2972 GI/2016

(2673)

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- 26]

ubZ fnYyh] twu 19—twu 25] 2016] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 29—vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

No. 26]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 19—JUNE 25, 2016, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 29— ASADHA 4, 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

(िवीय सेवाएं

िवीय सेवाएं

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, , , , 10 जून, , , , 2016

का

का.आ. 1222

1222

1222 .—रा ीय आवास बक अिधिनयम,1987 (1987 का 53) क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) के

खंड (ड.).).).) #ारा $द% शि'य( का $योग करते -ए, के/ 0ीय सरकार, एत1ारा, िव%ीय सेवाएं िवभाग, नई द ली

म5 संयु7 त सिचव 9ी पंकज जैन,आईएएस को 9ी आलोक ट= डन, आईएएस, संयु7 त सिचव के ? थान पर तA काल

$भाव से और अगले आदेश( तक, रा ीय आवास बक (एनएचबी) के िनदेशक मंडल म5 िनदेशक िनयु7 त करती है।

[फा.सं. 24/17/2010-आईएफ-II]

राजीव शमा , अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 10th June, 2016

S.O. 1222.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Pankaj Jain, IAS, Joint Secretary,

2674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Department of Financial Services, New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Directors of National Housing Bank with

immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Alok Tandon, IAS, Joint Secretary.

[F. No. 24/17/2010-IF-II]

RAJIV SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दली, , , , 14 जून, , , , 2016

का

का.आ. 1223

1223

1223.—राCीय कृिष और Dामीण िवकास बक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) क धारा 6

क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (घ) #ारा $द% शि'य( का $योग करते -ए, के/0ीय सरकार, एत1ारा, 9ी सुची/0

िम9ा, संयु' सिचव, िव%ीय सेवाएं िवभाग, िव% मंFालय, नई दली को 9ीमती Gेहलता 9ीवा?तव के ?थान

पर तAकाल $भाव से और अगले आदेश( तक, राCीय कृिष और Dामीण िवकास बक (नाबाडI) के िनदेशक म=डल म5

िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

[फा.सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I]

Jानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2016

S.O. 1223.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the National

Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government, hereby nominates

Shri Suchindra Misra, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as a Director

on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), with immediate effect

or until further orders, vice Smt. Snehlata Shrivastava.

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

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, , , , 14 जून, , , , 2016

का

का.आ. 1224

1224

1224.—राCीयकृत बक ($बंध एवं $कणI उपबंध) ?कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1)

के साथ पMठत बककारी कंपनी (उपOम( का अजIन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उप-

धारा 3 के खंड (ख) #ारा $द% शि'य( का $योग करते -ए, के/0ीय सरकार, एत1ारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के

कालम (2) म5 िविनPदQ Rि'य( को उ' सारणी के कालम (3) म5 िविनPदQ Rि'य( के ?थान पर कालम (1) म5

िविनPदQ बक( म5 तAकाल $भाव से और अगले आदेश( तक, सरकारी नािमती िनदेशक नािमत करती हैः-

बक आफ इंिडया

ी िगरीश च मुमु , अपर सिचव, िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

सु ी ऍना राय

पंजाब नैशनल बक

ी मदनेश कुमार िम ा, संयु सिचव, िवीय सेवाएं

िवभाग

ी राजेश अवाल

केनरा बक

ी सुची िम ा, संयु सिचव, िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

ी पंकज जैन

इलाहाबाद बक

ी अंशुमन शमा , उप सिचव, िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

ी शशांक ससेना

[फा.सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I]

Jानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14^th June, 2016

S.O. 1224.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby

nominate the persons specified in column (2) of the table below as Government Nominee Director of the Banks

specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (3) of the said Table, with immediate effect

and until further orders:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2675

(1)

(2)

(3)

Bank of India

Shri Girish Chandra Murmu, Additional Secretary,

Department of Financial Services

Ms. Anna Roy

Punjab National Bank

Shri

Madnesh

Kumar

Mishra,

Joint

Secretary,

Department of Financial Services

Shri Rajesh Aggarwal

Canara Bank

Shri Suchindra Misra, Joint Secretary, Department of

Financial Services

Shri Pankaj Jain

Allahabad Bank

Shri Anshuman Sharma, Deputy Secretary, Department

of Financial Services

Shri Shashank Saksena

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

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

कामक

कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

(कामक और !िश"ण िवभाग)

नई 'द)ली, , , , 16 जून, 2016

, 2016

का

का.आ.1225

1225

1225.— dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh

mi/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznRr ”kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ubZ fnYyh fLFkr fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; esa fnYyh fo”ks’k iqfyl LFkkiuk

¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu rFkk buls mRiUu fnYyh fo”ks’k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk vUosf’kr izklafxd

vU; ekeyksa esa vihy] iqujh{k.k dk lapkyu djus ds fy, loZJh fuf[ky xks;y] fjiqneu flag Hkkj}kt ,oa vuqie ,l- ”kekZ]

vf/koDrkvksa dks mudh fu;qfDr dh rkjh[k ls rhu o’kksZa ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns”kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fo”ks’k yksd

vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 225@13@2016&,ohMh&II]

Ekks- unhe] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2016

S.O. 1225.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints S/Shri Nikhil Goel, Ripudaman Singh

Bhardwaj and Anupam S. Sharma, Advocates as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases

instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) before the Delhi High Court at New Delhi and appeals,

revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) for a

period of three years from the date of appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 225/13/2016-AVD-II]

MD. NADEEM, Under Secy.

उपभोा मामले

उपभोा मामले, , , , खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय

खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय

(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)

(भारतीय मानक यूरो

भारतीय मानक यूरो

भारतीय मानक यूरो)

नई 'द)ली, 16 जून, 2016

का. आ

का. आ.1226

1226

1226.— भारतीय मानक , यूरो (!माणन) िविनयम

1988

के िविनयम 6 के उपिविनयम (3) के

अनुसरण म. भारतीय मानक , यूरो एतद1ारा नीचे अनुसूची म. 'दए गए उ3 पाद क5 मुहरांकन शु) क अिधसूिचत करता है :

2676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अनुसूची

[संदभ : सीएमडी 3/8:8]

दनांक. : 16 जून, 2016 सी. के. महेरी, वैािनक जी एवं उपमहािनदेशक (माणन)

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2016

S.O.1226.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the product given

in the schedule:

भारतीय

मानक

सं या

भाग

अनुभाग

वष

उपाद

इकाई

यू

यूनतम मुहरांकन शु क

नतम मुहरांकन शु क

(.)

इकाई

दर

लै

लैब

ब

(.)

लै

लैब म!

ब म!

इकाईयां

शेष

"चालन

ितिथ

वृहद

त

तर

एम एस एम इ

के िल

के िलए

3181

1992

वाहक पा –

भूिमगत खान

तथा ऐसे ही

अ य

जोिखम

वाले अनुय गो

के

िलए

अिितरोधक

वाहक पा

एक

केयर

इकाई

149000

120000

0.85

सभी

26-05-2016

15511

2004

साइकल जंजीर#

–

अिभल$ण

और

परी$ण

प'ितयां

100पीस

72000

58000

5.6

सभी

26-05-2016

10264

1982

(ॉली, अपताल

और औ*ोिगक

क+टीन के िलए

गम. भोजन

1पीस

46000

37000

120

सभी

26-05-2016

302

1999

घरेलू

और

स/ ब'

िव*ुत

सािध1

क2

सुर$ा भाग 2

िवशेष अपे$ाएं

अनुभाग

क2टनाशक

1पीस

59000

48000

0.20

सभी

26-05-2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2677

SCHEDULE

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

Product

Units

Minimum Marking

Fee (Rs.)

Unit

Rate

Slab-

1 Fee

(Rs.)

Units

Slab-1

Remaining

Effective

Date

Large

Scale

MSME

3181

1992

Conveyor

belts – Fire

resistant

conveyor

belting

for

underground

mines

and

such

other

hazardous

applications

1SqMtr

149000.00

120000/-

0.85

All

26-05-

2016

15511

2004

Cycle chains-

Characteristics

and

test

methods

100

pieces

72000.00

58000/-

5.6

All

26-05-

2016

10264

1982

Trolley,

Hot

food

for

hospital

and

industrial

canteens

1 piece

46000.00

37000/-

120

All

26-05-

2016

302

1999

Insect Killer

1 piece

59000.00

48000/-

0.20

All

26-05-

2016

[Ref: CMD-3/8:8]

Dated : 16 June 2016 C. K. MAHESHWARI, Sc. G & DDG (Certification)

(खा और सावजिनक िवतरण िवभाग

खा और सावजिनक िवतरण िवभाग

खा और सावजिनक िवतरण िवभाग)

नई 'द)ली,17 जून, 2016

का. आ

का. आ. . . . 1227

1227

1227.— के ीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के शासक5य !योजन9 के िलए !योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम

10 के उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म. उपभो ता मामले, खा; और साव जिनक िवतरण मं<ालय (खा; और साव जिनक

िवतरण िवभाग) के !शासिनक िनयं<णाधीन िन> निलिखत काया लय, िजनके 80 !ितशत से अिधक कम चारीवृ द ने

िह दी का काय साधक @ान !ाA त कर िलया है, को राजप< म. अिधसूिचत करती है :-

1. भारतीय खा; िनगम, िजला काया लय, गंगटोक हैA पी कोटेज डेवलपम.ट एFरया, िस'Gम-737101

2. भारतीय खा; िनगम, िजला काया लय, िसलीगुड़ी-734004, पिHम बंगाल

[सं. ई-11011/1/2008-िह दी]

सुभाशीष प डा, संयु त सिचव

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2016

S.O. 1227.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of

2678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Deptt. of Food and Public Distribution), where of

more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

1. Food Corporation of India, District Office, Gangtok Happy Cottage Development Area, Sikkim-737101

2. Food Corporation of India, District Office, Siliguri-734004, West Bengal

[No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi]

SUBHASISH PANDA, Jt. Secy.

म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई 'द) ली, 13 जून, 2016

का.आ

का.आ. . . . 1228

1228

1228.—औSोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म5 के/0ीय

सरकार मैससI द ली एयरपोटI पाTकग सUवस (डीएपीएस) के $बंधतंF के संबV िनयोजक( और उनके कमIकार( के

बीच अनुबंध म5 िनPदQ औSोिगक िववाद म5 के/0ीय सरकार औSोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म /यायालय-1, नई

द ली पंचाट (संदभI संWया 160/2015) को $कािशत करती है, जो के/0ीय सरकार को 07/06/2016 को $ाX

-आ था।

[सं. एल-11012/4/2015-आईआर (एम)]

समीर कुमार दास, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2016

S.O.1228.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 160/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Delhi Airport Parking Service (DAPS) and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 07/06/2016.

[ No. L-11012/4/2015-IR(M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 160/2015

Ms. Priyanka Guleria,

C/o Shri Sunil Kumar,

F-372, 2^nd Floor, Near Mata Chowk,

Mahipalpur,

New Delhi – 110 037

…Workman

Versus

The Manager,

Delhi Airport Parking Service,

MLCP, 6-Pillar, Terminal 3,

IGI Airport,

New Delhi 110 037

…Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-11012/4/2015-IR(M) dated 30.06.2015, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2679

“Whether resignation of the workman Ms.Priyanka Guleria vide her letter dated 05.06.2014 is a forced

resignation? If yes, whether it can be construed as termination of the services of Ms. Priyanka Guleria by the

management of Delhi Airport Parking Service (DAPS)? If yes, what relief the workman concerned is entitled

to?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of

the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Ms. Priyanka Guleria opted not to file her claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman herein as well as the management. Neither

the postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was

served upon the workman herein. Despite service of the notice, neither the claimant nor any authorized representative

appeared on behalf of the workman herein despite granting of opportunities. Thus, it is clear that the workman herein

is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman herein has neither filed her statement of claim nor has she led any evidence so as to prove

her cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’

award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, for publication.

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : May 20, 2016

नई 'द) ली, 13 जून, 2016

का.आ

का.आ. 1229

1229

1229.—औ;ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क5 धारा 17 के अनुसरण म. केीय

सरकार मैसस FIिनटी कमशयल !ा. िलिमटेड के !बंधतं< के संबK िनयोजक9 और उनके कम कार9 के बीच अनुबंध म.

िनLदM औ;ोिगक िववाद म. केीय सरकार औ;ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म यायालय, भुवनेN वर पंचाट (संदभ संOया

64/2013) को !कािशत करती है, जो केीय सरकार को 07/06/2016 को !ाP Qआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/32/2013-आईआर(एम)]

समीर कुमार दास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2016

S.O. 1229.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s Trinity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 07/06/2016.

[ No. L-29012/32/2013-IR(M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

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. 64/2013

No. L-29012/32/2013 – IR(M), dated 23.08.2013

Date of Passing Order – 5^th May, 2016

2680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between:

M/s. Trinity Commercial Pvt. Ltd.,

Contractor of M/s. Serajuddin & Co.

