till 8-11-04 at different rates.

Representative of Ist party Shri Ram Nagwanshi on 7-4-2015 submitted that he doesnot want to adduce

evidence.

Management’s witness Shri Padam Singh filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in Written

Statement filed by management. That bipartite settlement are applicable to regular employees. Ist party workman owas

not appointed by the Bank. He is not given benefit of pay scale under Bipartite Settlement. That R/17/05 is rejected on

26-11-13. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says before engaging workman on work, selection process

was not followed, permission of Controlling Authority was taken, appointment letter was not issued to him. The area of

branch office is 1000 sq.ft. One post of Daftary and part time sweeper were sanctioned. He was not posted in Rajul

branch during 1991 to 1997. He had not taken information from earlier Branch Managers. He claims ignorance whether

workman was paid bonus.

Ist party has not produced any bipartite settlement allowing benefit of pay scale to the casual badly temporary

employee therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The workman is not entitled to pay scale as per 5^th to 7^th bipartite settlement.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1008-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks cSad

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 2@05) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@150@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1008.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/150/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/2/05

Shri Prem Prakash Rathore,

S/o Shri Babulal Rathore,

R/o Madhoganj, Fharas Pali Gali,

Lashkar, Gwalior

…Workman

Versus

Divisional Managaer,

UCO Bank, Zone-2,

269/270, Maharana Pratap Nagar,

Bhopal MP)

…Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2241

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 23-11-04 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12012/150/2004-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Prem Kumar Rathore

w.e.f. 5-5-97 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim. Case of

Ist party workman is that he was engaged as peon on 31-7-89, he was paid wages Rs. 70 per day. He was continuously

working till 4-5-97 for a period of 7 years 9 months and 4 days. His services are terminated without notice.

Retrenchment compensation, gratuity amount was not paid to him. His services are terminated in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act. He filed Writ Petition No. 133/97 in MP High Court Gwalior bench. He availed remedy under ID Act.

On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/4 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party raised preliminary

objection that the workman was orally engaged by Branch Manager on daily wages as casual labour the understanding

was given to the workman that his engagement would end on each of the day. There was no vacancy in subordinate

cadre. Workman is nsot covered under Section 2(s) of ID Act. His disengagement doesnot amount to retrenchment. 2^nd

party reityerates that the engagement of Ist party was for casual nature of work. Workman was not appointed through

Employment Exchange, post was not advertised. 2^nd party denies that workman was continuously working for 7 years 9

months 4 days. That disengagement of workman is not in violation of provisions of ID Act. Workman is not an

employee. On such ground, 2^nd party prays that the reference be answered in its favour.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of UCO

Bank in terminating the services of Shri Prem

Kumar Rathore w.e.f. 5-5-97 is legal and justified?

In Affrirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1- workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim that he

was appointed as peon on 31-7-79. He was paid Rs.70/- per day. He continuously worked till 4-7-97. He was terminated

without notice he was not paid retrenchment compensation or gratuity. In his cross-examination, workman says his

affidavit was prepared by his Advocate. Prior to his appointment, post was not advertised, he was working on daily

wages. He produced document about bonus. He was orally terminated.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma supporting contentions of management in

Written Statement. That workman was never employed in sub staff cadre. There was no vacancy. Workman had not

submitted particulars of his educational qualification. Workman was not appointed following recruitment policy.

Workman did not work more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his termination. The evidence of management’s

witness remained unchallenged as the witness of management was not cross-examined.

Workman has not produced any document, any co-worker is not examined in support of his claim. The

evidence of management’s witness is not challenged. Workman has failed to prove that he was continuously working

more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his termination. Violation of Section 25-F is not established. Therefore I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Prem Kumar Rathore

w.e.f. 5-5-97 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

2242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk-1009-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 11@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@180@97&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1009.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Dena Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/180/97-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/98

Indian National Bank Employees Federation,

9, Sanwer Road, Hardev Niwas,

Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

Branch Manager,

Dena Bank,

Nawlakha Choraya,

Bombay-Agra Road,

Indore

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26^th day of February, 2016

1. As per letter dated 13-1-98 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12012/180/97/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Indore in terminating the services of Shri Arun Kumar Vitvekar

w.e.f. 8-2-96 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim through

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that in the year 1989,

the Regional Office of Dena Bank called names from Employment Exchange for appointment as peon. His name was

sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was called for interview on 24-4-89. The workman was interviewed. His

name was at Sl.No.1 of panel list. As per letter dated 11-3-90, workman was informed that his name was in panel list as

badly employee. From 15-3-90, workman was engaged as cleaner cum sweeper at Seetalamata bazar branch. Thereafter

he worked at Navlakha branch, Siyaganj branch on his transfer. In January 93, new branch opened at Sanver Road.

Workman was transferred to said branch. He worked with devotion. He was doing work of cleaning, sweeping during 8

to 10 AM and he was doing work of regular peon from 10.30 AM to 6 PM. He was doing different work as peon. His

claim for bonus was not accepted. The dispute raised by him was pending. That sShri Mukesh and Shri Narendra

Malviya were continued in service. His services were terminated from 0-4-96. Workman reiterates that he had

completed more than 240 days continuous service during each of the year. He acquired status of employee under

Section 25 B of ID Act. His services were terminated in violation of Sastri Award, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation, policy of first come last go was not followed. He was not allowed to work in violation of Section 25 H of

ID Act. On such contentions, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2243

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Pages 5/1 to 5/7 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party denies that workman

was terminated in 1996 or he is unemployed. The workman did not work in Shitla Mata branch as cleaner cum peon. He

was not appointed in above branch. Workman was engaged for cleaning sweeping work temporarily. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. He is not covered as employee under Section 25(B) of ID Act. Whenever

workman was engaged for cleaning, sweeping work, he was paid wages as per local rates. Workman did not work 8-10

AM as sweeper and 11 to 6 as regular peon. Violation of Section 25-G,H of ID Act is denied. 2^nd party prays that

workman is not entitled to any relief. His claim deserves to be rejected.

Ist party filed rejoinder at page 6/1 to 6/5 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Dena

Bank, Indore in terminating the services of Shri

Arun Kumar Vitvekar w.e.f. 8-2-96 is legal and

justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of his service for violation of Section 25-F,G,H of ID Act. Claim

of workman is denied by management.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman says he was called for interview on 24-4-89. After

interview, his name was included at Sl.No.1 of panel list. Whenever regular sub staff was proceeding on leave, his name

was included in the panel list as badli. His affidavit is further devoted on the point that he worked in Shitla Mata branch

Sanver Road branch, he was working in said branch. He had raised dispute for payment of bonus. His services were

terminated from 10-4-96. During pendency of conciliation proceeding, his services were terminated. Shri Mukesh and

Narendra were continued in service. In his cross-examination, workman says he had received appointment letter in

writing. It is produced on record. He was engaged on daily wages by Branch Manager. After termination of his services,

Narendra was appointed. He was working in Parasia branch. His name was included in the panel list as casual labour.

One person was given appointment from said list Shri Mukesh Malviya Mukesh was engaged prior to him.

Management filed affidavit of witness Dr. Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava. The witness of management has stated

that workman was engaged for broken period from 30-11-91 to 1-4-96. In his cross-examination, management’s witness

says from 15-3-90 to 10-4-96, he was not posted in Sitlamata branch, Navlakha branch, Siyaganj branch, Sanver Road

branch and Regional Office. Workman was engaged for broken period from 30-11-91 to 11-4-96 remained

unchallenged. In his evidence , workman was not continuously engaged, he did not continuously worked for 240 days

also remained unchallenged. The evidence of workman is not corroborated by any documents that he completed 240

days continuous service.

During course of argument, learned counsel for management Shri A.K.Shashi pointed out my attention that his

engagement was as badli as per Para-6 of the statement of claim, para 4 of his affidavit of evidence. Workman was paid

Gratuity Rs.19,692/- as per letter dated 11-5-02. Copy of Banker’s cheque is enclosed along with said letter. The appeal

preferred by 2^nd party has been dismissed. Above facts are not in dispute between parties. The documents are on record.

Considering Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, the employee is eligible for payment of gratuity on completion of

service not less than 5 years which corroborates evidence of workman that he was in continuous service. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination says workman was not served with notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to

him. The termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.

10.

Shri A.K.Shashi on the point relies on ratio held in

Case of Post Master General Kolkata versus Tutu Das reported in 2007(5)SCC-317. Their Lordship dealing

with claim for regularization to similarly situated person held same doesnot create an entitlement to

regularization on ground of equal treatment. Their Lordship further held completion of 240 days is irrelevant.

In case between Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation versus T.V.Anandappa reported in

2009(17)SCCF-473. Their Lordship dealing with casual labour, daily wager, badli worker held reference made

to Labour Court was itself incompetent and should not have adjudicated the dispute. The reference made to

Labour Court was incompetent.

2244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The facts of above cited case are different as para-2 of the judgment clearly shows that respondent was

appointed as badli conductor and disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him with regard to his unauthorized

absence from duty. The facts of present case are different. Ratio held in cannot be beneficially applied to case at hand.

Evidence of workman is corroborated by payment of gratuity for 5 years. His services are terminated without notice,

retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Therefore his termination is illegal for violation of Section 25(f) of ID

Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

11.

Point No.2- Termination of work is found illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman was paid

Gratuity of Rs.19,692/- for 5 years service. Considering workman was engaged as badly, he was not appointed

following recruitment process, the claim of workman for reinstatement cannot be4 accepted. Considering the working

period of Ist party workman, compensation Rs.75,000 would be appropriate.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Dena Bank, Indore in terminating the services of Shri Arun Kumar

Vitvekar w.e.f. 8-2-96 is not legal and proper.

(2)

2^nd party management is directed to pay compensation Rs. 75,000/- to the workman .

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1010-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 14@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@116@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1010.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12011/116/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/2009

General Secretary,

Rashtriyakrit Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp Engineering College,

Sanwer Road, Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

Zonal Manager,

Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Ujjain (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26^th day of February, 2016

As per letter dated 6-2-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12011/116/2008-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2245

“Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ujjain in issuing

orders for dismissal from service to Shri Darbariulal Vishwakarma, Part time Safaikarmi w.e.f. 7-3-07 is

justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Pages 3/1 to 3/5. Case of Ist party is that Annexure-I submitted to Appellate Authority be treated as part and parcel f

statement of claim. Document submitted with Annexure I be taken into consideration. Letter dated 28-4-07 Annexure II

and application submitted to ALC Annexure-III, reply submitted by management Annexure-IV, V also be considered.

Workman submits that he was dismissed from service considering he was convicted in Criminal Case No. 224/04 as per

judgment and order dated 6-11-06. He had challenged his conviction filing appeal No. 491/06 before Additional Session

Judge, Ujjain. The appeal was partly allowed. He filed appeal No. 991 before Hon’ble High Court Indore Bench the

appeal is pending. Those aspects were not considered while passing order of his dismissal by the authority. Workman

submits that he is falsely implicated under conspiracy fabricating the documents. The order of his dismissal deserves to

be quashed. The Disciplinary Authority issued order of his dismissal without application of mind. The so called alleged

ATM Cards were stolen was basis for his dismissal. The ATM Card were sent to branch on 10-3-05. Prior to it, amount

was withdrawn from it on 17-4-04. The workman had no concern with the ATM Cards. Workman claims to be innocent,

he is convicted appreciating evidence and relevant record. That appeal preferred by him is pending before Hon’ble High

Court. Workman prays for setting aside order of his dismissal and reinstate him in service. That he was dismissed

without enquiry or issuing any chargesheet. The order of dismissal is illegal.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Pages 11/1 to 11/7 opposing claim of workman. As per 2^nd party, workman

was initially appointed as part time sweeper(1/3^rd) by Chief Regional Manager Ujjain Region. There are 7 branches, one

District Manager’s office, one extension office. In case of exigencies, subordinate staff are liable for transfer as per

requirement of their service. Ist party workman was initially appointed as Khedakhajura branch Ujjain. He reported for

duty on 2-12-99 on probation of six months. Probation period could be extended. His service could be terminated

without notice or assigning any reasons as per order dated 3-4-03, workman reported on duty at Khedakhajura branch.