Balda Block Iron Mines,

At./Po. Baneikela, Via. Joda,

Dist. Keonjhar, Odisha.

…1^st Party-Management

AND

Shri Ram Singh Badra,

At./Po. Balda, Via-Joda,

Dist. Keonjhar (Odisha)

…2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1^st Party- Management.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman

ORDER

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employers in relation to the Management of M/s. Trinity Commercials Pvt. Ltd., and their workman Ram

Singh Badra in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Letter No. L-29012/32/2013 – IR(M), dated 23.08.2013 to

this Tribunal for adjudication.

That the 2^nd Party-workman has sent his statement of claim by post on 22.10.2013. He has not filed any

documents to substantiate his case. Since he did not take any step except sending statement of claim by post the 2^nd

Party-workman was noticed on 19.12.2014 through regd. post for his appearance, but he has not turned up. Again after

the new P.O. Joins a fresh notice was issued to the 2^nd party-workman on 10.3.2016 for his appearance. Notice issued

to him seems to have been duly served. But, the 2^nd Party-workman did not appear.

On the other hand, the 1^st Party-Management did not file its written statement, though the 2^nd Party-workman

has served a copy of statement of claim on them through post. Also, notice was issued to the 1^st Party-Management to

file its written statement on 10.3.2016 from this Tribunal, but, neither the 1^st Party-Management appeared nor any step

taken by it.

It appears from the above acts of the parties that either they have lost their interest in the case or they might

have resolved their disputes amicably out of the court. In the given circumstances, a no-dispute award is required to be

passed and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed in the case.

The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई 'द) ली, 13 जून, 2016

का.आ

का.आ. 1230

1230

1230.—औ;ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क5 धारा 17 के अनुसरण म. केीय

66/2013) को !कािशत करती है, जो केीय सरकार को 07/06/2016 को !ाP Qआ था।

[सं.एल-29012/34/2013-आईआर(एम)]

समीर कुमार दास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2016

S.O.1230.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Trinity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 07/06/2016.

[ No. L-29012/34/2013-IR(M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2681

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. 66/2013

No. L-29012/34/2013 – IR(M), dated 23.08.2013/02.09.2013

Date of Passing Order – 5^th May, 2016

Between:

M/s. Trinity Commercial Pvt. Ltd.,

Contractor of M/s. Serajuddin & Co.

Balda Block Iron Mines,

At./Po. Baneikela, Via. Joda,

Dist. Keonjhar, Odisha.

…1^st Party-Management

AND

Shri Umakant Naik,

At./Po. Balda, Via-Joda,

Dist. Keonjhar (Odisha)

…2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1^st Party-Management.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman

O R D E R

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employers in relation to the Management of M/s. Trinity Commercials Pvt. Ltd., and their workman

Umakant Naik in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Letter No. L-29012/34/2013 – IR(M), dated

23.08.2013/02.09.2013 to this Tribunal for adjudication.

That the 2^nd Party-workman has sent his statement of claim by post on 22.10.2013. He has not filed any

documents to substantiate his case. Since he did not take any step except sending statement of claim by post the 2^nd

Party-workman was noticed on 29.12.2014 through regd. post for his appearance, but he has not turned up. Again after

the new P.O. Joins a fresh notice was issued to the 2^nd party-workman on 10.3.2016 for his appearance. Notice issued

to him seems to have been duly served. But, the 2^nd Party-workman did not appear.

On the other hand, the 1^st Party-Management did not file its written statement, though the 2^nd Party-workman

has served a copy of statement of claim on them through post. Also, notice was issued to the 1^st Party-Management to

file its written statement on 10.3.2016 from this Tribunal, but, neither the 1^st Party-Management appeared nor any step

taken by it.

It appears from the above acts of the parties that either they have lost their interest in the case or they might

have resolved their disputes amicably out of the court. In the given circumstances, a no-dispute award is required to be

passed and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed in the case.

The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

2682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई 'द) ली, 13 जून, 2016

का.आ

का.आ.1231

1231

1231.—औ;ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क5 धारा 17 के अनुसरण म. केीय सरकार

मैसस खजान Uसह एV ड स स के !बंधतं< के संबK िनयोजक9 और उनके कम कार9 के बीच अनुबंध म. िनLदM औ;ोिगक

िववाद म. केीय सरकार औ;ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म यायालय-1, धनबाद पंचाट (संदभ संOया 195/1994) को

!कािशत करती है, जो केीय सरकार को 07/06/2016 को !ाP Qआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/29/1993-आईआर(एम)]

समीर कुमार दास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2016

S.O.1231.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 195/1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Khajan Singh & Sons and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

07/06/2016.

[ No. L-29012/29/1993-IR(M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

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. 195 of 1994

Employer in relation to the management of M/S Khajan Singh & Sons

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: None

For the workman .

: None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Stone Mines

Dated- 23/05/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-29012/29/1993-IR (M) dated 29/07/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S Khajan Singh & Sons in terminating the services of

Shri Surendra Kumar Jaiswal and refusal to take him back in employment with full back wages is

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

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

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

नई 'द) ली, 13 जून, 2016

का.आ

का.आ.1232

1232

1232.—औ;ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क5 धारा 17 के अनुसरण म. केीय सरकार

मैसस ऑयल इंिडया िलिमटेड के !बंधतं< के संबK िनयोजक9 और उनके कम कार9 के बीच अनुबंध म. िनLदM औ;ोिगक

िववाद म. केीय सरकार औ;ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म यायालय, जयपुर पंचाट (संदभ संOया 49/2015) को !कािशत

करती है, जो केीय सरकार को 07/06/2016 को !ाP Qआ था।

[सं. एल-30011/3/2015-आईआर(एम)]

समीर कुमार दास, अवर सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2683

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2016

S.O. 1232.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Oil India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.06.2016.

[ No. L-30011/03/2015-IR(M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D.No. 49/2015

Reference No.L-30011/3/2015-IR(M)

dated: 6.5.2015

The General Manager

Rajasthan Oil Casual Employees

Union (CITU),

House No. 3G/84, Kudi – Bhagtasni,

Housing Board, Jodhpur.

V/s

General Manager

Oil India Ltd., 2A,

Saraswati Nagar, District Shopping

Centre, Basni, Jodhpur.

AWARD

29.4.2016

The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 and

2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Oil India Ltd. Jodhpur (Raj.) for non-payment of bonus to

the casual workers @ 20% for the year 2013-14 is legal or justified ? If not, what relief concerned workmen

are entitled to?”

Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, registered notices were issued to both the parties as per the order

of the tribunal dated 18.5.2015 fixing 29.10.2015 for filing statement of claim. On 29.10.2015 learned representative of

both the parties appeared but statement of claim was not filed. Oral adjournment on behalf of applicant was accepted

and 4.1.2016 was fixed for filing statement of claim.

On 4.1.2016 both the parties were absent & presiding officer was on leave. 3.2.2016 was next date fixed for

filing statement of claim. On 3.2.2016 both the parties were absent and statement of claim was not filed. Order was

passed by tribunal to file statement of claim on next date 29.2.2016 with direction that in absence of statement of claim

opportunity for filing the claim will be closed. Accordingly, the case was adjourned fixing 29.2.2016 for filing

statement of claim. On 3.2.2016 after passing of above order learned representative for opposite party Sh. Rajesh Jain,

advocate appeared & filed his authority to represent the opposite party.

On 29.2.2016 neither anyone appeared on behalf of applicant nor statement of claim was filed. Learned

representative of opposite party was present. Case was adjourned in the interest of justice providing last opportunity to

the applicant for filing statement of claim on 28.3.2016. On 28.3.2016 both the parties were absent and presiding

officer was on leave. Again opportunity was given to the applicant for filing statement of claim on 7.4.2016.

2684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On 7.4.2016 both the parties were absent. Once again case was adjourned providing last opportunity to the

applicant to file statement of claim on 28.4.2016. After order learned representative of opposite party appeared who

was apprised of the next date fixed in the case. On 28.4.2016 both the parties were absent. Neither anyone appeared on

behalf of applicant nor statement of claim was filed. Case was fixed in the afternoon. In the afternoon session none

appeared on behalf of applicant. Learned representative of opposite party appeared and objected to number of

opportunities being extended to the applicant by tribunal on its own motion without anyone appearing from applicant

side and asking further time for filing statement of claim. In above circumstances, further opportunity to the applicant

for filing statement of claim was closed and case was reserved for award.

It is pertinent to note that on 6.5.2015 reference order was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction to file

statement of claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement of claim

on the direction of Ministry nor on notice and knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal. It appears that

applicant is not interested and willing in submitting the claim for adjudication. In the circumstances and in the absence

of material evidence brought on record, tribunal is unable to record the finding on the issues referred to it on merit.

Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई 'द) ली, 13 जून, 2016

का.आ

का.आ.1233

1233

1233.—औ;ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क5 धारा 17 के अनुसरण म. केीय सरकार

मैसस मै स यूयॉक लाईफ इंN योर.स कंपनी िलिमटेड के !बंधतं< के संबK िनयोजक9 और उनके कम कार9 के बीच अनुबंध म.

िनLदM औ;ोिगक िववाद म. केीय सरकार औ;ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ संOया

72/2012) को !कािशत करती है, जो केीय सरकार को 07-06-2016 को !ाP Qआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/4/2012-आईआर(एम)]

समीर कुमार दास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2016

S.O.1233.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 07/06/2016.

[ No. L-17012/4/2012-IR(M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/72/2012

Shri Pradeep Jain,

S/o Shri Hirala Road,

Ratlam (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Max House 1, Doctor Jha Marg,

Okhla, New Delhi.

…Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2685

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of April 2016

1. As per letter dated 4-6-2012 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-

17012/4/2012- IR(M).The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Max New York Life Insurance

Company Ltd., Okhla, New Delhi in terminating Shri Pradeep Jain without following the provision of ID Act,

1947 w.e.f. 6-1-2011 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim on 13-5-2014. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed as Sales Manager at Ratlam. His duty

was to appoint agent and assist them in business of 2^nd party. His nature of duties was as workman.

Appointment letter was issued to him on 24-4-08 in Band IV. The age of retirement was 58 years. He was

appointed on probation for six months. He did not violate any conditions of his appointment. The policy related

to harassment at work place is produced at Annexure A-3. Said policy is not followed by 2^nd party. Workman had

submitted his grievances to the authorities. However any action was not taken by the management.

3. Workman submits that 2^nd party is proposing to close all 148 offices in MP. Any arrangement for welfare

of the employees is not paid. 2^nd party has started retrenchment of employees high handedly. Workman was also

pressurized for submitting resignation from service. Workman did not agree to it. The mother of workman is

about 74 years suffering from heart disease. Branch Manager Shri Rahul Pathak on 3-9-2010 called all the

employees and told that the branch offices were to be closed at other places. On 14-9-2010, workman was called

at Ratlam office. Shri Sudhir Sharma and Bakshi held meeting and pursued employees for submitting

resignation. They were confined in the cabin on 18-9-2010, workman received message on his mobile calling

him at Indore office. Workman was pursued for submitting resignation. Workman was also given understanding

ithat if he would not give resignation, he would be transferred to far away place and they will see how he will

manage his duties. Workman was threatened if he doesnot quit his service, he would be transferred to Bulan city.

Workman was transferred to Bulan city 800 kms. from Ratlam. Workman is transferred with malafide object

violating service conditions. Letter was given by workman on 25-9-2010 objecting his transfer to Bulan city. On

6-1-2011, workman was terminated illegally. He was not served with any chargesheet or notice. On such

contentions, workman prays for reinstatement with backwages.

4. 2^nd party failed to file Written Statement. 2^nd party was proceeded exparte on 16-1-2015.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Chairman-

cum-Managing Director, Max New York Life Insurance

Company Ltd., Okhla, New Delhi in terminating Shri

Pradeep Jain without following the provision of ID Act,

1947 w.e.f. 6-1-2011 is legal and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order

REASONS

6. Workman in his statement of claim is challenging termination order for violation of provisions of ID Act.

Management not filed Written Statement and not participated in reference proceeding.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim. From evidence of

workman, documents Exhibit W-1 to 18 are admitted in evidence. 2^nd party remained absent. Evidence of

workman remained unchallenged.

8. Documents Exhibit W-1 is order of appointment of workman. Exhibit W-2 is work place harassment

policy provides for resolution of grievance/ committee to decide venue and settings etc. Exhibit W-3 is record

submitted by workman to police station, Ratlam about his harassment. Exhibit W-4 is order of transfer of

workman. Exhibit W-5 is letter forwarding complaint by workman. Exhibit W-6 is letter dated 1-11-2010

pertaining to non-payment of salary of workman. Exhibit W-7 is notice issued by workman. W-8 is reply to the

notice. W-9 is letter of appreciation given to workman. Exhibit W-10/1 to 10/5 are recruitment achiever awarded

to workman. Exhibit W-11 is medical certificate, W-12 is postal receipt. W-13 is letter dated 10-11-2010 by

workman. W-14 is letter given by workman to HR Manager. Exhibit W-17 is termination order. W-18 is letter

issued by management accepting resignation of workman.