On 7-4-03, his temporary transfer was extended for 3 months. Workman was required to work full time in extension

counter. He was paid full wages. In extension counter, one clerk and one sub staff were working. There was no other

person working in the branch for work of sub staff.

Facility of ATM was provided to the account holders on request for ATM Card. The Head Office used to

arrange issues of ATM Card PIN, the cards were sent directly, PIN Mailers were sent to the respective branches. The

PIN Mailers are then handed over to the concerned Account holder/ customer. The customer has to personally collect the

PIN Mailer from the officer concerned to the Bank. Unless the ATM Card is inserted in the ATM Machine and the PIN

entered, the ATM wouldnot work. The complaint was received at Kothi Palace Extension counter from Shri Kunwarlal

Keharia that amount of Rs.10,700/- was withdrawn from his Account without his knowledge. Immediately incharge of

extension counter verified the ATM Cards, PIN Mailer kept in the drawer of the table of the Incharge of the Extension

counter and found that 11 ATM Cards and 8 Pin Mailers are missing the unauthorized withdrawal in several accounts

was also found. The matter was immediately reported to Zonal Office. It was decided to file FIR the local police. The

details of unauthorized withdrawal of amount is shown in Para-6. Rs.10500/- from Account of Shri Pramod Sharma,

Rs.14,500 from Account of Shri Manoj Ranchhodlal, Rs.800/- from account of Shri Kapil Vishwas, Rs.15000/- from

account of Smt. Sunita Ranchhodlal, Rs. 21,000 from account of Shri Rashid Mansoori, Rs.10700/- from account of

ShriKunwarlal Keharia, Rs.800 from account of Shri Peer Singh, Rs.77300/- from account of Shri Sandeep Singh.

Workman was prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 224/2004 . Under Section 380 IPC workman was sentenced with 3 years

rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-. Under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced two years rigorous

imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. Workman filed criminal appeal No. 491/06. The Appellate Court upheld

imprisonment for 3 years along with fine and remaining punishment was set aside by giving benefit of doubt to the

accused workman. Show-cause notice was issued to workman on 15-1-07. Workman submitted representation on

3-2-07. Workman was given personal hearing. Considering workman was convicted for offence involving moral

turpitude, punishment of dismissal was imposed. It is reiterated that Bank is carrying banking business on confidence of

the Bank, Bank was committed on offence of moral turpitude. The dismissal of workman is proper. It was not required

to issue charge sheet and conduct special enquiry. On such ground, 2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Pages 12/1 to 12/3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Zonal

Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ujjain in

issuing orders for dismissal from service to Shri

In Affirmative

2246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Darbariulal Vishwakarma, Part time Safaikarmi

w.e.f. 7-3-07 is justified?

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Parties are not in dispute that workman was convicted for offence under Section 380 & 201 of IPC. Under

Section 380 IPC workman was sentenced with 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-. Under Section 201

IPC, he was sentenced two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. Workman filed criminal appeal No.

491/06. Copy of judgment by JMFC Ujjain and 3^rd Addnl Session Judge are produced.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering his contentions in statement of claim. That since 3-12-99, he

was working as part time sweeper at Khedakhajuria branch. He was dismissed on 6-11-06 without issuing chargesheet or

conducting enquiry. He was not served with notice of termination, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. So

that incharge Shri R.M.Prasad was concerned with the alleged theft from ATM, punishment of withholding two

increments was imposed. His affidavit is further devoted on the point that the evidence on record establishes his

innocence. He is not concerned with the alleged theft of withdrawal of amount from ATM. In his cross, workman says

on 3-12-99, he was appointed as sweeper, he was kept on probation for six months. Appointment letter are produced at

Exhibit M-1 to M-10. He was sent to Sethi Nagar branch for 3 months. Again workman says that he was sent to ADM

office and not to Sethi Nagar branch. Exhibit W-8 is copy of judgment of Criminal Court. He has preferred appeal

against judgment. The copies are marked Exhibit W-8, M-4 respectively. Show-cause notice issued to him. He given

reply to showcause notice workman was called for personal hearing. Reply to showcause notice is marked Exhibit M-11.

Zerox copies of payment vouchers are not proved by valid evidence.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Ashok Kumar Pathak supporting contentions of the

management. That workman was prosecuted and convicted by Criminal Court for withdrawal of amount from ATM.

Management’s witness in his cross-examination says he doesnot know detailed address of workman. After conviction of

workman, showcause notice was issued to him. Separate enquiry was not conducted against workman. Management’s

witness claimed ignorance about difference in show-cause notice and Enquiry Proceedings. However he admits that

chargesheet was not issued to workman. After workman was convicted by Court, his services were dismissed. The

witness was unable to tell how much amount was stolen from ATM. The workman has preferred criminal appeal in High

Court Indore bench is not in serious dispute. The copy of appeal memo is produced on record P-8. The copy of FIC and

copies of judgment by Criminal Court and 3^rd Additional Session Judge are produced on record. In appeal, the

punishment for offence under Section 201 IPC has been set-aside. Punishment for offence under Section 380 is

confirmed. Exhibit W-1 is copy of order of reference, W-2 is copy of application submitted by workman before RL. W-

3 is suspension order, W-4 is order of dismissal, W-5 is order of suspension. W-6,7 are copies of FIR submitted to

police. Exhibit W-8 is information received by workman under RTI Act in view of conviction of workman is not in

dispute. Above documents are not useful for deciding controversy between parties.

10.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party submitted copy of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-02. Clause 3(a) provides-

3(a) “When in the opinion of the management, an employee has committed an offence, unless he be otherwise

prosecuted, the Bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted and in such a case he may also be

suspended.

(b)

If he be convicted, he may be dismissed w.e.f. the date of his conviction or be given any lesser form

of punishment as mentioned in clause-6 below.

Under Clause5, By the expression “Gross Misconduct” is defined. Clause(s) covers conviction by a criminal

Court of law for an offence involving moral turpitude.

Workman was convicted for offence under Section 380 of IPC. It is gross misconduct. As per clause 3(b), if the

employee is convicted, he is liable to be dismissed. It is clear from above provisions of Bipartite Settlement that in case

employee is convicted, separate charge sheet is not required to be issued. No departmental enquiry is contemplated. The

evidence on record is clear that workman was issued show-cause notice. Workman given reply to the notice. Personal

hearing was also given to the workman. Merely on the ground that revision petition is filed by workman in High Court,

it cannot be a ground for setting aside the dismissal. If workman is so curious about decision of criminal revision filed

by him in Hon’ble High Court, workman could have waited till its decision. In such circumstances, the reference could

be said premature but the circumstances doesnot warrant. Interference in the order of dismissal of workman as he was

convicted for offence under Section 380 of IPC confirmed in the appeal. Copy of extract of Banking Regulation Act

1949 produced on

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2247

Clause 10 prohibits Employment of Managing Agents and restrictions on certain forms of employment. (1) No

banking company (a) shall employ or be managed by a Managing Agent or (b) shall employ or continue the

employment of any person- (i) who is or at any time has been adjudicated insolvent or has suspended payment

or ihas compounded with his creditors or who is or has been convicted by a criminal court of an offence

involving moral turpitude.

The detailed written notes submitted by counsel for workman are silent w.r.t. clause 3 a,b of Bipartite

Settlement and Section 10 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

11.

Learned counsel has produced copies of documents which are already on record. Learned counsel for Ist party

workman Shri Kamal Yadav relies on ratio held in

Case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi versus Narender Singh reported in SC Law Journal. Their

Lordship held that law is well settled that if any employee is acquitted of a criminal charge, same by itself

would not be ground not to initiate a departmental proceeding against him. That standard of proof required in

both proceedings are distinct and different.

The principles laid down by their Lordship cannot be compared with the case at hand as Ist party is convicted

under Section 380 IPC and per clause 3-a,b of Bipartite Settlement, workman has been dismissed. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1011-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 43@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@24@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1011.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12011/24/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/43/2010

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1., Tripti Vihar, Opp.Engineering College,

Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

Branch Manager,

Bank of India,

Chipya Branch,

Shajapur Distt.

…Management

2248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 26^th day of February 2016

As per letter dated 8-9-2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12011/24/2010-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Shri Lalchandra Chouhan, Badliu Sepoy is entitled for payment of difference of wages w.e.f. 20-98-06

to 5-5-08 as per Bipartite Settlements? What relief, he is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Statement of claim is submitted by General

Secretary of Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan on behalf of workman Lalchand Chouhan. Case of workman is

that he was engaged by Chippya Branch Manager from 20-9-06. He was working 8 hours per day. He was continuously

working more than 240 days during each of the year,. He was paid wages Rs.40, 45, 60, 100. The wages paid to him

were reimbursed by Branch Manager. His services were terminated without notice in violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act. He was continuously working from 20-9-06 to 12-7-08. He is eligible for wages as per 8^th & 9^th Bipartite

Settlement. He was not paid wages as per above settlement. Violation of Settlement amounts to offence under Section

29 of ID Act. On such contentions, workman is claiming difference of wages as per 8^th & 9^th Bipartite Settlement.

3. 2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party workman. Preliminary objection is raised that

reference is not tenable as Branch Manager is not Appointing or Disciplinary Authority. That competent authority is

not impleaded. The reference suffers from misjoinder of parties. Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute. Any of

the employees of Bank are not its member. The dispute is raised by Union without authority. The appropriate

Government is also misinterpreted over looking the bipartite settlement, the terms of reference is prejudicial to interest

of management. That workman is not covered under Section 2(s) of ID Act. As workman was not appointed following

recruitment process calling his name through Employment Exchange holding interview etc. there is no employer

employee relationship. Service conditions of employees working in the Banking industry are issued by Government of

India time to time. Sastry Award and Desai Award are applicable. Workman was engaged intermittently for casual

nature of work he was paid remuneration for the work performed. As workman was not appointed following

recruitment process, he is not regular employee of the Bank. Workman is not entitled to wages as per bipartite

settlement. On such ground, 2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether Shri Lalchandra Chouhan, Badliu

Sepoy is entitled for payment of difference of

wages w.e.f. 20-98-06 to 5-5-08 as per Bipartite

Settlements?

In Negative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to claim for difference of wages as per 8^th & 9^th bipartite settlement. Workman

filed affidavit of his evidence. In his affidavit, workman says he was engaged in Chipya branch from 29-9-06. He was

terminated on 12-7-08. He is eligible for skilled wages for above said period. In his cross-examination, workman says

he was engaged for cleaning sweeping work . He worked under Branch Manager Shri D.K.Poddar, S.N.Mehrotra his

name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. The post was not advertised, appointment letter was not

given to him. He was paid once in a month for his working days. He denied that any other work was not extracted from

him. From his evidence, documents Exhibit W-1 to W-6 are admitted in evidence pertains to the documents in respect

of loan taken by different persons. In his cross-examination, workman says zerox copies were supplied to him to help

him in getting regular job. When he was working for whole day, he was paid Rs.100. when he was working for 3-4 PM,

he was paid Rs.60 per day. Workman was unable to tell how much amount he was paid during 2007-08, for how many

days, he was paid Rs.100 per day, Rs.60/- per day.