2686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9. As evidence of workman remained unchallenged. The contention that his duty were as workman. His

statement of claim and evidence remained undisputed. In evidence of workman, his services were terminated

violated provisions of ID Act remained unchallenged. Therefore it is established that services of workman are

terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Negative.

10. Point No.2- workman is terminated without notice in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Management has

not participated in reference proceeding. No evidence is adduced by 2^nd party. However the amount claimed by

workman in his affidavit of evidence Rs. 4 Lakh for illegal termination with interest 12 % cannot be allowed. As

no evidence is adduced by workman is in gainful employment after termination of his service, reinstatement of

workman with backwages would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Chairman cum Managing Director, Max New York Life Insurance

Company Ltd., Okhla, New Delhi in terminating Shri Pradeep Jain without following the provision of ID

Act, 1947 w.e.f. 6-1-2011 is not proper and legal.

(2) 2^nd party is directed to reinstate workman with continuity of service with full backwages.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई 'द) ली, 13 जून, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ.1234

1234

1234.—औ;ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म5 के/0ीय

सरकार मैससI तिमलनाडु िमनर स िलिमटेड के $बंधतंF के संबV िनयोजक( और उनके कमIकार( के बीच अनुबंध

म5 िनPदQ औSोिगक िववाद म5 के/0ीय सरकार औSोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म /यायालय, चै/ नई पंचाट (संदभI

संWया 114/2015)को $कािशत करती है, जो के/0ीय सरकार को 07-06-2016 को $ाX -आ था।

[सं. एल-29011/7/2015-आईआर(एम)]

समीर कुमार दास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2016

S.O.1234.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 114/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

07-06-2016.

[ No. L-29011/7/2015-IR(M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 26th April, 2016

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI. Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 114/2015

(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 Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. and their

workman).

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2687

BETWEEN :

The Secretary

…1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Tamil Nadu Kanima Niruvanan Uzhiyar Sangam

No. 27, Mosque Street

Chepauk

Chennai-600005

AND

The Managing Director

…2^nd Party/Respondent

TAMIN, Kamaraja Salai

Chepauk

Chennai-600005

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union :

M/s. Pradeep Jayaraman, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Sri T.R. Sathiyamohan, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-29011/7/2015-IR(M)

dated 21.07.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of TAMIN regarding denial as well as discrimination in granting of

Earned Leave to the Mining Workers is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 114/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance and filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

The case in the Claim Statement in brief is this:

The people working in the Respondent establishment have been classified as Staff and Workers. The staff

working in Mines and Quarries are Senior Mines Foreman, Mines Foreman, Mine Mate, Blaster, Crane Operator,

Excavator Operator, Tractor Driver-cum-Compressor Operator, Tipper Driver, Heavy Vehicle Driver, Compressor

Operator, Operator (Machinist), Operator (Fitter), Operator (Turner), Welder and Diesel Mechanic. The service

conditions of the staff is governed by the Service Rules of the Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. The service conditions of the

workers is governed by the Standing Orders for Workmen in Mines and Quarries of Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. the

members of the Petitioner Union fall under the category of the staff and are governed by the Service rules of the Tamil

Nadu Minerals Ltd. As per the Service Rules of Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. the members of the Petitioner Union are

eligible for Earned Leave @ 2.5 days for each completed calendar month of service. Encashment can be availed upto

240 days at the end of the service. However, contrary to the Service Rules they are given Earned Leave @ 1 day per

each completed calendar month of service. At the end of the service only 30 days un-availed leave can be encashed.

Though a representation was given to the Respondent for the grant of eligible leave there was no reply from the

Respondent. The dispute is raised accordingly. An award may be passed directing the Respondent to give Earned Leave

to the members of the Petitioner Union @ 2.5 days for each completed calendar month of service as per Service Rules

of the Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The employees of the Respondent are broadly classified into two categories. Ministerial or Administrative

Officers and Staff who are working in the Head Office at Chennai and also Technical Officers and Staff working in

various mines and quarries are governed by the Service Rules of TAMIN. The workmen employed in the various mines

and quarries come under the second category and are governed by the Certified Industrial Standing Orders alongwith

the provisions of the Mines Act. The members of the Petitioner Union fall under the first category and are governed by

Service Rules. The demand of the Petitioner Union for grant of Earned Leave @ 2.5 days for each completed calendar

month of service was not in accordance with the Service Rules or the Certified Standing Orders. The petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

2688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The evidence in the case consists of documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W8 and Ext.M1 and Ext.M2. Oral

evidence was not adduced by either side.

Point for consideration is:

Whether the members of the Petitioner Union are entitled to Earned Leave as claimed by the petitioner?

It is the case of the petitioner that all its members come under the category of staff working in Mines and

Quarries. Mines and Quarries are governed by the Service Rules of Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. It is further stated that

the workmen category in the Mines and Quarries are governed by the standing Orders. The grievance of the petitioner

is that as per the Service rules of Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. the members of the Petitioner Union are eligible for Earned

Leave @ 2.5 days for each completed calendar month of service but they are given Earned Leave only @ 1 day for

each completed calendar month of service. According to them they are entitled to Earned Leave at the rate claimed by

them.

A look at the Service Rules of the Respondent would show that the staff category is entitled to Earned Leave

as claimed by the petitioner. Clause-10.4.2 (a)(i) states that Earned Leave shall be credited to the leave account of a

Permanent Officer/Staff @ 2.5 days for each completed calendar month of service which he is likely to render in a half

year of the calendar year in which he is appointed.

However, for the reason that the petitioner is claiming relief based on the Service Rules of Tamil Nadu

Minerals Ltd., it is not entitled to any relief. The staff category coming under the Service Rules are not workmen as

defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. The definition given to the word “Staff” in Service Rules alongwith the

definition given to the workmen in the Standing Orders will make this clear. As per the Standing Orders, workmen are

persons employed in the establishment of the Company as defined under Section-2h of the Mines Act except any such

persons employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1,600/- per mensem or exercises either by

nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him functions, mainly of a managerial

nature. So it is clear that only those employees governed by the Standing Orders are workmen and would be governed

by the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand the staff being governed by the Service Rules, they cannot approach

this Tribunal for relief. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide on the grievance in respect of those coming under

the staff category or any dispute raised on behalf of staff category. The claim of the petitioner is to be rejected for this

reason.

10.

In the result the 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

26^th April, 2016)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2^nd Party/Management

None

Documents marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

26.05.2014

Representation sent by 1^st Party to 2^nd Party for EL and Other Benefits.

Ext.W2

01.09.2014

Representation from 1^st Party to Labour Commissioner under Section-2(K) of

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

Ext.W3

20.11.2014

Counter of 2^nd Party

Ext.W4

19.01.2015

Additional Counter of 2^nd Party

Ext.W5

19.01.2015

Additional Points of 1^st Party

Ext.W6

05.03.2015

Additional Counter of 2^nd Party

Ext.W7

07.04.2015

Conciliation failure report submitted by Asstt. Labour Commissioner.

Ext.W8

Extract of Rule 10.04 of TAMIL SERVICE RULES

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2689

नई 'द) ली, 13 जून, 2016

का.आ

का.आ.1235

1235

1235.—औ;ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क5 धारा 17 के अनुसरण म. केीय सरकार

मैसस एस.बी. इंजीिनयं[रग के !बंधतं< के संबK िनयोजक9 और उनके कम कार9 के बीच अनुबंध म. िनLदM औ;ोिगक िववाद

म. केीय सरकार औ;ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ संOया 54/2013) को !कािशत

करती है, जो केीय सरकार को 08/06/2016 को !ाP Qआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/27/2013-आईआर(एम)]

समीर कुमार दास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2016

S.O.1235.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. S.B. Engineering and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08/06/2016.

[ No. L-30012/27/2013-IR(M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 54 of 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. S.B. Engineering

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

: None

Management

On behalf of the Union

: Mr. Partha Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel.

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Petroleum

AWARD

Dated: 31^st May, 2016

By Order No.L-30012/27/2013-IR(M) dated 01.10.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. S.B. Engineering, a contractor

IOCL

(Marketing

Division), Haldia Oil Installation, is legal and justified in terminating the services of Shri Nandlal Manna,

Shri Arun Kumar Pal and Shri Tapan Kumar Midya vide letter dated 2.7.2012? What relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

Bereft of all unnecessary details, the case of the workmen is as follows:

More than 20 years ago the concerned workmen were appointed by M/s. K.B. Das & Sons, a contractor under

the principal employer, Indian Oil Corporation. Since appointment they used to work at Haldia Oil Jetty under Haldia

Dock Complex. The principal employer used to pay all monetary benefits and other facilities to them in terms of

2690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

settlement of charter of demands raised by the union from time to time. Subsequently, in 2009 after expiry of

agreement with M/s. K.B. Das & Sons, the Administrative Division of the Indian Oil Corporation (Marketing Division)

engaged M/s. S.B. Engineering as contractor in place of M/s. K.B. Das & Sons and accordingly the concerned

workmen were engaged by M/s. S.B. Engineering as workers for doing the same job. As per the terms of Tripartite

Settlement with the principal employer and the union the said contractor used to provide all benefits and facilities to the

workmen. The contractor also used to issue gate pass and Photo Code Number in favour of the workmen. Such gate

passes were lastly renewed on 17^th March, 2012 and the same were required to be renewed by 16^th June, 2012. It is also

alleged that on 26^th May, 2012 some members of INTTUC snatched the gate pass of shri Arun Pal and the same was

not returned.

It is the contention of the workmen that M/s. S.B. Engineering did not renew the gate passes of the concerned

workmen and by a letter dated 01.07.2012 M/s. S.B. Engineering informed the workmen that as per the direction of the

leaders of the union (Thika Sramik Mazdoor Union, affiliated by INTTUC) it had stopped issuing gate pass (Ext. W-

06) meaning thereby that the said workmen were not permitted to join their duties on and from 02.07.2012. Several

requests of the said workmen before the management yielded no result. Accordingly the industrial dispute was raised

by the workmen. Hence the present reference.

The management inspite of receiving notice did not turn up to contest the case. As a result the case was heard

exparte.

In course of hearing argument, one of the concerned workmen namely Shri Arun Kumr Pal filed a petition

informing that S/Shri Nandalal Manna and Tapan Kumar Midya have been given employment by the

Company.

In this reference case the concerned workmen in support of their case have examined one witness who is one of

those workmen. They have also proved some documents which are marked Exhibits W-01 to W-19.

It is the contention of the workmen that they were appointed by M/s. K.B. Das & Sons about 20 years ago and

thereafter they worked under M/s. S.B. Engineering when Indian Oil Corporation (Marketing Division)

engaged M/s. S.B. Engineering as contractor. Such contentions have been corroborated by the documents filed

on behalf of the workmen.

The document marked Ext. W-07 also goes to show that Arun Kumar Pal lodged complaint with the Haldia

Police Station informing that his Gate Pass was forcibly taken away by Shyamal Adak & others.

Ext. W-06 goes to show that due to the pressure created by the leaders of Thika Shramik Mazdoor Union, M/s.

S.B. Engineering refused to issue Gate Pass in favour of the concerned workmen and thereby

terminated/retrenched the workmen by preventing them to join their duties.

It is contended that at the time of retrenchment the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not

complied with.

10. Here in this case the management has not opposed the above contention. There is nothing to disbelieve the said

contention of the workmen.

11. Unchallenged testimony of the witness (one of the concerned workmen) namely, Arun Kumar Pal also

corroborates the entire contention of the workmen as disclosed in the statement of claim and there is nothing to

disbelieve the said evidence of the witness.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2691

12.

Considering the facts and circumstances and unchallenged testimony of the witness and the documents of the

workmen, it appears that the management retrenched the workmen without complying with the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

13.

In view of the discussion made above, the order of reference is answered in the negative. The workmen

should be reinstated in service with full back wages.

14.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 31^st May, 2016

नई 'द) ली, 13 जून, 2016

का.आ

का.आ.1236

1236

1236.—औ;ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क5 धारा 17 के अनुसरण म. केीय सरकार

मेसस 'द यू इिVडया एN योर.स क> पनी िलिमटेड और दूसर9 के !बंधतं< के संबK िनयोजक9 और उनके कम कार9 के बीच

अनुबंध म. िनLदM औ;ोिगक िववाद म. औ;ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म यायालय, अजमेर पंचाट (संदभ संOया 04/2011) को

!कािशत करती है, जो केीय सरकार को 08/06/2016 को !ाP Qआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/25/2011-आईआर(एम)]

समीर कुमार दास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2016

S.O. 1236.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2011) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ajmer now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. The New

India Assurance Company Ltd. & others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08/06/2016.