Management’s witness Shri Dilip Kumar Poddar filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of

management. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says that before engagement of workman, selection

process was not followed, permission of Controlling Authority was not taken. Workman was engaged for casual work

as per exigencies. Record about his working was not maintained. Management’s witness in his further cross

examination says he was working in Chipya branch during 2006 to August 2007. Thereafter he was not posted in

Chipya branch. The are of Chipya branch was 200 sq.ft. One post of Daftary and one post of sweeper was sanctioned.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2249

Workman was paid Rs.70-80 per day for work he was engaged. Payment policy of the Bank is not produced. Document

Exhibit W-2 was written by clerk Harishankar. Ist party workman has not produced Bipartite Settlement applicable to

casual employees engaged on daily wages. Incidentally I may refer to ratio held by Shri A.K.Shashi, counsel for

management in

Case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus Workmen of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd

reported in 2007(1)SCC-408. The ratio held in the case Article 21 cannot be stretched so far as to mean that

everyone must be given a job. Article 41 has been deliberately kept by the Founding Fathers in the directive

principles chapter and hence made unenforceable. Their Lordship also held that Court cannot create a post

where none exists, nor issue directions to absorb or regularise temporary employees nor continue them in

service nor pay them salaries of regular employees.

In case between State of Haryana and Surinder Kumar and others reported in 1998-2-LLJ-516. Their

Lordship dealing with equal pay for equal work held that recruitment was not in accordance with rules, merely

because posts were interchanged, daily wagers on contract basis could not become entitled to pay scale.

Ist party workman has not produced bipartite settlement applicable to daily wagers as such claim of Ist party

workman for difference of wages on the basis of 8^th & 9^th Bipartite Settlement is not established. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is not proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1012-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 72@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@99@97&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1012.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12011/99/97-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/72/98

Zonal Secretary,

Madhya Pradesh Bank Employees Association,

C/o Central Bank of India,

Bilaspur

…Workman/Union

Versus

Manager,

Bank of India,

Dayalband, Near MPEB Office,

Bilaspur (MP)

…Management

2250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 16^th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 21-4-98 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12011/99/97/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in not regularizing the services of S/Shri Lachhan

Kumar, Prakash Rao, Parasram Suryabanshi, Arun Dewangan, Govind Pathak and Prakash Nandeshwar and

instead contemplating substituting them with a fresh set of workmen, is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the said workmen are entitled and from what date?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. The reference pertains to workmen Lachhan

Kumar, Prakash Rao, Parasram Suryabanshi, Arun Dewangan, Govind Pathak and Prakash Nandeshwar. The claim of

Ist party workmen Prakash Rao, Parasram Suryabanshi & Arun Dewangan are permitted to be withdrawn as per order

dated 24-3-2015. The claim of Ist party workman Shri Lachhan Kumar and Govind Pathak is prosecuted. The statement

of claim is filed at Page 1/1 to 1/7. Case of Ist party workman is that they were working with 2^nd party continuously for

6-7 years prior to the charter of demand was submitted on 10-3-97. They were required to work minimum 8 hours

similarly to the regular employees. He had worked for 240 days continuously during calendar year. They were denied

regular status for one or other reasons. That at relevant time, six vacancies were in main branch and extension branch at

Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur. Instead of regularizing their services, management endeavour to terminate them to fill up the

vacancies arising by calling candidates from Employment Exchange in violation of bipartite settlement. The Bipartite

Settlement provides-

“While filling up permanent post, preference is to be given to the temporary employees of the Bank. The MP

Bank Employees Association submitted charter of demand on 10-3-97 raising their grievance about denial of

regularization to those workmen. The authority was requested to intervene for protecting their services from

termination. 2^nd party in order to avoid payment of regular pay scale and other benefits, regular status did not

maintain the records of temporary employees. The employees are in possession of the record about

continuously working more than 240 days. 2^nd party Bank had submitted vague reply against charter of demand.

The dispute is referred for adjudication.

Workman further submits that they are working on respective post continuously due to interference of the

Competent Authority allowing status quo. That due to ill health of authorized person who also passed away, statement

of claim could not be submitted earlier. Ist party workman reiterates that 2nd party committed error by not regularizing

them in service as peon against existing vacancies. 2^nd party made efforts to fill the vacant post calling candidates

belonging to ST category from Employment Exchange dehors the rules. The workman further contends that there is

settled law that temporary employee who holds requisite qualification and has served the institution for long and

working conditions are almost at par with that of a regular employee, the employer should regularize the services of such

employees. The ratio held by Apex Court in case of Jacob M. Puthuparampbil and others versus Kerala Water Authority

and others is quoted. That appointment under Rule-9(a)(i) are intended to serve emergent situations which could not

brook delay. Such appointments were intended to be stop gap temporary appointments to serve the stated purpose and

not long term ones. Once the appointments continued for long, the services had to be regularized. It is unfair and

unreasonable to remove people who have been rendering service since sometime as such removal has serious

consequences. The family of the employee which has settled down and accommodated its needs to be emoluments

received by bread winner will face economic ruination if the job is suddenly taken away. On such ground, Ist party

workman prays for regularization of their services and to direct 2^nd party management not to terminate their services.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 12/1 to 12/6 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is

raised that in terms of reference, names of Lachhan Ram and others are mentioned. In statement of claim, names of

Shri Lachhan Ram Barve and Parasram Kevra have been included. Their names are not appearing in the order of

reference therefore the reference is not tenable. That Ist party workman submitted after gap of 5 ½ years without

justifying delay. Their claim deserves to be dismissed. That the Ist party claimants have not revealed details of their

appointment, employment in service of the Bank like their appointment, designation or post. In absence of the basic

details, claim for regularization is not tenable. 2^nd party submits that Ist party are not covered as workman under Section

2(s) of ID Act. As the defence of workman doesnot include casual labour, Ist party were never appointed against any

post in the Bank. Their claim is not tenable. The recruitment in Bank is covered by policy approved. Person seeking

employment in Bank has to go through the procedure for regular appointment. Ist party workman are trying to get

employment in Bank through back door. 2^nd party has referred to ratio held in various cases that daily wager has no

right to hold post. His appointment is subject to availability of work. They accepted engagement on daily wage basis

with open eyes. They cannot have any grievance about disengagement of casual engagement. Casual engagement

depends on circumstances such as exchange of work or requirement in absence of regular employee. That Branch

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2251

Manager is not competent to appointment in staff. The powers to appointment are with Regional Managers. The

payment of remuneration for work was made by Branch Manager in his personal capacity. He was reimbursed with said

amount. Ist party workman were not appointed by Competent Authority, they had not worked continuously for 240 days

in a year. 2^nd party denies that Ist party workman were continuously working for 6-7 years prior to charter of demand

was submitted. That clause 18.4 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89provides- preference will be given to part time

employees drawing skilled wages in killing full time vacancies. The Ist party claimants were not appointed as full time

or part time employees. They are not entitled to get benefit of bipartite settlement. That Branch Manager can engage

services of any person intermittently for casual nature of work. 2^nd party denies that authorized representative was

suffering from illness and delay in submitting statement of claim. If claim of workman is accepted, it will amount to

back door entry in public sector in violation of public sector employment. 2^nd party prays that reference be answered in

its favour.

Rejoinder is filed at Page 13/1 to 13/11 reiterating their contentions in statement of claim. In rejoinder,

workman submits that names of Shri Lachhan Barve and Parasram was corrected by the Ministry as per corrigendum

dated 1-6-00. There was no PO posted at the relevant time. The unauthorized agent had died. Delay was caused in

submitting statement of claim. The ratio held in various cases are also referred in rejoinder. It is contented that Manager

was competent to engage daily wage staff.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Bank

of India in not regularizing the services of S/Shri

Lachhan Kumar and Govind Pathak and instead

contemplating substituting them with a fresh set of

workmen, is legal and justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to denial of regularization to Ist party workmen. The claim of Ist party workmen

Prakash Rao, Parasram Suryabanshi & Arun Dewangan are permitted to be withdrawn as per order dated 24-3-2015. The

claim of Ist party workman Shri Lachhan Kumar and Govind Pathak is prosecuting their claim for regularization.

Shri Lachhan Kumar Ist party workman filed affidavit that he was working at Bilaspur branch as temporary

peon. He was working for 8 hours. He was continuously working. He worked 240 days during each of the calendar year.

He holds eligibility for regularization. In his cross-examination, he says that he passed 8^th standard. He was first

appointed on 7-6-89. He not submitted application, any appointment letter was not issued to him. The post was not

advertised. He was engaged on work by Shri S.Padmanabhan on daily wages. The wages were paid obtaining his

signatures. His name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was not interviewed. That any examination

was not conducted before engagement. Daily wages at Government rate were paid. Regular employees were working at

the time of his engagement. 5 peons were working in the Bank. When regular employees was presiding on leave, he

used to be called. His attendance was not maintained in register. He has no documents about his working days. He has

stated in his affidavit about working 240 days in a calendar year as per the personal information. He denies that he did

not work for 240 days.

Identical affidavit of evidence is filed by Shri Govind Prasad . in his cross, he says appointment letter was not

issued to him. He has no documents about working in the Bank. His name was not sponsored through Employment

Exchange, written exam was not taken. He denies that he was not in regular employment of Bank.

10.

The evidence of Ist party No.3 to 5 on record needs no discussion as their claim have been withdrawn.

11.

2^nd party filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Pradeep Kamble supporting his contentions that workmen are not

covered under Section 2(s) of ID Act. If their claim is allowed, it will amount to back door entry. No selection procedure

was followed before engaging workman. Daily wage has no right to hold post. Workman accepted engagement as daily

wager with open eye. Workmen were not appointed by Competent Authority. They did not worked continuously during

any of the year. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says that workmen are working on daily wages.

Affidavit of his evidence is prepared after going through the record and Bank guidelines. He denies that in 1989, 5

employees working in the Bank were transferred. The management’s witness was unable to tell how many post of sub

staff were sanctioned. He explained that one post is sanctioned in the Bank. As per requirement casual workers were

engaged. Wages were paid by Assistant Manager. Signatures of workers were not obtained on voauchers. Assistant

2252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Manager was not maintaining Attendance Registers. The payment was made as per his memory. The vouchers about

payment may be available in Bank. The witness shows his willingness to produce voucher. Management’s witness was

unable to tell vacancies in extension counter of the Bank. Looking to the payment, the management’s witness says

workmen were not regularly working. Management submitted information in pursuance of order dated 12-8-2013 that

one vacancy of sub staff was in Bilaspur branch.

12.

Workmen are claiming regularization. The evidence on record discussed above it not corroborated by any

document that they were continuously working rather they worked more than 240 days during any of the calendar year.

13.

The evidence of management’s witness is in the nature of denial that workmen were continuously working

more than 240 days. The engagement of workmen as per exigency is admitted. Workman have pleaded that after

intervention of the Competent Authority, they were continuously working but evidence of Ist party No.1 & 5 is not

disclosing about the order of status quo issued by Competent Authority and they are continued in employment of Bank.

14.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Pranay Choubey relies on ratio held in

Case of Amarkant Rai versus State of Bihar and others reported in 2015(8)SCC-265. Their Lordship dealing

with entitlement to regularization held similarly situated persons regularized , appellant falling within exception

carved out in Umadevi’s case 2006(4)SCC-1 were entitled to regularization. The facts of above cited case are

not comparable. In above cited case, the appellant was appointed in Class IV post of night guard by Principal of

College who was not competent authority to make such appointment, serving on said post for 29 years on daily

wage basis. Appointment of appellant done out of necessity ad concern for College and duly intimated to

University in 1988. In present case, Ist party workmen were appointed by competent authority, they were

engaged as per exigencies. The workmen nhave not adduced evidence about their working details. Therefore

the ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.

15.

Shri Pranay Choubey also relied on ratio held in case

Satya Prakash and others versus State of Bihar and others. My attention is pointed out to Para 14 of the

judgment. Their Lordship held if board proposes to undertake any regular selection process to fill up the posts,

the applications if any submitted by the appellants may also be considered after giving age relaxation.

Ist party workman in statement of claim have pleaded about the bipartite settlement, its copy is not produced on

record. Therefore the directions given by Apex Court in Para 14 of the judgment cannot be applied in present case.

16.

Shri A.K.Shashi for management relies on ratio held in

Case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Suresh Kumar Verma and another reported in 1996(2)SLR-321.

Their Lordship held adhoc appointment/ appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post

according to the rules. state is bound to follow the rules made by it. Selection has to be according to the

recruitment rules.

In case between Post Master General, Kolkata and others versus Tutu Das Dutta reported in 2007(5)SCC-317.

Their Lordship dealing with regularization and service law held necessity of strict compliance with scheme of

public employment as envisaged under Articles 14,16 & 309- statutory provisions governing recruitment and

recruitment rules under statute or Article 309 proviso inviolability of stressed on following the rules. Their

Lordship dealing with improper grant of regularization to similarly situated person held the same doesnot create

an entitlement to regularization on ground of equal treatment under Article 4. Equality is a positive concept and

cannot be invoked where any illegality has been committed or where no legal right is established.

In present case applicant No. 2 to 4 have withdrawn their claim. Shri Pranay Choubey says that workman No. 1

& 5 are denied regularization on the ground of age bar but no such evidence is adduced on record why applicant No. 2

to 4 withdraw their claim. The details are not produced in the case therefore claim of workman for regularization on

parity with workman No. 2 to 4 cannot be accepted.

In case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus their workmen reported in 2007(1)SCC-408. Their

Lordship iheld that creation of post, appointment, regularization, fixing of pay scales, continuation in service,

promotions etc. are functions of executive or legislative and it is highly improper for judges to step into the

sphere except in a rare and exceptional case.

When evidence of Ist party No. 1 & 5 is not cogent about they were continuously working for 6-7 years prior to

submitting charter of demand or they have completed 240 days continuous service during all those year, the claim for

their regularization cannot be accepted. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

17.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2253

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1013-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,aM

¯l/ cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 97@09) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@70@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1013.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/09) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab and Sind Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/70/2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/97/09

Shri Chandrakant Soni,

S/o Shri S.P.Soni,

Infront of Babanrao Shesh’s House,

Behind Library, Kilawani,

Bilaspur (CG)

…Workman

Versus

Zonal Manager,

Punjab and Sind Bank,

Dayalbandh,

Bilaspur (CG)

Branch Manager,

Punjab and Sindh Bank,

Dayalbandh, Bilaspur (CG)

… Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14^th day of March 2016

As per letter dated 24-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12012/70/2009-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab &Sindh Bank, Bilaspur branch (CG) in terminating the

services of Shri Chandra Kant Soni, Ex-peon w.e.f. 18-8-01 was legal and justified? To what relief, the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.

Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged on daily wages in 2^nd party Bank as peon from 1-8-82. Initially he was

paid Rs.50/- per day. The wages were increased time to time. He was sincerely working. On 20-2-91, 2^nd party Bank

called applications through advertisement for permanent appointment of peon. The persons who worked minimum 90

days or more as temporary employees after 1-1-1982. The workman submitted his application to the authority of the

Bank. The Bank did not consider his applications favorably without valid reasons. However the workman had continued

to work in temporary capacity under the hope that some day, he would work as permanent employee of the Bank. On

2-11-1988, circular was issued by Bank that temporary employee shall be considered for absorption in regular service

against the permanent vacancies. In list of absorption of temporary peons, his name was included at top but he was not

considered for permanent post.

2254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

That on 26-5-97, the meeting was held at Zonal office, Bhopal between Bank Employees Union and

management. After negotiation, the minutes were recorded. Despite of it, he was not regularized. In meeting between

Union and management dated 7-6-99, after negotiations, it was agreed that workmen who completed 240 days

continuous service, 12 months in a year were to be regularized. 2^nd party did not regularise his services even after

settlement with the Union. On 7-2-95, 2^nd party No.3 recommended his name. that he had worked in Bilaspur branch

from 1982 to 1993. His name was recommended for permanent appointment. On 18-5-01, 2^nd party No.3 forwarded

application to 2^nd party No.2 recommending workman for consideration on permanent post. Ist party workman

reiterates that he was not absorbed in permanent service. He was working in Bank with the hope that he would be

absorbed after some time. That on 18-8-01, his services were terminated orally without notice in violation of provisions

of ID Act. Despite of his representations, he was not taken in service. 2^nd party has illegally terminated his services. On

such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

4. 2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised by 2^nd party that

term of reference pertains to legality of termination of service where as workman has pleaded in his statement of claim

for regularization of his services is not tenable. The claim of workman for regularization is not tenable as dispute

pertains to legality of termination of his service. Workman was engaged on daily wages as per need. The services of

workman came to end at end of the day. Workman was not terminated from service by the management. It is denied that

workman was continuously working more than 240 days. Workman was not appointed following recruitment rules.

workman was not continuously working. Workman did not fulfill norms of requirement for permanent employee

therefore his name was not considered. The selection process was not challenged by workman. It received finality. 2^nd

party denies that it had not taken steps for regularizing workman. Said contention of workman is alleged to be contrary

to the contentions in Para-5 of statement of claim. 2^nd party denies that workman was found fit for permanent post. 2^nd

party denies that workman completed 240 days continuous working during 12 calendar months or 90 days in a year. 2^nd

party denies that claim of workman as permanent employee was arbitrarily denied by the Bank. Workman was engaged

on daily wages as and when required. Workman was never terminated. Notice of termination was not required to be

issued. Workman is not entitled to any relief. On such ground, 2^nd party prays reference be answered in its favour.

5. Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Punjab

& Sindh Bank, Bilaspur branch (CG) in terminating

the services of Shri Chandra Kant Soni, Ex-peon

w.e.f. 18-8-01 was legal and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of workman Shri Chandra Kant Soni. Workman alleges

termination of his service without notice is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. 2^nd party denies his contentions

submitting that the workman was appointed on daily wages as per exigencies. He was not working for more than 240

days. Engagement of workman on daily wages ended on same day. Workman was not terminated by 2^nd party. The

documents are produced. Exhibit W-1 appears payment scroll but name of the payee is not appearing in the entire

documents consisting of 52 pages. Exhibit W-2 is copy of entries of payment of General Charges. The name of workman

is appearing in some of the entries. Payments are made to workman as labour charges. In Exhibit W-3 payment of labour

charges to Ist party workman for the period 1-10-94 to 26-11-94 is shown. However Branch Manager was directed to

confirm that he had not engaged temporary peon. In Exhibit W-4, payment of salary , basic, DA etc. is shown of Ist

party Shri Chandra Kant Soni for the period Sept.90 to Dec-93. Exhibit W-5 is advertisement calling applications from

temporary employees working 90 days or more after 1-1-1982. Exhibit W-6 is copy of Bank circular dated 2-11-1988.

Clause III deals with absorption of temporary peons completing 240 days in a year. Exhibit W-7 is letter dated 18-5-05

recommending engagement of workman and posting of one gunman. As term of reference pertains to legality of

termination of workman, the point of regularization is not included in the terms of reference. Exhibit W-6 has no

relevance for deciding legality of termination of workman.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his claim that he was appointed as temporary peon from

1-8-82. He was working till 17-8-01. As per the advertisement, applications were called for absorption of peon on 22-2-

91. In Circular dated 2-11-88 issued by Bank, absorption of temporary peon in regular service was provided. As per

negotiations with Union dated 2-5-95, 7-6-99, he was not absorbed in service. His applications dated 18-5-01

recommended for absorption in sub staff was also not considered. He rendered continuous service more than 240 days

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2255

prior to his termination on 17-8-01. In his cross-examination, workman says he was not appointed against vacant post.

He was working after the Bank was opened. Document Exhibit W-1 doesnot bear signature of any officer of the Bank.

It is written on letter head of the Bank. Exhibit W-2, W-3 were prepared without permission of the Bank Officer.

Suggestion is denied that documents relating to his working are not produced. After his re-examination, document

Exhibit W-4 was proved. In his cross-examination, workman denies that the document was falsely prepared.

Management’s witness Shri Sanjay Dubey in his affidavit on evidence says that workman was not appointed

by the Bank as regular peon. He was daily wage employee engaged as and when required. No recruitment process was

followed. Workman did not work continuously for 240 days in any calendar year. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness says he had seen letter of Chief Manager, Bilaspur, Zonal Manager Bhopal before preparing

affidavit of his evidence. Documents regarding service of workman were not found. He was unable to tell how many

days workman had worked in a particular year. He claims ignorance whether workman was engaged as peon by Branch

Manager on 5-8-82. Letter sent by Branch Manager is denied. The list of employees shown to him was not prepared by

management. List prepared by management is not available. Management’s witness denied that junior employees in

the list were absorbed in service. He denied that workman was continuously working from 1982 till 8-8-01. He also

denied that workman had completed 240days continuous service during each of the year. Workman was not issued

termination notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation. In para-4 of his affidavit, he stated that workman not

worked more than 240 days in a year on the basis of appointment letter issued to workman.

10.

The pleadings and evidence of management’s witness is clear that workman was engaged temporarily on daily

wages. Workman has produced document Exhibit W-2 regarding payment of wages. Exhibit W-3 confirms payment of

said wages to workman. Exhibit W-4 shows payment of salary, basic, DA to workman during September 1990 to

December 1992. Management’s witness in his cross says any record about service of workman is not available.

In case between Director, Fisheries Terminal versus Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, their Lordship considered

ratio held in R.M.Yellatty versus Assistant Executive Engineer reported in 2006(1)SCC-106. The observations

are applying general principles land on reading the aforesaid judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly

taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given

year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman adducing cogent evidence both oral and documentary.

In cases of termination of services of daily waged earners, there will be no letter of appointment of termination

there will also be no receipt of proof of payment. Thus the workman can only call upon the employer to

produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination,

if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend

thereafter on the facts of each case.

Their Lordship further observed the Court of law in a case where provisions of the Indian Evidence Act apply,

may presume or may not presume that if a party despite possession of the best evidence had not produced the

same, it would have gone against this contentions. The matter, however would be different where despite

direction by a court the evidence is withheld.