[F. No. L-17012/25/2011-IR(M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

अनुबंध

#म $यायालय एवं औोिगक $ या

#म $यायालय एवं औोिगक $ यायािधकरण

यािधकरण

यािधकरण, अजमेर

अजमेर

पीठासीन अिधकारी

पीठासीन अिधकारी- #ी स& य

#ी स& य

#ी स& यनारायण ' या

नारायण ' या

नारायण ' यास, आर.एच.जे.एस

आर.एच.जे.एस

-------------

(करण सं) या

(करण सं) या- सीआईटीआर संO या 04/2011

रेफरस सं) या

रेफरस सं) या- एल-17012/25/2011-आई.आर.(एम) 'दनांक 03.11.2011

ी गोपाल सोनी, सी-11, पंचशील नगर, अजमेर – 305004 (राज.)

…!ाथ`/ िमक

बनाम

मV डल !बंधक, 'द यू इिVडया एN योर.श क> पनी िलिमटेड, खाइलेV ड, अजमेर

चेयरमेन कम मैनेUजग डायरे टर, 'द यू इिVडया एN योर.स क> पनी िल., 87,

एमजीआई रोड, मु> बई – 400001

…अ!ाथ`गण/ िनयोजकगण

2692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

उपि+थित

!ाथ` क5 ओर से

कोई उपिcथत नहd।

अ!ाथ` क5 ओर से

ी पुनीत मेहरा अिधव ता - !ितिनिध

अवाड

'दनांक 12.04.2016

के सरकार क5 ओर से इस यायालय के िनण याथ िन> न िववाद !ेिषत 'कया गया है:-

. या

. या (बं

(बं

(बंधन $ यू

धन $ यू

धन $ यू इि2डया ए3 यु

इि2डया ए3 यु

इि2डया ए3 युरे$ स

रे$ स

रे$ स क5 प

क5 प

क5 पनी िलिमटेड

नी िलिमटेड

नी िलिमटेड, अजमेर के 6ारा #ी गोपाल सोनी िह$ दी

अजमेर के 6ारा #ी गोपाल सोनी िह$ दी

अजमेर के 6ारा #ी गोपाल सोनी िह$ दी अनुवादक

अनुवादक

को द2 डा

को द2 डादेश 9दनांक

देश 9दनांक

देश 9दनांक 16.11.2009

16.11.2009

16.11.2009 से नौकरी से बखा+ त

से नौकरी से बखा+ त

से नौकरी से बखा+ त 9कया जाना

9कया जाना

9कया जाना $ या

$ या

$ यायोिचत तथा $ या

योिचत तथा $ या

योिचत तथा $ यायसंगत है।

यसंगत है।

या !बंधन यू इिVडया एN युरे स के 1ारा आदेश 'दनांक 09.06.2011 के 1ारा नौकरी पर वापस लेते

Qए कम कार को अजमेर से अहमदाबाद c थाना तरण 'कया जाना यायोिचत तथा यायसंगत है?

या !बंधन ने उपरो त दोन9 आदेश9 hमश: 'दनांक 16.11.2009 तथा 9.6.2011 के फलc वiप

कम कार क5 वेतन वृिK वष 2009, 2010 व 2011 का नहd 'दया 'दनांक 10.4.2008 से लेकर आज तक का बेक वेजेज

तथा 'दनांक 1.8.2007 से डयू वेज Fरिवजन का नहd 'दया यायोिचत तथा यायसंगत है। य'द नहd तो कम कारान 'कस

अनुतोष का अिधकारी है?

!ाथ` प" क5 ओर से आज कोई उपिcथत नहd है। 'दनांक 10.10.2015 को !ाथ` ने एक प< इस यायालय को

!ेिषत कर कथन 'कया है जो इस यायालय को 'दनांक 15.10.2015 को !ाA त Qआ िजसम. वणत 'कया गया है 'क

वह इस !करण को आगे नहd चलाना चाहता है और !करण िवथkा करना चाहता है। !ाथ` आदेिशका 'दनांक

06.02.2015 से गत 7 पेिशय9 से अनुपिcथत चल रहा है। ऐसे म. यही कयास जावेगा 'क !ाथ` क5 अब इस !करण

म. कोई iिच नहd है तथा वह इस !करण को आगे नहd चलाना चाहता है। अ!ाथ` ने !ाथ` के प< 'दनांक

15.10.2015 पर अपनी अनापि भी !c तुत कर दी है। ऐसी िcथित म. मेरे िवनm मत म. ‘’कोई िववाद नहd

अवाड ’’ पाFरत 'कया जाना यायोिचत है।

उपरो त संपूण िववेचन के आधार पर इस रेफर.स के संबंध म. िन> न अवाड पाFरत 'कया जाता है।

आदेश

आदेश-अवाड

अवाड

फलत: के सरकार 1ारा !ेिषत रेफर.स का उ3 तर इस !कार से 'दया जाता है 'क !ाथ` इस !करण को आगे नहd

चलाना चाहता है और उसने c वयं अपने प< 'दनांक 10.10.2015 से िलिखत म. इस यायालय से !करण को

िवथkा करने क5 अनुमित चाही है िजसके आधार पर !ाथ` को उ त !करण को िवथkा करने क5 अनुमित !दान क5

जाती है इस !करण म. ‘’कोई िववाद नहd अवाड ’’ पाFरत 'कया जाता है।

स3 यनारायण n यास, यायाधीश

ubZ fnYyh] 14 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk.1237-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

fjyk;al dE;wfuds'kal fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52@2009½ dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@21@2009&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2016

S.O.1237.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.52/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

management of the Reliance Communications Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 13/06/2016.

[No. L-40011/21/2009-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2693

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 52/2009

Ref.No. L-40011/21/2009-IR(DU) dated 31.10.2009

BETWEEN :

Sri Swadesh Kumar Srivastava

S/o Late Sri K.C. Srivastava, H.No.E-364,

Sector F, Jankipuram

Lucknow-226021

AND

1. Human Resource Department,

M/s. Reliance Communications Limited,

2^nd Floor, Magnum Plaza, Eldeco Greens,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

2. Registered Office

M/s. Reliance Communications Limited,

H-Block, Ist Floor Dhirubhai Ambani

Knowledge City

Navi Mumbai-400710

AWARD

By order No. L-40011/21/2009-IR(DU) dated 30.10.2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi 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 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sri Swadesh

Kumar Srivastava S/o Late Sri K.C. Srivastava and the M/s Reliance Communications Limited, Lucknow/Navi

Mumbai for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER SHRI SWADESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA IS A WORKMAN OF THE

MANAGEMENT OF M/S RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD.? IF YES, WHETHER THE

ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT IN NOT ALLOWING HIM TO JOIN HIS DUTIES W.E.F.

12.07.2008 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS

ENTITLED TO?”

As per the claim statement w3, the workman has stated in brief that he was appointed in the opposite party

company on the post of L3-LEVEL-PCO vide letter dated 07.10.2004, his services were confirmed on 19.04.2005,

his work, conduct and performance always remained satisfactory and in the year 2005-06 he was also appreciated

for better performance, opposite party company revised his compensation from 229999.00 to Rs.256616.00 p.a.,

one time reward of Rs.16559.99 was also given to him.

The workman has further stated that in the month of May 2006 he was asked by his officers to do

installation of PCO and RCP on fake identification and fake address proof, but since it was against license

agreement and TRAI guidelines and was against National Security he politely refused, which annoyed his

superiors and they threatened him, he was harassed and was transferred to smaller place rationalization of pay was

also not done, his promotion was not considered, again in Feb.2007 he was transferred to another smaller place, his

2694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

superiors directed him in May 2007 to submit resignation, in Dec.2007 he was transferred to Barabanki, his seniors

did not behave properly.

It has also been stated in the claim statement that from 1.4.2008 to 15.4.2008, workman remained on sick

leave which was duly approved in the system by concerned officials. Besides attendance for the date 16.4.2008 and

leave for the period 17.4.2008 to 15.5.2008 was also approved and updated in the system. Even then part salary for

the month of April 2008 was not paid to me. Apart from the above, salary from the month of May 2008 was also

not paid without any information or notice giving reasons for the same. The continuing harassment,

reimbursement/payments for several tours for the year 2007, with the company’s work, which were duly approved

in the system by concerned authorities, were first of all rejected and were, paid subsequently in the month of

Feb.2008 by delaying it for several months. These payments were delayed deliberately. The workman suffered due

to company’s continuous harassment by way of delayed payment of genuine claims, frequent transfers particularly

to less important posts and places and non- payment of salary in time. Vide letter dated 7.6.2008 the company

informed that workman had not been attending the office since last 5-6 months. The contents of company’s letter

were not true and it was duly replied vide letter dated 21^st June 2008 informing the company all details of

workman’s presence and duly approved leave. The workman also joined the duties on 21^st June 2008. The

workman marked attendance in the system as per rules for June 2008 which was rejected by concerned authority in

the system.

The workman further stated that he submitted representation dated 3.7.2008 and reminders dated

11.7.2008 & 6.8.2008 which all remained unreplied by the company. The letter dated 6.8.2008 addressed to

company’s Mr. Jeeraj Khandelwal, Sales Head (PCO) & sent by speed post Receipt No. spEU949302195 IN dated

7.8.2008 was returned undelivered with the reason written on the closed envelope by postal authorities “refused to

receive, hence returned”. This shows that company’s concerned authorities are adamant to harass the workman and

are not listening to workman’s genuine grievances. The system has been locked by the company and he was not

being allowed to mark attendance and workman also not being assigned any work. The workman not being paid

salary and not allowed to mark attendance, and not assigned any work and is being continuously put to harassment

without any reason or notice and only because workman did not agree to carry out the work in illegal manner as

asked for by senior officers of the company. On not solving the grievances by the company despite repeated

requests, workman served a legal notice upon the company on 14.10.2008 vide which the company was given 15

days time to solve the grievances. Though grievances remained unsolved except that workman got a telephonic

message from the bank that Rs.98311.00 has been credited in the bank account on 10.11.2008 being salary. Since

workman got no information from the company in this respect and he was unable to know the exact period upto

which salary has been paid though part payment of salary is still pending. It is also established that company has

not paid him salary in time deliberately causing harassment.

It has further been stated in claim statement that the applicant did not receive any reply of the legal notice

then on 14.11.2008 he lodged a complaint before Dy. Labour Commissioner, UP Govt. Lucknow who also advised

him to contact RLC( C ) Lucknow thereafter on 2.3.2009 he lodge complaint before the RLC (C ) Lucknow. It has

also been asserted that during the pendency of the matter before UP Govt. the opposite party informed vide a letter

dated 14.11.2008/29.11.2008 that the applicant had tendered resignation and he had also accepted the token

amount of Rs.98311/- being full and final payment but in fact the workman had never submitted resignation, he

refuted the contents of the letter and requested to provide alleged resignation but they did not supply it before the

RLC ( C ) Lucknow till 31.08.2009. Relief sought and documents sought before the RLC ( C ) has also been

mentioned in the claim statement.

The workman has further asserted that the documents requested were never supplied to him, although he

had written letter to the Chairman & Managing Director of the company, thereafter alleged resignation letter was

sent to him by the Lucknow office of the opposite party. Alleged resignation letter and signature there upon have

been denied by the applicant. With the above pleadings the workman has requested for payment of up to date

salary along with increments and permission to work properly according to his seniority and past performance and

rationalization of pay w.e.f. 1.4.2006. Along with claim statement several documents have also been filed by the

workman.

The opposite party has filed written statement M7, wherein main allegation of the claim statement has

been denied. The opposite party has asserted that the applicant is not covered under the definition of the

“workman” as provided in the I.D. Act., his post was purely supervisory administrative and managerial, many

employees were working under him, he has drawn more than 1600/- per month as wages. It has further been stated

in M7 that it is not case of termination of services but a case where the applicant has himself willfully resigned

from his services at his own free will.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2695

10.

The opposite party has further stated that it is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Navi Mumbai, the workman was directly under administrative

control of registered office, his service record was maintained there and his wages were paid from there, therefore

jurisdiction for any dispute or complaint lies at Navi Mumbai, and not at Lucknow, the RLC ( C ) Lucknow did not

have any jurisdiction to entertain the application moved before him. CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Navi Mumbai has

jurisdiction to hear the matter. After resignation of the workman, which was accepted by the management and all

his legal dues amounting to Rs. 98311/- have been released as full and final payment and the same has been

accepted by the workman without objection or protest, now the workman has no right to prefer any litigation

before any court, there does not exist any relation between the management and the complainant since 12.07.2008.

11.

The opposite party has stressed that it has got very high reputation in India as well as in abroad and the

company does not indulge in any anti national activity on the basis of fake address etc.

12.