Evidence of workman is corroborated by documents Exhibit W-4. Workman was recommended as per

documents Exhibit W-5, W-6. Those documents shows workman was in employment of 2^nd party. 2^nd party has not

produced documents. Management’s witness says any documents about his working are not available, ten how

contentions of management that workman had not worked for 240 days in any of the calendar year is not supported by

cogent evidence. Partially the evidence of workman is corroborated by document, his services are terminated without

notice, workman was not paid retrenchment compensation, termination of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

11.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 that termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section

25-F of ID Act, question remains for decision whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Evidence

of workman is clear that he was appointed on temporary basis. He was paid daily wages. He was not absorbed as per

advertisement dated 20-2-91. Evidence of workman is clear that he was not appointed following recruitment process

against the vacant post.

12.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Pranay Choubey relies on ratio held in

Case of Mackinnon Machenzie and company Ltd versus Mackinnon Employees Union reported in

2015(2)SCC(L&S) 66. Their Lordship considered retrenchment notice served on 27-7-92, services of workman

stood retrenched from close of business hours on 4-8-92, no cogent evidence produced by appellant company

to prove that one months salary in lieu of notice was paid to the workmen. The action of the company was in

clear breach of conditions precedent for retrenchment of workmen rendering retrenchment illegal/invalid.

2256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The facts of present case are not comparable as workman was not served with any retrenchment notice.

Ratio held in case of Durgapur casual workers Union and others versus Food Corporation of India and others

in Civil Appeal No. 10856/2014 also relied. In Para 21 of the judgment, it is noticed that ID Act is made for

settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour

practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for a long period

without giving them the status and privileges of permanent employees.

Learned counsel pursued his argument that engaging Ist party workman for long period is unfair labour practice

and prayed for reinstatement. The terms of reference are restricted to termination of workman. Statement of claim is

silent about the alleged unfair labour practice therefore ratio held in case cannot be applied to case at hand.

13.

Shri Pranay Choubey further relied on ratio held in case of

Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi versus Hindalco Industries Ltd reported in 2014(11) SCC-85. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 6-N of UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and considering workman rendered continuous

service for 6 years during which employer followed the process of annually terminating him from service and

reappointing him again in the same post. It was held that Section 25 B of ID Act, Section 6 N of UP ID Act are

paramateria. That proof of having been in gainful employment post termination of service. Burden of, is on the

employer.

14. Workman claimed that he is not in gainful employment. The evidence of management’s witness is silent. As

workman was engaged on daily wages, he was not appointed following recruitment process, reinstatement of workman

would not be appropriate. Considering the long period of working on daily wages, compensation Rs. 2 Lakhs would be

appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in point No.2.

15. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Punjab &Sindh Bank, Bilaspur branch (CG) in terminating the services of

Shri Chandra Kant Soni, Ex-peon w.e.f. 18-8-01 is not proper and legal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 2 Lakhs to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1014-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad

vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 109@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@29@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1014.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 109/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/29/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/109/2011

Shri Avinash Thool,

S/o Shri Janardhan Thool,

Ambedkar Nagar,

Tikarapara,

Raipur (CG)

… Workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2257

Versus

Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Sadar Bazar,

Raipur(CG)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15^th day of February, 2016

As per letter dated 8-11-2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12012/29/2011-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the retrenchment/ termination of service of Mr. Avinash Thool, Ex-Peon by the management of

Central Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CG) without observing the provision of Section 25-F of the ID Act

is justified and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed to file statement of claim.

Workman was proceeded exparte on 12-5-2015.

2^nd party management filed ex parte Written Statement. Case of 2^nd party management is that Ist party was

never appointed by the Bank, he was not given appointment letter. Employer employee relationship is denied by

management. The Ist party worked as casual labour on temporary need basis, he was paid whenever he was engaged to

do labour work. 2^nd party submits that the applicant never worked more than 240 days in a calendar year, as such he is

not entitled to any benefit under section 25(F) of ID Act.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the retrenchment/ termination of service

of Mr. Avinash Thool, Ex-Peon by the management

of Central Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CG)

without observing the provision of Section 25-F of

the ID Act is justified and legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

As stated above, workman has failed to participate in reference proceeding. No statement of claim is filed by

workman. In ex parte Written Statement filed by 2^nd party, employer employee relationship is denied. It is contented

that workman not completed 240 days continuous service. He was engaged on casual basis.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Ms. Kakoli Das covering contentions of management in Written

Statement. As workman failed to participate in reference and cross-examine management’s witness, I donot find reason

to discard evidence of management’s witness. Workman has failed to substantiate his contentions about illegal

termination of his services therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The retrenchment/ termination of service of Mr. Avinash Thool, Ex-Peon by the management of

Central Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CG) by management is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1015-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

uS'kuy cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 176@00) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@78@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

2258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1015.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 176/00) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/78/2000-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/176/00

Shri Charanlal Marve,

H.No.40, Behind Jyoti Cinema,

Jabalpur

…Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Napier Town,

In front of Homescience college,

Wright Town, Shastri Bridge,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10^th day of March 2016

As per letter dated 11-9-2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-12012/78/2000/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jabalpur (MP) in

dismissing the services of Shri Charan Lal Marve S/o Late Shri Moolchand Marve an employee of Ghamapur

branch w.e.f. 17-10-97 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

appointed as sweeper in 1982. He was honestly working. Chargesheet was issued to him on 4-1-96 for baseless

allegations. Workman denied allegation in said chargesheet. Management was not satisfied with reply. Enquiry was

conducted against him without giving opportunity of defence. As per order dated 20-7-96, one increment of workman

was withheld.

Ist party workman fur4ther submits that Manohar cooked a false story that workman used indecent abusive

language in the Bank. Workman was suspended on 20-6-96. Chargesheet was issued to him on 7-8-96. Workman denied

allegations against him enquiry was initiated against him. Workman participated in Enquiry Proceedings Enquiry

Officer submitted his report on 9-2-97 holding that charges alleged against workman were proved. After receiving

report of Enquiry Officer, workman submitted representation dated 17-2-97. Workman was dismissed as per order dated

16-5-97. Workman reiterates that the chargesheet dated 7-8-96 is vague and ambiguous. The documents were not

produced in the enquiry. Material witnesses were not produced before Enquiry Officer. Workman was not given

opportunity to adduce evidence. Enquiry was not conducted following proper procedure. Enquiry Officer acted as

prosecutor rather than Judge. Enquiry officer ignored defence of workman while submitting his report. The findings of

Enquiry Officer are not based on material record and as such are perverse. That punishment imposed against workman is

severe. The defence of workman was ignored by Disciplinary Authority. The punishment is extremely harsh and

disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The appeal preferred by workman was rejected without applying mind. The

action of the management is arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable. On such ground, workman prays for setting aside order

dated 16-5-96, 5-11-97.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/4 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that Ist party

workman was employed as sweeper at Ghamapur branch. He was remaining absent on pretext of illness. Showcause

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2259

notice was served to him on 11-2-99. Chargesheet was issued on 14-4-93, 16-10-93. Various letters were issued to

workman. As workman failed to comply with the directions, chargesheete was issued to him on 4-1-96. Workman failed

to submit reply to chargesheet. DE was conducted as per order dated 4-3-96. Shri Vijay Kumar Branch Manager was

appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri P.K.Jain Assistant Manager was appointed as Presenting Officer. Enquiry was

conducted. During enquiry, workman admitted charges against him. Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding

charges against workman proved. The Disciplinary Authority granted opportunity of personal hearing to workman,

punishment of stoppage of one increment was imposed against workman on 20-7-06.

2^nd party further submits on 20-7-96, workman used abusive and indecent language and threatened to the

officers of the Bank chargesheet was issued to workman on 7-8-96. Reply given by workman was not found

satisfactorily. Shri L.J.Dhanwani was Enquiry Officer, Shri N.P.Bhutani was Presenting Officer. Enquiry was conducted

on various dates details shown in Para 12. Enquiry Officer submitted his report. That charges against workman are

proved. Considering the report of Enquiry Officer, after giving personal hearing to the workman and issuing showcause

notice, the punishment of dismissal was imposed on 17-6-97. 2^nd party reiterates that workman was given proper

opportunity for his defence. It is denied that workman was not supplied documents on his request. Workman was given

personal hearing. It is denied that Manohar cooked false story. Workman did not submit reply to the chargesheet. It is

denied that defence of workman was ignored. It is denied that punishment of dismissal was imposed without considering

the facts mentioned in the representation. It is denied that appellate authority rejected the appeal without applying mind.

2^nd party prays that reference be answered in its favour.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal. Workman has not adduced evidence on

other issues. Management also did not adduce evidence on other issues. Evidence of both parties was closed on

28-1-2015. The record of enquiry is produced. During course of argument, learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi

pointed out my attention to the statements of management’s witnesses recorded before Enquiry Officer at Page 10/31,

10/33, MW-2 at Page 10/34, MW-3 at Page 10/50, MW-4 at Page 10/56, MW-6 at Page 10/67. Workman not adduced

evidence of any defence witnesses. The statement of workman was recorded at Page 10/80 onwards. I have carefully

gone through the statements of the witnesses of management. At Page 10/33, workman has abused using indecent

language and also threatened officers in the Bank. The evidence of witness No.2,3& 5 corroborates the evidence of MW-

1 about indecent abuses given by workman to the officers and threatening. The scope of judicial review is limited. The

re-appreciation of evidence in Enquiry Proceedings is not permissible. The findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by

evidence of management’s witnesses. The evidence of management’s witnesses is sufficient to prove the misconduct/

charges alleged against workman. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- the charges/ misconduct alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings. The misconduct alleged against workman is in abusing in indecent language to the officers of the Bank and

using threatening language. The proved misconduct is of serious nature. Therefore punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman appears proper. No interference is called in the order of punishment.

Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in

Case between Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd versus N.B.Naravade reported in 2005-I-LLJ-1129. Their Lordship

dealing with power under Section 11-A of ID Act. The discretion of Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal to

interfere with punishment not unlimited. Sympathy along not enough to reduce punishment. On facts use of

abusive, filthy language against superior officer held did not call for lesser punishment than dismissal.

2260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Case between New Shorrock Mills versus Maheshbhai T.Rao reported in 1997-I-LLJ-1212. Ratio held in the

case pertains to the respondent workman was discharged from service as badli worker. He was given 30 days

salary in lieu of notice.

The facts of the New Shorrock Mills case are not comparable. Ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case

at hand. From above discussions, it is clear that the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman for using

indecent abusive language, threatening Bank officers , the punishment of dismissal is appropriate. No interference is

called in the order of dismissal. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of the Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jabalpur (MP) in

dismissing the services of Shri Charan Lal Marve S/o Late Shri Moolchand Marve is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

The registers of enquiry produced by management be returned back after notification of award.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk-1016-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 324@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@213@99&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1016.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 324/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/213/99-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/324/99

The Secretary,

Rashtriyakrit Bank Karmachari Sangathan,

9, Sanver Road, Hardev Niwas,

Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Manager,

Bank of India,

B.T.College Road,

Anand Nagar, Khandwa (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16^th day of February 2016

As per letter dated 3-11-99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-12012/213/99-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2261

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar

Inchurkar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

through General Secretary Bank Employees Union Ujjain at Page 4/1 to 4/6. The case of Ist party is that he was

appointed as permanent peon on 18-6-86 under reserve category for SC ST. On 5-5-93, one person from shop of Shri

Basant lal Shah came to the branch and handed over Bank pass book and withdrawal form for Rs.8000/- to him.

Workman had submitted pass book and withdrawal form to ledger keeper as customer service. The ledger keeper had

obtained his signature and issued token No.14. the entry of the amount was taken in SBI Account No. 11284 of Mr. Shah

in pass book and token book and sent to the passing officer. On the same day, passing officer Shri T.R.Katare sanctioned

withdrawal of Rs.8000/- and sent to cashier for payment. The cashier obtained signature of workman and paid amount

of Rs. 8000/- to him in notes of different denominations. On 23-9-93, workman was suspended without any enquiry.

Chargesheet was issued to him after 5 months without calling any explanation from him. The statement of passing

officer Shri T.R.Katare. Basant lal Shah were recorded in Enquiry Proceedings. Workman alleged that the charges were

false. He was dismissed from service. The appeal preferred by him was rejected. Workman also contended that enquiry

was not properly conducted. Mr. Dangle was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 28-2-94 without calling explanation from

him. Enquiry was initiated. That management’s witness Shri Nayar in his statement said that he has not received report

in writing. Shri Katre Passing Officer in his statement claimed ignorance why incident was reported after 4-5 months of

the alleged incident. The findings submitted by Enquiry Officer are perverse. The order of dismissal of his service is

illegal. His appeal was not decided within 2 months as per standing orders. The Bank got documents examined through

handwriting expert Shri Sarvatte. That the job of examining finger print expert is on the police. It is reiterated that the

enquiry is not properly conducted. Principles of natural justice were violated. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 3/1 to 3/4 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that

workman was appointed as Sepoy/ Hammal on 1607084. On 10-2-92, he was transferred to Badwah branch. The service

record of workman was not clean. That as per findings of Enquiry Officer, workman had fraudulently withdrawn

Rs.8000/- from Account No. 11284 of Shri Basant Shah forging his signature for withdrawal. Workman had presented 4

withdrawal slip and obtained Token No.14 signing on the reverse side of withdrawal slip. He received amount of

Rs.8000/- of notes of different denomination. Considering serious misconduct committed by workman, he was

suspended on 23-9-93. The delay in chargesheet was due to administrative reasons. 2^nd party denies that workman was

not given opportunity for filing reply to the chargesheet. Workman had submitted explanation in writing on 20-2-94.

Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officers were appointed, list of witnesses was produced. Enquiry was conducted as per

rules. Workman was given reasonable opportunity for his defence. The Defence Representative Shri K.K.Bajpai was

allowed. Management’s witness were cross-examined. Principles of natural justice were followed. The charges alleged

against workman were proved as per the report submitted by Enquiry Officer. It is reiterated that on 5-3-93, workman

was in necessity of funds. He forged signature of shri Shah and withdrawn amount of Rs.8000/- from his Saving

Account. Thinking that workman had familiar relation with Mr. Shah and he may not hve objection considering the

charges proved against workman as per findings of Enquiry Officer, punishment of dismissal was imposed. Considering

the evidence, appeal preferred by workman is rejected. Action of management is proper. It is for the Bank to decide

whether matter be reported to police or not. That the Bank is public financial institution and custodian of public wards.

There is no financial loss as amount has been recovered from workman. There is great loss in trust and faith therefore

Bank cannot continue the employment of workman of doubtful integrity.

Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 12/1 to 12/4 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim that charges

alleged against him are imaginary and false. Enquiry conducted against him is in violation of principles of natural

justice. Order of his dismissal is illegal.

As per order dated 27-2-2013, enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal. Considering

pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are

recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the charges alleged against workman is

proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

2262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

Point No.1- As per order dated 27-2-2013, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal. Whether the

charges alleged against workman are proved needs to be decided from the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Ist party

workman has produced documents Exhibit W-1 to W-8. Chargesheet issued to workman is produced at Exhibit W-6.

Charge no.1 alleged against workman pertains to fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.8000/- from Saving Bank Account 11284

of Shri Basant Shah on 5-5-94 forging his signature. Charge no.2 pertains to misuse of consumer loan of Rs.12050 not

purchasing the goods for which the consumer loan was sanctioned. The workman returned amount of Rs. 8000/- to Shri

Basant Shah from the consumer loan. Exhibit W-8 is enquiry report holding that the charges alleged against workman

are proved. The order of penalty is produced at Exhibit W-10. Order passed by Appellate Authority is produced at

Exhibit W-12 rejecting the appeal. Management has produced documents Exhibit M-1 to M-14.

Statement of management’s witness Shri Nayar is recorded at Page 19/23to 19/24. His evidence is devoted on

the point that amount of Rs.8000/- was withdrawn from Saving Bank Account 11284 on 5-5-93 by withdrawal slip. The

withdrawal was sanctioned by Shri T.R.Katre. Token no.14 was issued to workman. He had signed on reverse side of

withdrawal slip. Amount was paid to workman Shri Santosh. The specimen signature of Account Holder Basant lal

were attested by Special Assistant Mr. katare on 26-2-92. Account Holder was introduced by workman Santosh Kumar.

The payment entries were taken in the ledger and pass book. In his cross-examination, witness claims ignorance whether

amount of Rs.8000/- was paid to Shri Basant Lal. That complaint in writing was not received about withdrawal of said

amount. He claims ignorance whether Shri Basant Lal asked for payment of said amount. MW-2 Hemlata in her

statement before Enquiry Officer confirmed her statement recorded on 1-9-93 by Investigating Officer Mr. Hastak. The

withdrawal slip P-3 from Account No. 11284 submitted by workman Shri Santosh Kumar. She had taken entry in P-6

ledger and P-5 list of payment. Her statement was marked as P-2. In her cross-examination, witness Hemlata says after

she was asked to give statement, she had given her statement. Workman Shri Santosh had given withdrawal slip P-3 to

her. In cross-examination of both the witnesses, their evidence is not shattered that workman had submitted withdrawal

slip and payment was sanctioned by Shri Katare Passing Officer. The amount of Rs.8000/- was paid to workman.

MW-3 Shri Basant Lal Account Holder did not support management. When he was asked about his signature

on withdrawal slip dated 5-3-83, he avoided to reply specifically even he avoided to tell whether he received amount.

Witness of management said he has nothing to say that he has no complaint, he had received amount. He admitted his

signature on his statement marked P-11. The evidence of management’s witness Shri P.R.Katare is on point that he

confirmed his statement P-12. In his cross-examination, witness says that statement P-12 was not written by him, it was

written by Investigating Officer Shri Hastak. The statement was mostly recorded as per his say. That Shri Basant Lal had

come to him is not recorded in his statement. When signature used to be tallied some variation used to be noticed.

Statement of management’s witness No.6 is devoted on the point that he was working as Officer in the Bank on 29-7-

94. Workman was sanctioned consumer loan of Rs.12050. He had not purchased the articles for which loan was

adbvanced. That the witness was not cross-examined. His evidence was not challenged. MW-7 Shri Satish in his

evidence confirmed his statement recorded by Investigating Officer Mr. Hastak.

Document Exhibit M-1 is withdrawal slip. The signatures appearing on it are different of specimen signature at

P-4. In his statement workman has admitted that one person had come to him alongwith pass book and withdrawal slip.

He withdrawn the amount and paid said amount to Shri Basant Lal Shah. The statement of workman was recorded

before Enquiry Officer. Workman claimed that he was innocent. He had to pay amount of withdrawal to Shri Basant Lal

Shah but he had gone to Akola therefore amount could not be paid. The amount was paid to him after his meeting. His

wife was not keeping well.

10.

The scope of judicial review is limited. The evidence cannot be re-appreciated. The evidence in Enquiry

Proceeding is sufficient to establish Charge No.1 fradulent withdrawal of amount. Therefore I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Affirmative.

11.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 charges against workman are proved pertains to fraudulent

withdrawal of Rs.8000 of Shri Basant Lal and misuse of the loan Rs, 12050 . Amount of Rs. 8000 was paid to Shri

Basant Lal by workman. The evidence on record shows that workman had paid Rs.8000/- to Shri Basant Lal Shah

subsequently. The Bank has not suffered loss. The question is whether punishment of dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal.

12.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party management Shri A.K.Shashi on the point relies on ratio held in-

Case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. Versus A.L.Mohan Rao reported in 2006(1)SCC-63. Their Lordship dealing

with respondent charged with gross misconduct of colluding with a Branch Manager. The respondent admitting

that he did all acts necessary for said loan, knowing that he had no authority to do any of the acts and being

dismissed on being found guilty. Their Lordship held gross misconduct of this nature does merit dismissal. It

cannot be seen what other type of misconduct would merit dismissal. It cannot be seen what other type of

misconduct would merit dismissal. It is not for courts to interfere in cases of gross misconduct of this nature

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2263

with decision of disciplinary authority on any mistaken notion of sympathy, so long as inquiry has been fair and

proper and misconduct proved. In such matters it is for disciplinary authority to decide what is the fit

punishment.

In present case, enquiry against workman is found proper and legal. As per my finding in Point No.1, evidence

is clenching that workman had fraudulently withdrawn amount of Rs.8000/- from Saving account of Shri Basant Lal

Shah, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon workman cannot be said excessive or improper. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

13. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar

Inchurkar is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1017-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 16@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@102@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1017.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/102/2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/16/2010

Shri Shiv Shankar Gupta,

S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Gupta,

Vill- Patraha, PO Dhera,

Distt. Rewa (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Branch Manager,

Allahabad Bank,

Branch/PO Dhera,

Distt. Rewa (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11^th day of February 2016

As per letter dated 29-1-2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12012/102/2009-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in terminating the services of Shri Shiv Shankar

Gupta is legal and justified? To what relief the claimant is entitled for and from which date?”

2264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim on

18-11-2000. Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially appointed as computer operator in Dhera branch of the

Bank on 16-9-06 against vacant permanent post. His appointment was made by Manager K.K.Singh after interview as

per the policy norms. Thereafter the workman worked as computer operator with sincerity. The service record was

unblemished. Workman was continuously working from 16-9-06 to 20-10-08. The workman further submits that he was

paid salary Rs.2080 @ Rs.80 per day. His salary was increased to Rs.2340/- @ 90 Rs. per day in June 2007. From

September 2007, his salary was increased to Rs. 2600 @ Rs.100 per day for 26 working days. Workman reiterates that

he completed more than 240 days continuous service. He was entitled for regularization. His services were orally

dispensed from 20-10-08 without assigning any reasons. He was not served with notice. Termination of his service

without following legal procedure is discriminatory violating principles of natural justice. Workman submits that

termination of his service amounts to unfair labour practice and victimization. That his services are terminated in

violation of section 25-F of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2^nd party filed Written Statement on 7-12-12 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that workman was

never employed in Dhera branch as computer operator by Competent Authority of the Bank. That Shri K.K.Singh was

not competent to engage workman. There is no arbitrary policy of recruitment in the Bank. The Bank has definite policy

for recruitment identifying vacancies inviting applications. That recruitment is made after written exam and interview as

per the guidelines. Reservation policy is followed. The certificate issued by Shri K.K.Singh is of no consequence.

It is denied that workman was in continuous service from 16-9-06 to 20-10-08. It is denied that workman

completed 240 days continuous service. It is denied that Ist party is covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act.

workman was never appointed by Bank. There was no question of his retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act. Ist party has no right to claim employment. The allegation of unfair labour practice or colourable exercise of power,

victimization has been denied. 2^nd party prays award be passed in its favour.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of

Allahabad Bank in terminating the services of Shri

Shiv Shankar Gupta is legal and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

Ist party is challenged termination of his service for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. The allegations are

denied by management of 2^nd party.