The allegations of claim statement are also biased, false, baseless and based on concocted story of the

complainant as such denied in toto. Transfer of the complainant was routine matter and done purely on exigency of

work and to provide opportunity to the complainant to improve his performance and conduct but he failed to

improve his work conduct and performance, he remained absent for several months without any leave application

and information and was on the verge of termination but before the same could be implemented the complainant

tendered his resignation by registered post dated 12.07.2008. The opposite party further stated that claim statement

is based on wrong facts and concocted story, as such denied in toto, the work and performance of the complainant

was not satisfactory due to this reason only no rationalization of pay and promotion was granted to any employee

of the company. The claim statement is also based on wrong facts, concocted story and misconceived as such

denied. No officer of the company never asked the complainant to resign from the services, in fact the officer of the

company asked the complainant to improve his work, conduct and performance, any question for asking

resignation from the complainant does not arise. The complainant was absent from his duties without any leave

application/information or sanctioned leave for several months and no leave was due in the account of the

complainant. All legal dues of the complainant have been paid by the company after acceptance of resignation by

the competent authority of the Head Office.

13.

The opposite party further stated that complainant never turned up to join his duties from the month of

Jan./Feb. 2008 up to 12.07.2008, hence the question of not allowing the duties to the complainant does not arise.

No wages/salary of the complainant was due because the complainant was absent from his duties without any

information or sanction of leave since last several months as such neither he earned any salary/wages nor any thing

was due to him on salary account, dues were not pending with the opposite party and after submitting resignation

by the complainant, management released all his legal dues and credited in his account. There is no relevancy or

the purpose of this dispute and the opposite party has no knowledge about the complaints of the complainant.

14.

The opposite party further stated that it has got no knowledge about the complaints of the complainant

with Labour Department (State as well as Central). The complainant himself admitted that he was working as

“Zonal Lead.”

15.

The management has asserted that the RLC ( C ) Lucknow had never instructed it to file any document in

the proceeding before him, complainant’s letter dated 16.09.2009 was properly replied by the opposite party. It is

further stated in the written statement that the allegations leveled in the claim statement are false and misconceived,

the management has no role in manufacturing resignation of the applicant, he himself had sent his resignation to

the company by registered post. With the above pleadings the management has requested to declare the reference

order as bad in law, in fact no dispute arose on 12.07.2008, the reference is without jurisdiction, no relation

between the management and the workman was in existence, all the dues after resignation of the applicant have

been credited to his account which he had accepted without any protest now he has no right to agitate in this

regard.

16.

With strong denial of the contrary averments mentioned in the written statement, reiterating pleas taken in

the claim statement, rejoinder W-8 has been filed by the workman denying the theory of resignation etc. and to

adjudicate in his favour the relief sought by him.

17.

As per list M-19 & M-20 several documents have been filed by the management.

18.

As per list W-29 several documents have been filed by the workman. The management has filed certain

documents as per list M-33. Again several documents have been annexed with affidavit of the workman W-34.

19.

In evidence the applicant has filed his affidavit, he has been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the

management, the management has filed affidavit of Sri V.K. Singh M-36 and he has also been thoroughly

examined on behalf of the workman. Forensic report W-42 along with affidavit W-43 has been filed in the court on

behalf of the workman. Hand Writing Expert Sri Anurag Srivastava has been cross examined on behalf of the

management.

2696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

20.

Earlier the objection M-12 dated 09.08.2010 by the opposite party and its reply W-13 dated 3.09.2010,

another application M-21 dated 7.12.2011 and clarifications W-23 dated 22.2.2012 and some other applications

and objections were also filed in the court.

21.

The parties availed opportunity to submit oral arguments.

22.

Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties at length and perused record available on file in light

thereto.

23.

The workman has come up with a case that he was appointed with opposite parties vide letter dated

07.10.2004 on the post of L3 – Level - PCO and was confirmed w.e.f. 19.04.2005 vide letter dated 19.04.2005. It has

been alleged by the workman that due to his rigid stand to do his duties in legal way the opposite party got annoyed

with him and did not allow him to join the services w.e.f. 12.07.2008 and when he pursued the matter with the

Company, he was informed that he himself has resigned from his service. The workman has submitted that the so

called resignation letter is forged and he never tendered any resignation letter to the Company and accordingly he

should be allowed to join the services with back wages and seniority/continuity etc.

24.

Per contra the case of the management is that the applicant does not fall in the definition of ‘workman’ as

provided in the Section 2 ‘s’ of the Act and that when the applicant himself has resigned from services and all

consequential dues have been credited to his account then there arise no question of taking him back in the service.

The applicant in reply to the preliminary objection has submitted that the nature of job performed by him was

not supervisorial in nature and accordingly, he very well comes within the definition of ‘workman’ provided in the Act.

25.

Having regard to the rival stand taken by the contesting parties and schedule of reference referred to this

Tribunal it comes out that the issue involved in present industrial dispute is two pointed. Firstly, as to whether the

applicant falls within the definition of ‘workman’ as provided in Section 2 ‘s’ of the Act; and secondly, as to whether

the applicant resigned the services through the alleged resignation letter?

26.

Now coming to first issued involved, the management has taken preliminary objection to the effect that the

applicant does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2 ‘s’, which is vehemently denied by the

applicant in his rejoinder. Thus, in view of specific denial by the applicant, the burden of proof shifts on the

management to come with the cogent evidence to prove the plea taken by it. The definition of ‘workman’ as provided

in the Section 2 ‘s’ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:

2. “(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 or retrenched in connection with, or as a 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)

…………

(iv)

Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand

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.”

A bare perusal of the above statutory provision it comes out that a person employed in supervisory or

managerial capacity shall be excluded from the definition of ‘workman’. Hence, it is nature of duties which ascertains

that a person is workman or not.

The management has raised objection that the post of the applicant was purely supervisory administrative and

managerial and so many employees were working under him On the contrary the applicant has pleaded quite

specifically that he used to install PCO and Rural Community Phone and the same was not managerial in nature. Apart

from taken preliminary objections the management has not filed any cogent documentary evidence to corroborate its

objection that the nature of duties assigned to the applicant were actually managerial or supervisory in nature which

kept him out of the purview of the definition of ‘workman’ as quoted hereinabove. Thus, there is no iota of evidence

on record to underline the objection taken by the management that the applicant is not a ‘workman’ as provided in the

definition of workman under Section 2’s’ of the Act.

27.

As regard genuineness of the alleged resignation letter, paper No. 3/39, filed by the workman and paper No.

33/1, filed by the management, the workman has called a Hand Writing Expert to examine the signatures put on the

alleged resignation letter, paper No. 33/1, who submitted his detailed report after thorough examination of the disputed

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2697

and admitted signatures, paper No. W-42; wherein he opined that the alleged signatures on the resignation letter, paper

No. 33/1 is not that of workman, Swadesh Kumar Srivastava. The authorized representative of the management cross-

examined the Hand Writing Expert, Sri Anurag Srivastava over his report. In cross-examination the Hand Writing

Expert confirmed his report. The management did not prefer to produce its Hand Writing Expert in rebuttal, resultantly

the report of the Hand Writing Expert, Sri Anurag Srivastava that the signatures appear on the alleged resignation is not

that of workman becomes unrebutted and acceptable.

28.

When it has been established that the alleged resignation letter, paper No. 33/1 has not been signed by the

workman, then the pleading taken by the management that the workman himself resigned stands unproved. Therefore,

in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion

that the applicant is a ‘workman’ of the M/s Reliance Communication Ltd.; and the action of management in not

allowing him to join his duties w.e.f. 12.07.2008 is illegal and unjustified; and accordingly, I come to the conclusion

that the workman be allowed to join his duties and be paid salary for intervening period with consequential benefits i.e.

continuity in services and seniority etc., within 08 weeks of publication of the award, failing which; the back wages

shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.

29. Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

31^st May, 2016.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-1238

1238

1238-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k iVuk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 09©@2014@2 dk 2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

13@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 15^th June, 2016

S.O.1238.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.09© of 2014/02 of 2011) of the Industrial Tribunal Patna now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13/06/2016.

[ No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

I.D. Case No. : 09(C) of 2014

02 of 2011

Between The management of (1) The Chief Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Meghdoot Building,

G.P.O Complex, Patna-800001 (2) Pradhan Mahaprabandhak, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telphone

Bhawan, R’ Block, Patna-800001 and Their workman Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, S/O- Sri Indrajit Singh,

Vill.- Nijampur, P.S- Dulhin Bazar, Dist.- Patna.

For the management:

Sri Devendra Sharma, SDEP, Bikram (Management representative).

Sri Sunil Kumar, SDEP, Bikram (Management representative).

For the workman :

Sri B. Prasad, Joint Convener, of Coordination Committee of Trade Unions and

Associations, Bihar.

Present :

Bipin Dutta Pathak Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dated: 3rd June, 2016.

Workmen has been filed case u/s- 2A (1) & (2) of the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010 for

seeking relief against wrongful termination from the service of B.S.N.L while working as a full time class IV

employee under group ‘D’ and denial of regularization of his service.

2698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Question for determination is:-

“ Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd in terminating the services of Sri

Krishna Kumar Singh, a Lineman (Peon) under Group ‘D’, Telephone Exchange, Dulhin Bazar and not

regularizing his services while regularizing the services of other Junior Co- Workmen, is legal and justified?

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

This case has been filed before the Cent. Govt. Indus. tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-2, Dhanbad and Cent.

Govt. Industrial -cum-Labour Court No.-2, Dhanbad has sent the record of I.D Case No.- 02 of 2011 through its letter

No.- LCT 1/2014/ dated-18^th November, 2004 to State Industrial Tribunal, Patna for adjudication.

The statement of claim of the workman is that he had worked with the management Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited at their telephone exchange, Dulhin Bazar, Patna from 01.01.1992 to 31.12.2008.

The management formulated schemes on different occasions for regularizing of the services of workman as

full time class IV under group-D. Workman had represented to the management for his regularisation but his case was

not considered rather he was terminated from the services of the B.S.N.L w.e.f. 01.01.2009. Then he raised Industrial

Dispute before conciliation officer but dispute could not resolved.

The case of workman is that he was orally appointed to discharge the duties of a lineman, peon under group

‘D’ at Telephone Exchange Dulhin Bazar, Main Office under SDO, Danapur Rural. He worked from 01.01.1992 and

used to discharge the following duties of --- (a) Repair of Telephone Line, (b) Cable repair, (c) Charging of battery in

Telephone Exchange, (d) Bringing diesel oil from Petrol Pump through thela on the basis of coupon supplied by the

incharge of exchange and other sundry jobs of a class IV employee. He used to discharge the duties for eight hours

daily and even for more time as per the instruction of his superiors. He was paid wages @ Rs. 2000/- Per months from

01.01.1992 to 31^st December, 2000 and thereafter wages was reduced. He was paid wages @ 1000/- from 01.01.2001

to 31.12.2005 and @ Rs. 500/- P.M from Ist January, 2006 to 31.12.2008. Payment was made through ACG 17 Bill.

After opening of sub divisional office at Bikram, the control of Dulhin Bazar Telephone Exchange was shifted from

Danapur Rural to Bikram.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. formulated schemes for regularization of the services of daily rated/temporary

workers on different occasions and the workers were required to submit their application. This workmen submitted his

application for regularization / permanent absorption in the services of the corporation. His name was forwarded to

higher authorities by the SDO, Telephone, Danapur along with other applications. The workman worked for over 10

years continuously. The case of workman was not considered for regularization. The case of following workman who

were either junior or contemporary to the workman were considered for regularization. Names of which has been

mentioned.

Workman uninterruptedly works from 01.01.1992 to 31.12.2008. When he went to perform his duties on

01.01.2009 he was stopped and his service stood terminated. The workman represented to the management from

working for his reinstatement but no positive step was taken by the management. Other ground has been mentioned.

Relief has been claimed mainly for reinstatement with back wages and other relief.

Written statement has been filed on behalf of the management stating therein that case of the workman does

not come under the purview of section-25 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Conciliation proceeding was conducted

and the case was discussed. Management denied that petitioner was never appointed. The management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Patna verified the record of Dulhin Bazar Exchange as well as record of administration section of

Principal General Manager Office, Patna and found that so called workman was never engaged by any office of BSNL,

Patna or erstwhile Department of Telecom. Statement made by applicant of oral appointment in the year 1992 is totally

false.

Rejoinder to the written statement of the management has been filed by the workman stating therein that

workman has worked at Telephone Exchange, Dulhin Bazar, Patna from 01.01.1992 to 31.12.2008. He was terminated

from the service w.e.f. 2009. Workman worked with the management for 17 years and has become over aged while

working with the management. Management regularized the services of junior workmen as a class IV employee under

group ‘D’ and discriminated with the workman while not considering his regularization although workman fulfilled all

the criteria and was eligible for regularization.

It appears that single witness was examined on behalf of the workman who is W.W-1 Krishna Kumar Singh

himself. This witness has stated that he was working in telephone exchange Dulhin Bazar, Patna as temporary mazdoor

from 1992 to December 2008. He was installing connection and removing the fault. He also used to charge bettary

from generator. He has done duty from 9.00P.M to 5.00P.M. Thereafter he was paid only Rs. 500/- P.M. When he was

removed from service then he was getting Rs. 500/- P.M. He has proved Ext.-W series in support of his service. This

witness further stated that in his duties anti-social element used to disturb and for this, he informed this matter to his

officer and officers sent his complain to Dulhin Bazar, police station, this documents marked as Ext.-W/1. He has also

Extd- W/2 in proof of running generator. Prior his removal no notice, nor compensation was paid. Service of other

person working with him were regularized. His claim is correct.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2699

Though management has appeared and filed only written statement. But the management did not contest the

case and did not produce any witness and even management did not cross-examine the witness of the workman.

Ext.-W is the certificate granted by T.T.A Bikram, SDE(G) Bikram, BSNL, Patna and also signed by RM

Telephone Exchange Dulhin Bazar this certificate is dated- 30.06.2009 stating therein that Krishna Kumar Singh is

very poor labourer. His date of birth is 20.12.1971. He is working regularly on daily wages in telephone exchange

Dulhin Bazar from Ist Jan. 1992 to 30^th June 2009. His work is to connect cable and to remove defect of line, to check

the line and to charge bettary. Since at Dulhin Bazar telephone exchange, there was no work of cable joining etc, so

work is not taken from him. Krishna Kumar Singh is a good person and experienced labourer. Ext.-W/1 to Ext.-W/1-16

are different certificate. Ext.-W1-1 is about working of Krishna Kumar Singh from 01.01.1992 to 30.06.2009. Ext.-

W/1-2, W/1-3 of the certificate of work record of Krishna Kumar Singh. Ext.- W/1-4 demonstrate that from January,

1992 to December 1993 Krishna Kumar Singh is worked for 708 days and from January 1994 to December 1995 he

worked for 728 days. Ext.-W/1-5 demonstrate that he worked from January 1996 to December 1997 for 709 days and

similarly certificate has been demonstrated for the working of Krishna Kumar Singh till Decemebr 2008. All the

certificates were granted by the departmental authority. Ext.- W/1 is the letter sent to senior S.P, Patna by SDE ( group)

BSNL Bikram stated therein that Umesh Prasad and Krishna Kumar Singh are honest workman and they have been

falsely indicated there are working since 5-10 years in Dulhin Bazar Telephone Exchange. Ext.-W/2 series are the

statement of power supply.

Since the documents Extd by workman Krishna Kumar Singh are the documents of the department. It can not

be denied and they are reliable documents. Apart from that workman Krishna Kumar Singh has completely supported

his case in his evidence.

It is very regretfull that he regularly work for 17 years as daily wager and his services were not regularized.

This is the discrimination of department which should not have been done. From the certificate graned by the officer it

appears that till 30.06.2009 Krishna Kumar Singh worked in the department. Work was not taken from him though his

service were satisfactory. In this circumstances it is found that service of Sri Krishna Kumar Singh is required to be

regularized by reinstating him from July 2009 to uptill now.

AWARD

It is hold that the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in terminating the services of

Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, a lineman ( under group ‘D’ Telephone Exchange ), Dulhin Bazar and not regularising his

service. While regularization of service of other junior co worker was not legal and justified. The workman is entitled

to be regularized with immediate effect after reinstating him w.e.f Ist July, 2009 with half back wages.

This is my award accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-1239

1239

1239-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@12½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@76@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16^th June, 2016

S.O. 1239.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.33/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court-II, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14/06/2016.

[ No. L-40012/76/2011-IR(DU)]

2700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM NO.33,

BLOCK-A,GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 33/12

Sh. Kailash Pal, S/o Sh. Deema Pal,

Rahul Colony, NIT,

Faridabad.

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Sector-15,

Faridabad.

…Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-40012/76/2011(IR(DU) dated 05.12.2011

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Faridabad in terminating the service of Sh. Kailash Pal S/o

Sh. Dheema Pal, Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f 23.08.2010 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to?

On 20.01.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 33/2012 and claimant

union was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to

be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Notices to parties issued for 16.3.2012.

On 29.08.2012 claim statement was filed by workman. Through which he prayed as follows:-

“to direct the management to reinstate the services of workman with continuity of service, full back wages alongwith

consequential relief etc.

Against claim statement management filed its written statement on 13.03.2013. Wherein management denied

the contents of claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.

On 22.05.2013 my Ld. Predecessor Dr. R.K. Yadav framed following issues:-

1.Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

2.As in terms of reference.

Fixed 30.07.2013 for evidence. Claimant to conclude first. But workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. On

9.10.2013 and fixed 20.11.2013 for tendering of affidavit and cross-examination of workman.

Workman has not turn up on 20.11.2013 , 22.1.2014 ,12.03.2014 , 21.05.2014,6.08.2014 , 1.10.2014, 10.012.2014,

11.02.2015 , 15.04.2015 , 17.06.2015 , 26.08.2015 and 28.10.2015 as last opportunity.

On 28.10.2015 when workman has not turn up his right of evidence has been closed and 30.12.2015 was fixed for

management evidence.

Management filed affidavit of MW1 Sh.A.K. Verma who tendered it on 9.3.2016 his cross-examination was marked nil

and fixed 4.05.2016 for argument.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2701

On 4.05.2016 only Ld. A/R for the management appeared .I heard his arguments and reserved the award upto now none

turn up on behalf of workman to argue.

I perused the pleadings of parties and unrebutted evidence of MW1 A.K. Verma . Which comes in the category of

reliable and credible evidence. On the basis of which reference is liable to be decided in favour management and

against workman. Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-30.05.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-1240

1240

1240-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@12½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@82@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2016

S.O.1240.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.39/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court-II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

14/06/2016.

[ No.L-40012/82/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, ROOM NO.33,

BLOCK-A,GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 39/12

Sh. Raghu Raj, S/o sh. Panny Lal,

Parwatia Colony, NIT,

Faridabad.

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Sector-15,

Faridabad.

…Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-40012/82/2011(IR(DU) dated 25.01.2012

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL , in terminating the services of Sh. Raghu Raj S/o Panna

Lal, Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f 23.08.2010 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?

On 20.01.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 39/2012 and claimant

union was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to

be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

2702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Notices to parties issued for 16.3.2012.

On 29.08.2012 claim statement was filed by workman. Through which he prayed as follows:-

“to direct the management to reinstate the services of workman with continuity of service, full back wages alongwith

consequential relief etc.

Against claim statement management filed its written statement on 13.03.2013. Wherein management denied the

contents of claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.

On 22.05.2013 my Ld. Predecessor Dr. R.K. Yadav framed following issues:-

1.Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

2.As in terms of reference.

Fixed 30.07.2013 for evidence. Claimant to conclude first. But workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. On

9.10.2013 and fixed 20.11.2013 for tendering of affidavit and cross-examination of workman.

Workman has not turn up on 20.11.2013 , 22.1.2014 ,12.03.2014 , 21.05.2014,6.08.2014 , 1.10.2014, 10.012.2014,

11.02.2015 , 15.04.2015 , 17.06.2015 , 26.08.2015 and 28.10.2015 as last opportunity.

On 28.10.2015 when workman has not turn up his right of evidence has been closed and 30.12.2015 was fixed for

management evidence.

Management filed affidavit of MW1 Sh.A.K. Verma who tendered it on 9.3.2016 his cross-examination was marked nil

and fixed 4.05.2016 for argument.

On 4.05.2016 only Ld. A/R for the management appeared .I heard his arguments and reserved the award upto now none

turn up on behalf of workman to argue.

I perused the pleadings of parties and unrebutted evidence of MW1 A.K. Verma . Which comes in the category of

reliable and credible evidence. On the basis of which reference is liable to be decided in favour management and

against workman. Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-30.05.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-1241

1241

1241-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 62@12½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@38@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2016

S.O. 1241.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (I. D. No.62/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court-II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

14/06/2016.

[ No. L-40012/38/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM NO.33,

BLOCK-A,GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI 110 032

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 62/12

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2703

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar , S/o Sh. Ramtrinath,

Vill- Dayalpur, Ballabhgarh,

Faridabad.

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Faridabad.

…Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-40012/38/2011(IR(DU) dated 25.01.2012

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Faridabad in terminating the service of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar

S/o Ramtirath, Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f 23.08.2010 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to?

On 14.02.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 62/2012 and claimant

union was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to

be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Notices to parties issued for 16.3.2012.

On 29.08.2012 claim statement was filed by workman. Through which he prayed as follows:-

“to direct the management to reinstate the services of workman with continuity of service, full back wages alongwith

consequential relief etc.

Against claim statement management filed its written statement on 13.03.2013. Wherein management denied the

contents of claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.

On 22.05.2013 my Ld. Predecessor Dr. R.K. Yadav framed following issues:-

1.Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

2.As in terms of reference.

Fixed 30.07.2013 for evidence. Claimant to conclude first. But workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. On

9.10.2013 and fixed 20.11.2013 for tendering of affidavit and cross-examination of workman.

Workman has not turn up on 20.11.2013 , 22.1.2014 ,12.03.2014 , 21.05.2014,6.08.2014 , 1.10.2014, 10.012.2014,

11.02.2015 , 15.04.2015 , 17.06.2015 , 26.08.2015 and 28.10.2015 as last opportunity.

On 28.10.2015 when workman has not turn up his right of evidence has been closed and 30.12.2015 was fixed for

management evidence.

Management filed affidavit of MW1 Sh.A.K. Verma who tendered it on 9.3.2016 his cross-examination was marked nil

and fixed 4.05.2016 for argument.

On 4.05.2016 only Ld. A/R for the management appeared .I heard his arguments and reserved the award upto now none

turn up on behalf of workman to argue.

I perused the pleadings of parties and unrebutted evidence of MW1 A.K. Verma . Which comes in the category of

reliable and credible evidence. On the basis of which reference is liable to be decided in favour management and

against workman. Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-30.05.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

2704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-1242

1242

1242-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@12½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@42@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2016

S.O. 1242.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (I. D. No.66/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court-II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

14/06/2016.

[ No. L-40012/42/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT- II, ROOM No. 33,

BLOCK-A,GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI 110 032

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 66/12

Sh. Rahul S/o Tej Ram,

R/o Deha Gaon,

Nahar Par,

Faridabad.

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Sector-15

Faridabad.

…Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-40012/42/2011-(IR(DU) dated

25.01.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Faridabad in terminating the service of Sh. Rahul S/o of

Sh. Tej Ram, Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f 23.08.2010 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On 14.02.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 66/2012 and claimant

union was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to

be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Notices to parties issued for 4.4.2012.

On 20.07.2012 claim statement was filed by workman. Through which he prayed as follows:-

“to direct the management to reinstate the services of workman with continuity of service, full back wages alongwith

consequential relief etc.

Against claim statement management filed its written statement on 1.05.2013. Wherein management denied the

contents of claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.

On 1.5.2013 My Ld. Predecessor has not framed any issue but proceeded to decide this Industrial Dispute on the basis

of questions of determination mentioned in the schedule of reference and fixed 26.06.2013 for evidence of parties.

Claimant to conclude first.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2705

But workman on 9.10.2013 filed affidavit of workman and fixed 27.11.2013 for tendering affidavit and cross-

examination of workman.

But workman not turn up on 27.11.2013, 29.01.2014 , 31.3.2014 , 4.6.2014, 6.08.2014, 1.10.2014, 10.12.2014 ,

11.02.2015, 15.04.2015, 26.08.2015, 28.10.2015 hence this Tribunal has closed the right adducing evidence by

workman on 28.10.2015 and fixed 30.12.2015 for management evidence.

On 9.03.2016 management filed affidavit of MW1 Sh. A.K. Verma, who tendered his affidavit. His cross-examination

was marked nil and fixed 4.5.2016 for arguments.

On 4.5.2016 only Ld. A/R for management argued and Award was Reserved. I perused the pleadings of parties and

unrebutted evidence of MW1 A.K. Verma . Which comes in the category of reliable and credible evidence. On the

basis of which reference is liable to be decided in favour management and against workman. Which is accordingly

decided. Claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-30.05.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-1243

1243

1243-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 68@12½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@44@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16^th June, 2016

S.O. 1243.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (I. D. No.68/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court-II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

14/06/2016.

[ No. L-40012/44/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Office

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM No. 33,

BLOCK-A,GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI 110 032

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 68/12

Sh. Mahinder Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Ajor,

R/o Rahul Coloncy, Gali No. 2,

NIT, Faridabad.

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Sector-15

Faridabad.

…Management

2706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-40012/44/2011(IR(DU) dated 25.01.2012

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Faridabad in terminating the service of Sh.Mahinder

Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Ajor , Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f 23.08.2010 is legal and justified? What relief the workman

is entitled to?”

On 14.02.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 68/2012 and claimant

union was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to

be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Notices to parties issued for 4.4.2012.