Workman filed affidavit supporting his claim that he was continuously working as computer operator from

16-9-06 till 20-10-08. In his further cross-examination, workman says that he had gone to the Bank, advertisement was

displayed on notice board, then he submitted application for computer operator in 2006. His application is in Bank. He

submitted statement of salary received by him and certificate issued by Branch Manager. In his cross-examination, Ist

party workman says prior to 2006, he had account in Bank therefore he was frequently visiting Bank. The post of

computer operator was advertised, 3 persons were interviewed with him, he could not tell their names. Shri K.K.Singh,

Gautam and B.G.Gourkhede were officers of the Bank who interviewed him. that he had not written name of Mr.

Gourkhede in his affidavit. In his further cross examination, workman says he passed MA. He was not given

appointment letter despite of his request. Certificate was issued by Manager referred to witness and therefore marked

Exhibit W-1. That Regional office of Bank is at Satna. 4 employees were working at that time. that he was paid wages

Rs.80 per day. Other employees were not paid daily wages. Distance between zonal office at Satna and his office is

about 30 kms. Zonal office was supervising work of his office. He did not complained to zonal office. That he was

appointed after interview and regular salary and appointment letter was not given to him. His services were orally

terminated. He was paid wages under voucher and amount used to be transferred to his Bank account. His brother and

mother were helping him while he was not in service. He was not doing any other work.

Evidence of Ist party is corroborated by evidence of Shri Vishnu Patel. Witness No.2 Shri Patel in his affidavit

of evidence says that he had taken tractor loan of Rs..4,15,000 from Allahabad Bank. The pass book for loan account

No. 4151 was received by him. That he was acquainted with Ist party workman from 29-11-07. He was working as

computer operator. His further evidence is devoted that he was going to the Bank for depositing loan in instalments. He

had seen workman working in the Bank. The entries of the instalments deposited by him were taken in pass book signed

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2265

by workman. In his cross-examination, witness No.2 says he taken loan from Allahabad Bank. He was visiting Bank

therefore he was acquainted with workman. He denies that workman was his friend and therefore he was falsely

deposing to support his claim. Witness No.2 denies that the signature on book of loan account could be obtained at any

time. after re-examination of the witness, copy of pass book and zerox copy of Saving Account are proved at Exhibit W-

2 & W-3. In his cross, witness denied that signature in loan pass book could be obtained at any time. the evidence of

witness No.2 is not shattered in his cross. There is no evidence about friendship between Ist party workman and witness

No.2.

Management’s witness Pradyumna Kumar Patnaik filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of

workman that workman was never appointed as computer operator in the Bank. He was not working in Bank during

16-9-06 to 20-10-08. He also denied payment of wages to workman. There is no post of computer/ data feeder in the

Bank. Workman was not appointed following recruitment rules. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says

there is no post of Data Operator in the Bank. He denies that Bank Manager Shri K.K.Singh had engaged workman for

the work. Workman was not paid salary by cheque. Witness of management admitted statement of account Exhibit W-4.

Notice of termination was not issued to workman. he was not paid retrenchment compensation.

10.

Documents produced at exhibit W-1 workman was working as computer data feeder in the branch during the

period 16-9-06 to 11-10-07. Said certificate is issued for Mr.K.K.Singh Gautam, Branch Manager. Management has not

examined Shri K.K.singh in rebuttal of the evidence adduced by management. In Exhibit W-4 payment of salary shown

in Account of workman on 2-6-07, 2-8-07, 1-9-07, 3-10-07, 2-11-07, 30-11-07, 1-1-08 & 4-2-08 are entries of amount

credited by transfer on account of workman. The documents Exhibit W-2, W-3 proved by witness No.2 shows that said

witness was having loan account in the Bank and be deposited amount as per Exhibit W-2 were initialed after taking

entries. Ist party had submitted application for production of documents on 4-7-2013. The documents produced on

record and evidence of Witness No.2 corroborates evidence of workman that he was continuously working from 16-9-06

to 20-10-08. He completed more than 240 days continuous service. His services are terminated without notice. Workman

was not paid retrenchment compensation therefore termination of service of workman is illegal for violation of Section

25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

11.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of service of workman is illegal for violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act, question arises whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages.

12.

Evidence of Ist party workman shows that post of computer operator was advertised, he was interviewed by

Branch Manager Shri K.K.Singh Gautam. Workman has not produced any documents about the post was advertised,

interview call received by him. His evidence that he was appointed after oral interview shows that recruitment rules were

not followed. Any written test was not conducted. Workman has not produced document about his educational

qualifications. The evidence in cross-examination of workman shows appointment letter was not issued to him, he was

not paid required salary. As per the evidence workman was not appointed following recruitment policy. Considering

short period of his working, his claim for reinstatement cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Rakesh

Kumar Kesharwani relies on ratio held in case of Tapash Kumar Paul versus BSNL and others. The citation submitted

by learned counsel is incomplete, only one page is produced. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, in my

considered view, compensation Rs. 50,000/- would be appropriate.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Allahabad Bank in terminating the services of Shri Shiv Shankar

Gupta is legal and proper.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.50,000/- to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

2266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 1018

1018

1018- —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU/kzk

caSd ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 89@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

17@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@76@2012&vkbZvkj (ch-II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1018.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No.1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Andhra Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2016.

[No. - L-12012/76/2012- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 89 of 2012, Reference No. L-12012/76/2012/IR(B.II) dated 29.01.2013.

Sh. Ashok Kumar Chokkar S/o Sh. B.R.Singh, R/o H.No. D-67, Chanakaya Place, Pankh Road, (Opp. C-I, Janakpuri)

New Delhi.

…Workman

Versus

The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Amritsar Branch, Hall Bazar Amritsar – 143001. Amritsar (Punjab)

…Respondent

Appearances

For the Workman : Shri U.K. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Management : None. Already exparte.

Award Passed on:-12.02.2016

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-12012/76/2012/IR(B.II) dated 29.01.2013 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Andhra Bank, in Compulsorily Retiring of Sh. Ashok Kumar w.e.f.

29-05-2008 is just and legal? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”

2. The workman in claim statement submitted that he was appointed as clerk in 1977 and later on promoted and posted at

Amritsar Branch in Hall Bazar as assistant management without any change in the nature of duties. His work and

conduct was satisfactory. It is pleaded by the workman that he was suspended on 4.12.2006 and on 15.3.2007 a charge

sheet was served to him without calling his explanation. The workman denied the charges/allegations and the

management appointed a subordinate official Shri N.Satyanarayana as enquiry officer who toed the line given by the

management and conducted the enquiry in a partial and biased manner. The objections raised by the workman were not

recorded by the enquiry officer and he was not given fair and proper opportunity to record his defence statement to lead

his evidence and he was not allowed to bring witnesses in support of his case. Original documents were not supplied and

fake complaint was supplied to the workman. The complainant was not produced in the enquiry. It is pleaded that entire

enquiry was an eyewash and empty formality before punishing him and such an inquiry is liable to be vitiated being

violative of principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer proved the charges in a wrongful manner. The disciplinary

authority concurred with the defective findings of the enquiry officer which led to wrong and disproportionate

punishment of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 29.5.2008 when the workman still had more than five years of

service without consideration for the previous clean record of the workman. The Appellate Authority without applying

its mind rejected the appeal of the applicant. The management also held enquiry at the head quarter at Hyderabad which

was a deliberate act on the part of management as the workman face difficulty of language. No police report has been

lodged against the workman by the management as the complaint was false. The order of punishment was passed by

subordinate authority in rank than the appointing authority which is against the law. No show cause notice was given to

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2267

the workman. The enquiry conducted was an eye wash and perverse in nature. The whole case was cooked up by the

manager to shunt out the workman to hide his misdeeds. The management purely failed to prove the allegation

contained in the charge sheet. Review petition was also dismissed without applying its mind. The workman prayed that

charge sheet, enquiry proceedings and punishment order may be quashed and direct the management to reinstate the

workman.

3. Management filed written statement in the form of the affidavit of Sh. Binod Kumar Pattanaik working as Chief

Manager (P&D) Andhra Bank, Zonal Officer, Chandigarh. Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that

penalty of compulsorily retirement was imposed upon the applicant on the misconduct which he committed while

working as officer and he does not fall under the definition of workman as defined U/S 2 (s) of the I.D.Act 1947. It is

further pleaded that disciplinary action has been taken against the applicant for misappropriating the cash remitted by the

customer to the credit of his loan account and penalty was imposed after fair and proper inquiry. The applicant already

received his terminal benefits, therefore, the applicant is estopped from raising any dispute . On merits it is pleaded that

applicant accepted a cash receipt of Rs.2000/- from one Sharan Singh but applicant did not account for the money

received in the books of the bank despite issue of counter file duly initialed and stamped. The customer lodged a

complaint with the bank on 3-10-2006. The matter was investigated and the workman was served with the charge sheet.

The contents of charge sheet dated 15-03-2007 are as under:

“It is alleged against you that while working as Asst. Manager at Amritsar Branch, you have committed certain

serious irregularities. The irregularities that have come to light so far and detailed in the Statement of

Allegations (Annexure-I) would indicate that:

On 30-11-2005, you have accepted cash receipt of Rs. 2000/- deposited by Sri Sharan Singh for the credit of his

Clean Loan account No. 2004/6. You have not accounted for the amount in the books of the bank by not

entering the transaction in the system. The resultant excess cash was also not reported, recorded in the books of

the bank, as evidenced by:

1.1 Issuing a counter-foil in token of receipt of the amount duly initialled and noted the amount in figures,

1.2 Affixing a cash received rubber stamp with date thereon and thus misappropriated the amount.

The above acts committed by you indicate that you have failed to discharge your duty with diligence,

devotion and honesty and failed to protect the interests of the Bank. Thus you have committed breach of

Regulation 3(1) of Andhra Bank Officer Employee’s (Conduct) Regulations, which constitute misconduct

as per Regulation 24 of the said Regulations.

You are hereby advised to submit to the under signed, your written statement of Defence, if any, within

fifteen days from the date of receipt of this letter of Articles of Charge, failing which it will be construed

that you have no defence to offer and further action will be taken accordingly.

You may, if you so desire, peruse the relative records/ documents at the branch to submit your reply within

the said period”.

4. It is further pleaded by the management that regular departmental enquiry was ordered and Mr. N.Satyanarayana a

Senior Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Mr. K. Janardhan Rao was appointed as Presenting Officer.

Mr. V.Anil Kumar, General Secretary of the Andhra Bank Officers Union defended the applicant during enquiry in

which the applicant and his defence representative participated in the enquiry proceedings and cross examined the

witness of the management. The enquiry officer held the charge against the applicant proved after thorough analysis of

the evidence which was recorded during enquiry. The copy of enquiry report was supplied to the applicant for his

submissions and applicant preferred his submission on 28-02-2008. The disciplinary authority after careful

consideration imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on applicant vide order dated 29-5-2008. The Appellate

Authority after due consideration confirmed the above penalty vide order dated 31-10-2008. The review preferred by the

applicant was also rejected. It is further pleaded that allegation of the applicant that even after his promotion as officer

he was discharging the very same duties as was discharging while in clerical cadre is factually incorrect and the same is

invented only for the purpose of raising this Industrial Dispute even though he was officer and the disciplinary action

taken against him was for his misconduct committed as an officer. The cash duties discharged by the applicant were in

addition to the other duties discharged by him as an officer. The management denied the allegation of the applicant

that being an acting member of the union he was eyesore of the management. The management also denied that

disciplinary action has been taken against the applicant on false and fabricated allegations. It is pleaded that principle of

natural justice have been adhere to during enquiry. The punishment was imposed upon the applicant after due

consideration. It is also submitted that the applicant having accepted the penalty imposed on him after having received

all the terminal benefits without any protest and drawing pension till date is estopped from raising any dispute. It is

prayed that the claim of the applicant is devoid of merit and deserves rejection.