On 20.07.2012 claim statement was filed by workman. Through which he prayed as follows:-

“to direct the management to reinstate the services of workman with continuity of service, full back wages alongwith

consequential relief etc.

Against claim statement management filed its written statement on 1.05.2013. Wherein management denied the

contents of claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.

On 1.5.2013 My Ld. Predecessor has not framed any issue but proceeded to decide this Industrial Dispute on the basis

of questions of determination mentioned in the schedule of reference and fixed 26.06.2013 for evidence of parties.

Claimant to conclude first.

But workman on 9.10.2013 filed affidavit of workman and fixed 27.11.2013 for tendering affidavit and cross-

examination of workman.

But workman not turn up on 27.11.2013, 29.01.2014 , 31.3.2014 , 4.6.2014, 6.08.2014, 1.10.2014, 10.12.2014 ,

11.02.2015, 15.04.2015, 26.08.2015, 28.10.2015 hence this Tribunal has closed the right adducing evidence by

workman on 28.10.2015 and fixed 30.12.2015 for management evidence.

On 9.03.2016 management filed affidavit of MW1 Sh. A.K. Verma, who tendered his affidavit. His cross-examination

was marked nil and fixed 4.5.2016 for arguments.

On 4.5.2016 only Ld. A/R for management argued and Award was Reserved.

I perused the pleadings of parties and unrebutted evidence of MW1 A.K. Verma . Which comes in the category of

reliable and credible evidence. On the basis of which reference is liable to be decided in favour management and

against workman. Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-30.05.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-1244

1244

1244-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 70@12½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@47@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2016

S.O. 1244.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (I. D. No.70/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court-II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

14/06/2016.

[ No. L-40012/47/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2707

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM No. 33,

BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI 110 032

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 70/12

Sh. Ram Prakash, S/o Sh.Shitla Prasad,

H.No.304, Rahul Colony, Gali No. 2,

NIT, Faridabad.

…Workman.

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Sector-15,

Faridabad.

…Management.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-40012/47/2011-(IR (DU) dated

30.01.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Faridabad in terminating the services of Sh. Ram Prakash

S/o Sh. Shitla Prasad, Ex-Cable Jointer w.e.f 23.08.2010 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to ?”

On 14.02.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was registered as I.D No. 70/2012 and claimant

union was called upon to file claim statement within fifteen days from date of service of notice which was required to

be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Notices to parties issued for 4.4.2012.

On 20.07.2012 claim statement was filed by workman. Through which he prayed as follows:-

“to direct the management to reinstate the services of workman with continuity of service, full back wages along with

consequential relief etc.

Against claim statement management filed its written statement on 1.05.2013. Wherein management denied the

contents of claim statement and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.

On 1.5.2013 My Ld. Predecessor has not framed any issue but proceeded to decide this Industrial Dispute on the basis

of questions of determination mentioned in the schedule of reference and fixed 26.06.2013 for evidence of parties.

Claimant to conclude first.

But workman on 9.10.2013 filed affidavit of workman and fixed 27.11.2013 for tendering affidavit and cross-

examination of workman.

But workman not turn up on 27.11.2013, 29.01.2014, 31.3.2014, 4.6.2014, 6.08.2014, 1.10.2014, 10.12.2014,

11.02.2015, 15.04.2015, 26.08.2015, 28.10.2015 hence this Tribunal has closed the right adducing evidence by

workman on 28.10.2015 and fixed 30.12.2015 for management evidence.

On 9.03.2016 management filed affidavit of MW1 Sh. A.K. Verma, who tendered his affidavit. His cross-examination

was marked nil and fixed 4.5.2016 for arguments.

On 4.5.2016 only Ld. A/R for management argued and Award was Reserved.

I perused the pleadings of parties and unrebutted evidence of MW1 A.K. Verma which comes in the category of

reliable and credible evidence. On the basis of which reference is liable to be decided in favour of management and

against workman. Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:30.05.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

2708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-1245

1245

1245-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkWQ cMksnk ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1448@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@7@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch& II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16^th June, 2016

S.O.1245.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.1448/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the the management of the

Bank of Baroda and their workman received by the Central Government on 16-06-2016.

[No. L-12011/7/2004-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT–cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 16^th March, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1448/2004

1. The Regional Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

2^nd Floor,

M.G. Road,

Near GPO,

Rajkot- 360002

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the Assistant Secretary,

Gujarat Bank Workers Union,

Rambar, 8, Jagnath Plot,

Post Box No. 10,

Rajkot-360001

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri V.K. Mashar, Advocate

For the Second Party

: Shri P.S. Vasavda, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-12011/7/2004-IR(B-II) dated 01.06.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether it is a fact that Shri S.T. Dabhi was engaged by the management of Bank of Baroda as a Driver

during the period from the year 1995 to March 2003? Whether the action of the management of Bank of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2709

Baroda, Rajkot in terminating the services of Sh. S.T. Dabhi w.e.f. 25/3/2003 is legal and justified? If not,

what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 01.06.2004. Second party submitted vakalatnama (Ext.4) and statement of claim

(Ext.5) on 27.01.2005. First party submitted written statement (Ext.6) on 09.12.2009. But since then second party has

not led evidence despite giving dozen of opportunities. 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] 16 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 1246

1246

1246-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 420@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@147@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch& II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2016

S.O. 1246.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 420/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the Bank of

India and their workman received by the Central Government on 16/06/2016.

[No. L-12011/147/2001-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, dated 3^rd December, 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No. 420/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No. 85/2001(old)

The Regional Manager,

Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Bhadra,

Ahmedabad (GUJARAT)-380001

…First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Jayant Jashubhai Acharya

Through The General Secretary,

Bank of India Staff Union, C/o. Bank of India,

Ahmedabad and Gujarat Branches,,

Bhadra, Ahmedabad-380001

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Ms. Meenaben Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party

: The General Secretary, Bank of India Staff Union

2710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its order No. L-12011/147/2001-IR(B-II) dated

10.10.2001, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in respect to the matters

specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri J.J. Acharya by

way of ‘Compulsory Retirement from Service’ vide order dated 04.07.2000 is legal, proper and justified? If

not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and what other direction are necessary in the

matter?”

On behalf of the second party, Sh. Jayant Jashubhai Achraya, through the Bank of India Staff Union,

Ahmedabad filed the Statement of claim (Ext.3) alleging the action taken by the first party illegal and improper and

without basis.

In reply to the Statement of Claim (Ext.3) filed by the second party, the first party (Bank of India) filed the

written statement (Ext.6) in detail alleging that the facts narrated in the Statement of claim are wrong and against

the facts and cannot be accepted on the face of record.

Both the parties did not lead any evidence. On 02.12.2015 Sh. Jayant Jashubhai Achraya, workman filed an

authority letter (Ext.12) wherein Sh. Jayant Jashubhai Achraya, second party workman appointed Sh. Girishkumar

Pramodray Dave, General Secretary, Bank of India Staff Union, in the reference, to act and appear on his behalf to

conduct and prosecute or defend or withdraw the same and all the proceedings that may be taken in respect of

application connected with the same to filed and obtain documents in the above reference and to represent him to take

all necessary steps on his behalf in the above matter.

Sh. Jayant Jashubhai Achraya further agreed to ratify all acts done by Sh Girishkumar Pramodray Dave in

pursuance of the authority.

Consequent to the above authority letter (Ext.12) aforesaid Sh. Girishkumar Pramodray Dave filed the

application (Ext.13) of Sh. Jayant Jashubhai Achraya for withdrawing the present reference.

The said withdrawal application (Ext.13) has not been opposed by the first party. Thus, in the light of the

aforesaid application (Ext.13) the reference is permitted to be withdrawn. No order regarding case is required.

Order passed accordingly.

PRAMOD KUMAR CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-1247

1247

1247-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkWQ egkjk’Vª ds izca/kr= 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@2004½ vkbZVhlh 3@1998 dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@226@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch& II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2016

S.O.1247.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.58/2004) ITC 3/1998 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the

Bank of Maharastra and their workman received by the Central Government on 16/06/2016.

[No. L-12012/226/97-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2711

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 10^th February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 58/2004

Reference : (ITC) No. 3/1998

The Manager,

Bank of Maharastra,

Relief Road,

Ahmedabad-380001

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. A.H. Ismail,

C/o. Y. S. Pathan,

Opp. Khanpur Gate,

Behind Usha Kiran Flats, Khanpur,

Ahmedabad-380001

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Sh. C.S. Naidu, Advocate

For the Second Party

: Sh. Y.S. Pathan, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/226/97/-IR(B-

II) dated 13.01.1998 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 management of Bank of Maharashtra, RO, Ahmedabad in terminating the services

of Sh. A. H. Ismail, Sub-staff (Daftari), Relief Rd. Br. Ahmedabad vide order dt 19-1-96 is legal and justified?

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

The second party Shri A.H. Ismail submitted in his statement of claim (Ext.4) wherein he stated that he had

been working as Sub-staff (Daftari) relief road branch of Bank of Maharashtra since last 22 years. The officers of the

aforesaid branch of the first party, Bank of Maharashtra were satisfied with his work and conduct during his whole

service. He was not served with any notice or memo during his service. He was under a duty to keep all the passbooks,

registers and other items of stationery including stamp etc. He further stated in the statement of claim that during the

tenure of his 22 years’ service he never committed any act which amount to forgery and dishonesty in other word he

discharges his duties faithfully and diligently. He had further stated that in spite of that the management has served him

charge sheet dated 27.10.94 and conducted the departmental inquiry against him for the charges levelled in the said

charge sheet. The inquiry was conducted unjust, unfair and also against the principles of natural justice. His services

were terminated vide order dated 10.01.1996 after holding inquiry which was too harsh, illegal and improper. He has

further stated that his wife also lodged a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate for grant of

maintenance with a motive to harm him and to lose service. He has further stated that his mother in law cheated him by

taking away 50,000/- despite the same she lodged a police complaint against him to pressurise the bank manager

through various political persons for termination of his service from the bank. He further stated in his statement of

claim for helping his friends he took a loan from the bank but he could not be able to pay the loan instalments regularly

as his wife also filed a case for maintenance. Secondly, his mother in law also filed a false police complaint against

him in various police stations. Due to these reasons, he had to spent huge amount consequently, he became mentally

depressed. He has further stated that he received number of notices but no court imposed any penalty or punishment.

No court also declared him insolvent (Nadar). He further stated in statement of claim that bank also charge sheeted him

2712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

regarding bounce of cheque on account of insufficient balance. He further stated that the truth is that he paid the

amount to one Mr. Pandya who has made the affidavit to the effect that the payment is already received by him. The

second party further stated that the first party bank also charge sheeted him for having an account No. 3120 in the first

party bank operated by cheque. After using all the cheques, he requested the officer to issue two fresh cheque books

and he put two cheque books in his drawer. He had not taken the said cheque book at his home, the said cheque books

were kept in his drawer in bank by some other person for which he was unaware. He has further stated that on the

second day he was on leave on that day, the bank has found the said cheque books and imposed illegal charge that he

had taken two cheque books unauthorisedly. He had further stated that he had not used the said cheque books. Though

the first party bank has manipulated with an intention to harass him through his wife and mother in law got false

criminal complaints lodged. Further in the statement of claim he stated that as stated herein above being a sub-staff

(Daftari) and a part of his duties he had too given the pass books, cheque books to the customer said things were kept in

possession of sub-staff (Daftari) along with various seal and documents, stationery and other secured items were lying

in his possession. Sometime other clerk were on leave he had discharge duties in their place. He has further stated that

during 22 years’ service, he had never done any wrong. He has further stated that due to his mental condition he had to

take leave very often. He has further stated that during the service tenure with the bank he had never committed any

dishonesty, cheating etc. He has further stated in statement of claim that he also assured the bank management in

future he will discharge his duties faithfully and diligently. In the statement of claim he has prayed to declare the

termination order dated 19.01.96 was illegal, improper and direct the bank management to reinstate him to his original

post i.e. sub-staff (daftari) with full back wages and further prayed to impose cost of this litigation.

The first party has filed its written statement vide Ext.12 wherein they have denied the averment and

contentions made by the second party in his statement of claims and in paragraph 12, management has stated true facts

wherein management state that the first party bank is nationalised bank and having its branches in all over India. The

second party was working with the first party at Relief Road Branch as sub-staff (Daftari) at the relevant time. He was

served with the charge sheet dated 27.10.94 for the misconduct committed by the second party the main charge is the

second party has taken the loan from the other bank without the prior permission of the bank, the other charges he kept

the two cheque book unauthorisedly with him and third charge is the second party issued a cheque to Mr. Pandya which

was returned due to insufficient balance. The bank has stated that the above misconduct is violative of by party

settlement. Bank has further stated that second party reply was not satisfactorily. Bank decided to hold the departmental

inquiry against the second party workman and accordingly one D.R. Turakhiya was appointed as inquiry officer and

one G.B. Raval was appointed as presenting officer. The bank has further stated that though second party was allowed

to keep his defence representative in spite of that second party participated in the inquiry in person. Bank has further

stated that in the inquiry second party was afforded fullest opportunity to defend himself, he was allowed to cross-

examine the witnesses and after the following the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority

allowed the second party for personal hearing. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order and

consequently, the services of the second party were terminated. The management has further stated that the action of

the management in terminating the service of second party is legal, proper and hence, the second party is not entitled to

get any relief as prayed for and requested to reject the reference. The bank has further stated that if Hon’ble Court

comes to the conclusion that the departmental inquiry held against second party is defective in that case the

management is allowed to establish the charges before this Hon’ble Court by producing evidence to that effect.

After the perusal of the pleadings of the second party, following issues arise:

(I)

Whether the second party committed service misconduct by taking a personal loan from another bank,

issuing a cheque to third party knowing the fact that he has insufficient amount in his account and also

unauthorisedly keeping two cheque books without permission of the bank manager?

(II) Whether the second party was not given proper opportunity of hearing in the departmental inquiry?

(III) Whether the second party was given punishment without hearing?

(IV) Whether the punishment awarded is excessive?

Second party A.H. Ismail in his statement (Ext.17) on oath stated that he had been working as Peon in the

Bank of Maharashtra, Relief Road branch since 10.09.1974. He never received any memo for his work and conduct.

His last monthly emoluments were Rs. 4500/-. He used to manage private documents, refund deposited, pay orders etc.,

and also keeping keys in the cupboard by taking from a bank official. He used to work all the duties of a clerk in case

of absence of any clerical staff of the branch. He was served with the charge sheet on 27.10.1994 under extraneous

pressure wherein the first charge was that he could not be able to pay the loan instalments of different banks regularly.

He took loan from bank for his brother in law. For the second charge, he stated that the son of Shri Pandya, deposited

the cheque by mistake. He also stated about the third charge that two cheque books were taken by him from his branch

without the permission of the branch manager which was wrong. He has an account in the bank since joining of his

service and had a passbook and cheque book of the said account. He also obtained new cheque books after finishing of

old one. Any notice or memo was not given to him. Departmental inquiry held against him and he had not called any

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2713

union for his side because he thought that the crime which was done is minor. And after the termination from service

on 19.01.1996, he tried to work elsewhere but failed. He has also stated that he has been unemployed since

19.01.1996. He is blessed with three sons and wife having no means of livelihood. But he has not challenged the

veracity and findings of the inquiry report. He has filed the inquiry report.

ISSUE NO. I :- Whether the second party committed service misconduct by taking a personal loan from

another bank, issuing a cheque to third party knowing the fact that he has insufficient amount in his account and also

unauthorisedly keeping two cheque books without permission of the bank manager?- second party workman got

himself examined and admitted that he participated in the departmental inquiry and did not dispute the charges levelled

against him. Thus, the issue is decided him in affirmative.

ISSUE NO. II:- Whether the second party was not given proper opportunity of hearing in the departmental

inquiry?- First party workman has not stated anything contrary in his statement leading to a conclusion that he was not

given opportunity of proper hearing. Thus, this issue is decided in negative.

ISSUE NO. III :- Whether the second party was given punishment without hearing?- Again second party

workman has not stated anything contrary in his examination. Therefore, the issue is decided him in negative.

ISSUE NO. IV:- Whether the punishment awarded is excessive?- All the aforesaid charges stated in the Issue

No. I, II and III are serious in nature. Second party workman was the custodian trustee of the cheque books of the bank

and taken out the two bunch/set of cheque books for self-use without the permission of the branch manager make it a

case of loss of confidence or trust in the employee(workman) and also make it a case of major punishment. Trustee

who is in custody of blank and unused copies of Refund Voucher, Pay order and cheque book has serious

responsibility to keep them in safe custody. In case, he himself take them out of his own custody without permission of

Branch Manager definitely, make it a case of serious misconduct. Thus, the punishment awarded is adequate, just and

fair and workman has no reason to express his anguish against the punishment awarded.

10.

The reference has no force and fit to be dismissed.

Order is passed accordingly.

This is the award of Tribunal.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-1248

1248

1248-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1418@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 16@06@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@29@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch& II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2016

S.O. 1248.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.1418/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Dena Bank

and their workman received by the Central Government on 16/06/2016.

[No.L-12012/29/2004-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 8^th February, 2016

2714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No-1418/2004

The Regional Manager,

Dena Bank,

Dena Laxmi Building,

1^st Floor,188A, Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad (GUJARAT)-380014

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Pramod K. Parmar

1876/3, Keshbaluni Chali,

Opp. Nagri Mill,

Rajpur, Gomtipur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party :

Sh. C.S. Naidu, Advocate

For the Second Party :

Sh. J.F. Shaikh, Advocate

AWARD

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

L- 12012/29/2004-IR(B-II) dated 31.05.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, Dena Bank, Ahmedabad in retrenching

Shri Pramod K. Parmar, Badlee Sepoy without following provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act, 1947 is

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

The second party Pramodbhai K. Parmar submitted his statement of claim wherein he stated that he (second

party) had joined as Badlee Sepoy (Peon) in the management of Dena Bank in the year 1989 and worked diligently and

honestly till 13.01.1996. He had been working full time i.e. from 10 O’clock in the morning to 6 O’clock in the evening

and he was ordinarily paid Rs. 80/ - per day of each month. Second party worked regularly for 243 and 289 days in the

year 1994 and 1995 respectively meaning thereby he worked for more than 240 days in the aforesaid years. He was not

issued any memo or show-cause notice by the first party regarding any misconduct. His work was utmost satisfaction

to the first party and no inquiry was instituted against him. His service record was clean and thus, it is illegal and unjust

to remove him from the service by the first party. He was removed from service without giving any notice or holding

legal inquiry and without giving opportunity of hearing. Further, he stated that no written notice was issued to him prior

to his termination from the service, as well as no legal benefits were paid to him. First party made a panel of 14

persons in the year 1994 for appointment as Badlee Sepoy. They were junior to him. Even today, they have been

working and did not add the second party workman in the aforesaid penal. Further, his junior Shri R.R. Sen, who is

working in Naroda Branch and whose name was not in the list of employment exchange was also appointed. Now they

had been made permanent. Nine women were also appointed on contract basis. Women employees filed the case in the

court and they made them part time regular employees and they all were his junior and their names also were not in the

employment exchange and their penal was also not made. After terminating of his service, he wrote the letters to the

first party again and again. In the year 2001, his case was entertained in National Commission for Schedule Caste and

Schedule Tribes. After that in 2002 and 2003, he had made written presentation to the first party. However, first party

had not appointed him till today. Thus, the action of termination from service of the second party is illegal and unjust.

He complained in the office of the Central Labour Commissioner for retrenchment in which first party were present

with written submission but did not ready to appoint him. Second party was removed illegally and the settlement was

not made between them, thus, this reference was sent to the Tribunal for adjudication. After termination as Badlee

Sepoy he tried to work elsewhere but failed to get work and he is still unemployed. He has prayed to quash his

termination from the service and reinstatement with full back wages along with cost of Rs. 5000/- by the first party.

In reply to the statement of claim the first party Dena Bank stated in his written statement (Ext.14) denying all

the facts of the statement of claim of the second party, stated that the reference is misconceive, incompetent and bad in

law. Therefore, desires to be dismissed. Reference is also barred by the principles of delay and latches and requires to

be rejected by the Tribunal. Second party has no locus standi to raise the dispute. Second party does not fall within the

definition of 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the reference is void ab initio and without jurisdiction

and also does not come within the jurisdiction of Tribunal.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 25] 2016@vk"kk<+ 4] 1938

2715

First party further stated that it is false to say that the second party was employed since 1989 and had been

working as Badlee Sepoy (peon) at Gomtipur Branch till 13.01.1996. It is also false to say he worked diligently and

honestly. It is also false to say that second party had been working full time i.e. from 10 O’clock in the morning to 6

o’clock in the evening and was paid Rs. 80/ - per day of every month. Second party was not appointed on the said post,

therefore, there exists no employer- employee relationship between the parties. It is wrong to say that second party had

worked for 243 and 289 days in the year 1994 and 1995.

First party further stated it is not admitted that second party was not issued any memo, show cause notice and

his work was utmost satisfaction to the first party. It is also not admitted that he was removed from service without

giving any notice or holding legal inquiry and without giving opportunity of hearing. It is also not true that the penal

did not call for the names from the employment exchange and some personnel were made permanent in the year 1988.

Second party never given assurance by the first party. The true facts are that second party never appointed in the

services of the Bank and in support of his contention first party has referred number of decision of various High Courts

and Supreme Court. Therefore, the reference is liable to be dismissed.

On the perusal of the pleadings of the both the parties following issues for decision arise:

(i)

Whether the second party was workman within the definition of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act?

(ii)

Whether the second party workman served the first party for more than 240 days?

(iii)

Whether the retrenchment of the second party workman was legal and justified?

Second party workman Pramodbhai Kanjibhai Parmar stated on oath that he had been working as peon in the

Dena Bank Gomtipur Branch since 19.04.1989 till 13.01.1996. He was paid Rs. 80/- per day as salary. He worked 243

and 289 days in the Dena Bank in the year 1994 and 1995 respectively. He was not given any memo or notice at the

time of termination of his employment. He was orally removed and no departmental enquiry was order against him. But

some of the workmen who are junior to him are still working in the Bank. After termination of his service, he tried

other job unsuccessfully. At the time of termination, no financial payments were made to him. On his cross

examination, he did not state anything to his examination-in-chief.

On behalf of the first party, Nitin Chinubhai Brahmbhatt was examined. He stated that Bank is required to follow

the recruitment procedure wherein the eligibility was that a candidate for the said post must be of 18 years age and not

more than 26 years and 31 years for general and schedule caste candidates respectively. They must have also passed 7^th

standard for the general candidate and 6^th standard for the schedule caste candidate. As the second party did not fulfil

above eligibility therefore, he was not forwarded by the employment exchange, consequently, second party was not

empaneled for the said post. He further stated that second party was not having any servant-master relationship with the

first party. He was not employed on a regular post therefore, serving for 240 days in a year does not cast any obligation

on the first party to appoint him as regular employee. Second party never terminated from the service. He was not

issued any appointment letter. As second party was not having the required eligibility, therefore, no relief can be given.

He further stated that Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India referred an industrial dispute between

the first and second party vide order no. L-12012/29/2001-IT(B-I) dated 31.05.2004 to this Tribunal for adjudication

with a reference as under:

“whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, Dena Bank, Ahmedabad in retrenching

Shri Pramod K. Parmar Badlee Sepoy without following provisions of section 25-F of the I.D. Act. 1947 is

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

Same was allowed to withdraw by the then Presiding officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad on

23.08.2005. The said witness in his cross examination has not denied the fact that the second party did not serve the

first party Dena Bank for more than 240 days in the year 1994 and 1995. The witness for the first party has not filed

the copies of the application of the second party along with the documents which were required to be submitted by

him at time of appointment as Badlee Sepoy. In the said condition, adverse inference against the first party is to be

drawn for the reasons, if the second party was not having the eligibility requirement of the said post then why was

second party appointed as Badlee Sepoy and also as to why was he permitted to serve the first party for more than 240

days in the 1994 and 1995. Second, as regards the order of withdrawal of reference, I would like to reproduce the

wordings of both the references.

The reference which is undergoing adjudication:-

Ministry’s Letter No. 12012/29/2004-IR (B-II) dated 31-5-2004

2716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 25, 2016/ ASADHA 4, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, Dena Bank, Ahmedabad in retrenching

Shri Pramod K. Parmar, Badlee Sepoy without following provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act, 1947 is

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

The reference which was withdrawn by the second party:-

The Government of India has referred the Industrial Dispute between the above parties by order No. L-12012/29/2001-

IR(B-1) dated 31-5-2004 to this Tribubal for adjudication the terms of reference is as under :

“whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, Dena Bank, Ahmedabad in retrenching

Shri Pramod K. Parmar Badlee Sepoy without following provisions of section 25-F of the I.D. Act. 1947 is

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

If language of letters of both the references, withdrawn and pending are compared then we would find that the

pending reference relates to year 2004 and the withdrawn reference related to the year 2001. Thus, it cannot be

said that both the matters are same despite the fact that the dated or same because the copy of the award of the

reference No. 1442/2002 is Xerox and is not certified by the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Therefore, Xerox copy being not admissible as documentary evidence. Therefore, the

withdrawal order will not set up be set up as a estoppel or res-judicata.

As the language of both the reference are different, therefore, the principle estoppel or res judicata will not apply.

10. The second party in his statement of claim and also in his testimony stated, “His work was utmost satisfaction to

the first party and no inquiry was instituted against him. His service record was clean and thus, it is illegal and unjust to

remove him from the service by the first party. He was removed from service without giving any notice or holding