5. After filing of the written statement the management abstained from the proceedings, thus proceeded exparte.

2268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6. The applicant filed replication to the written statement reiterating the claim made in the claim statement.

7. The applicant filed affidavit and also the application for summoning documents. The applicant himself also placed

documents on record. The documents containing letter of suspension of the applicant, charge sheet along with list of

documents, reply to the charge sheet, enquiry proceedings held against the applicant, documents exhibited by the

management MEX-1 to 19 and defence documents DEX -1 to 26 .

8. Exparte arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant heard and gone through the pleadings, affidavits and

documents produced on record.

9. The preliminary objection has been raised in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the management is that the

applicant was working as an officer in the bank and the applicant does not fall under the definition of the workman as

defined under section 2(s) of the I.D.Act 1947, so the applicant can not raise any Industrial Dispute before this Tribunal.

In this context the applicant in his claim statement stated that his last drawn salary was Rs.23000/- per month when he

was compulsory retired from service w.e.f. 29^th May, 2008. Applicant further submitted in his rejoinder that his primary

duties were of a skilled workman and that was the dominant purpose of his employment. Applicant in his rejoinder also

mentioned certain case laws in which it has been held that designation of an employee is not material but what is

important is the nature of duties. Since the nature of cash duties of the applicant was a cashier and cashier is a workman

according to the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Naresh Singh Prihar Vs. U.P.State Sugar

Corporation Ltd. and another 1993 LLR 644, mere high sounding designation of Assistant Manager but performing the

duties of a cashier, or salary ceiling of Rs. 1600/- per month will not convert the employment into a supervisory or

managerial nature.

10. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 provides as under:

(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,

skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be

express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged on retrenched in connection with, or as consequence

of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such

person –

(i) ...............

(ii)..............

(iii)..............

(jv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draw wages exceeding one thousand and six hundred Rupees

per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in

him, functions mainly of a managerial nature”. By the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010, words” one

thousand six hundred rupees”, substituted as “ ten thousand rupees”.

11. The applicant cited and relied upon the following case laws in his replication which are as under:

(1) Rao AGR Vs. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd. 1985 S 1 SCR, 1985 2 LLJ 401

(2) Anand Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. Vs its workmen (1970) 3 SCC 248: (1969),II LLJ 670

(3) May & Baker India Ltd. Vs. their workmen (1961) II LLJ 94 : AIR 1961 SC 678.

(4) Western India Match Co. Ltd. Bareilly Vs. their workmen (1963) II LLJ 459

(5) Management of M/s Roneo Vickers India Ltd. Vs. Lieut. Governor of Delhi & Ors 1994 LLR 253 (Delhi HC)

(6) Christian Medical college & Hospital, Vellore Vs. (1) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore (2) L.Chinnapan

2003 LLR 595 (Mad.HC) wherein it was held that an employee though designated as Accounts Officer, but in

fact doing the job of an Assistant Account will be “ workman” under S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947.

12. In Civil Appeal nos. 5=6543-6544 of 2004 decided on 25.5.2007, Mr. C.Gupta Versus Glaxosmithklin

Pharmaceutical Limited held that the nomenclature is really not of any consequence- whether a particular employee

comes within the definition of workman has to be decided factually. In CA No.1581 of 1994 decided on 8.3.1994

S.K.Maini Versus M/S Carona Sahu Company Limited and others, the Hon’ble supreme court held that designation of

employee is not of much importance- status be determined with reference to main duties performed by the employee. It

is not possible to lay down straight jacket formula which can decide the dispute as to the real nature of duty and

functions being performed by an employee in all cases. The Hon’ble supreme Court further observed that workman

quantum of salary- if principal function of employee is of supervisory nature, the employee will not be workman only if

he draws a particular quantum of salary at the relevant time as indicated in section 2(s). In Civil Appeal No.1673 of

1982 decided on 8-3-84 Ved Parkash Gupta Vs. M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

Substantial duty of the appellant was only of a security inspector of the gate of the factory premises and that it was

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 21] 2016@oS'kk[k 31] 1938

2269

neither managerial nor supervisory in nature- Appellant clearly falls within the definition of workman in Section 2 (s) of

the Act. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rajesh Garg Versus the management of Punjab

State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. , 1985 (1) PLR page 153 held that workman – Legal Assistant- Duties of petitioner

neither supervisory nor managerial – petitioner’s duty at best was that of a skilled clerk having in his clerical duties to

put up notes and seek instructions. It is further held that duties of the petitioner was “techno-clerical” with the aid of

legal knowledge which the petitioner possessed- These duties by no stretch of imagination be regarded as administrative

or managerial – Especially when the petitioner had no administrative control over any body and was rightly designated to

‘assist’ the Corporation in matters asked by it – Petitioner held a ‘workman’ within the meaning of section 2(s) of the

Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sharad Kumar versus Government of NCT of Delhi and other, 2002 (3)

SCT 857 held that duties of an employee determine his status as to be covered or not within the definition of “

workman”.

13. In view of the above case laws, the applicant was doing the duties of receipt cashier and management could not file

any evidence which could lead to the conclusion that workman was discharging the duties of supervisory or in

managerial capacity. Thus it is held that applicant was workman and he can file the present case before this Tribunal.

14. Workman submitted that departmental enquiry was conduct at Hyderabad a faraway place from the posting of the

workman and enquiry officer was biased. The enquiry officer did not record the objections raised by the workman nor

was the workman allowed to present his defence witness. From the perusal of the enquiry report, oral evidence of

Mr. M.P.Soni branch manager Amritsar was recorded during the departmental enquiry. It is also revealed that no

defence witness was examined during the enquiry. From the perusal of the charge sheet it is revealed that holder of loan

account no. 2004/6; Sh. Sharan Singh made a complaint to the bank authorities on 30-11-2005 that while workman was

working on cashier receipt a sum of Rs. 2000/- was deposited by him but that was not accounted for in the books of the

bank by the workman. This complaint was made with the bank on 8-10-2006. Workman submitted that the above

complaint was made by above Sharan Singh to the bank authorities after about 10 months. This complaint has been

substantiated by Mr. M.P.Soni branch manager whereas the author of the complaint was not examined in the

departmental enquiry. Workman submitted that the contents of the complaint could be proved by examining the author

Sh. Sharan Singh who was not examined during the departmental enquiry. In this context the workman cited (2009) 2

Supreme Court cases 570 Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that Departmental enquiry – Documentary evidence – Manner in which required to be proved – Held, mere

production of documents is not enough – Contents of documentary evidence has to be proved by examining witnesses –

Further held, FIR in itself is not an evidence without actual proof of facts stated therein- Criminal Procedure Code,

1973,S.154. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed - Departmental enquiry- Appreciation of evidence- Conclusions

to be based on evidence – Held, enquiry report, if based conjectures and surmises, cannot be sustained.

15. From the perusal of the e inquiry proceedings dated 13-10-2007 it is revealed that defence representative requested to

enquiry officer for permission to examine Mr. Rajit Vohra as defence witness. Workman pointed out in enquiry

proceedings that Mr. Rajit Vohra knows the back ground of the incident and workman also possessing the conversation

between the complainant Mr. Sharan Singh and Mr.Rajit Vohra and also make available the C.D.before the enquiry

authority as defence Exhibit and said witness and C.D. may be permitted to be produced during enquiry. To this

presenting officer raised certain objection and enquiry officer concluded that objection raised by presenting officer were

to be sustained and the defence witness was not allowed to be produced in departmental enquiry. From the above, by not

allowing defence witness by the enquiry officer, the workman was prejudiced. In (2007) I Supreme Court Cases 437

Mathura Prasad Vs. Union of India and Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when an employee by reason of an

alleged act of misconduct, is sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedures laid down under the sub-rules are

required to be strictly followed. A judicial review would lie even if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the

record. If statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in the statute or passes an order without

application of mind, judicial review would be maintainable. Even an error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract the

principles of judicial review.

16. In another case law in (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 590 R.K.Panjetha Versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam

Ltd. and Another, it is held that Compulsory retirement – Punitive or simpliciter – Order of compulsory retirement

stating that on the basis of the report and recommendations of the Committee the appointing authority came to the

conclusion that the integrity of the officer concerned was doubtful and that it was not in the interest of the employer

company to keep him in service- Such an order, held, stigmatic and punitive – Hence, quashed.

17. Thus with this infirmity in the departmental enquiry committed by enquiry officer and the punishment order i.e.

compulsory retirement imposed upon the workman has to be setaside.

18. As for the relief part is concerned the workman has already attained the age of superannuation in the year 2013.

From the written statement of the management it is also not disputed that workman has already received his terminal

benefits which includes gratuity, commutation etc. It is also not disputed that workman is continuously receiving his

pension from the date of punishment i.e. 29-05-2008. From the record it is also revealed that workman raised the demand

notice in the year 2012 against the penalty imposed on 29-05-2008 about after more than 4 years. In Civil Appeal

2270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 21, 2016/ VAISAKHA 31, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. 4980 of 2014 decided on 28-01-2014, Tapas Kumar Paul Versus BSNL and Another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has held as under:

“It is no doubt true that a Court may pass an order substituting an order of reinstatement by awarding

compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds viz. (I) where the industry is closed; (ii)

where the employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit;

(iii) where the workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and /

or (iv) when he has lost confidence of the Management to discharge duties. What is sought to be emphasised is

that there may be appropriate case on facts which may justify substituting the order of reinstatement by award

of compensation, but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the order of

reinstatement should be allowed to be substituted by award of compensation.”

19. Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion made above, as

the workman has already attained the age of superannuation in the year 2013 and also it is fact that he has raised the

demand notice in the year 2012 itself well after four years of the penalty order dated 29.5.2008, the reinstatement is not

possible. Thus following the law laid down above by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the workman is awarded

compensation to the tune of Rs. 100000/- (one lakh only) to be paid by the management within one month from the date

of the publication of the award.

20. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

12.02.2016

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 1019

1019

1019-—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkkla'kksf/kr] 1987½

ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky; ds iz'kkldh; fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa

dks] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gS %

1- deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] flfoy ykbUl] xqM+xkao] gfj;k.kkA

2- deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] ekuslj] gfj;k.kkA

3- deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] /kk:gsM+k] gfj;k.kkA

4- deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] MawMkgsM+k] gfj;k.kkA

[la- bZ&11017@1@2006&jk-Hkk-uh-]

nsosUnz flag] vkfFkZd lykgdkj

New Delhi, the 17^th May, 2016

S.O. 1019.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies following offices under the

administrative control of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi :

1. ESIC Branch Office, Civil Lines, Gurgaon, Haryana.

2. ESIC Branch Office, Manesar, Haryana.

3. ESIC Branch Office, Dharuhera, Haryana.

4. ESIC Branch Office, Dundahera, Haryana.

[No. E-11017/1/2006-RBN]

DEVENDER SINGH, Economic Adviser

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.