4086 GI/2016

(4007)

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- 36]

ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 28—flrEcj 3] 2016] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 6—Hkkæ 12] 1938

No. 36]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 28—SEPTEMBER 3, 2016, SATURDAY/ BHADRA 6— BHADRA 12, 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)

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1785-—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध एवं ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) और ख᭛ड 8 के उप-

खंड (1) के साथ पᳯठत, बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उपधारा (3) के खंड

(क) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, एत᳏ारा, बᱹक आफ बड़ौदा के महाᮧबंधक ᮰ी अशोक कुमार गगᭅ (ज᭠म

ितिथ 14.06.1958) को उनके पदभार ᮕहण करने कᳱ तारीख से 30.06.2018 तक अथाᭅत उनकᳱ अिधवᳶषता कᳱ तारीख तक अथवा

अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, बᱹक आफ बड़ौदा मᱶ कायᭅपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुᲦ करती है।

[फा.सं. 4/5/(1)2015-बीओ-I(पाटᭅ)/कं.सं.76820]

᭄ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 9^th August, 2016

S.O. 1785.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) 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 and sub

clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the

Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Ashok Kumar Garg (DOB:14.06.1958), General Manager, Bank of Baroda

4008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as Executive Director, Bank of Baroda from the date of his taking over the charge of the post and upto 30.06.2018 i.e.

the date of his superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 4/5/(1)2015-BO-I(pt.)/C.No.76820]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 9 अग᭭ त, 2016

dk-vk- 1786-—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध एवं ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) और ख᭛ड 8 के उप-

(क) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, एत᳏ारा, पंजाब नैशनल बᱹक के महाᮧबंधक ᮰ी िहमांशु जोशी (ज᭠म ितिथ

22.10.1958) को उनके पदभार ᮕहण करने कᳱ तारीख से 31.10.2018 तक अथाᭅत अिधवᳶषता कᳱ आयु ᮧा᳙ करने कᳱ तारीख तक

अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, ओᳯरयंटल बᱹक आफ कामसᭅ मᱶ कायᭅपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुᲦ करती है।

[फा.सं. 4/5/(4)2015-बीओ-I(पाटᭅ)/कं.सं.76820 ]

᭄ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 9^th August, 2016

S.O. 1786.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) 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 and sub

clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the

Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Himanshu Joshi (DOB: 22.10.1958), General Manager, Punjab National

Bank as Executive Director, Oriental Bank of Commerce from the date of his taking over charge of the post and upto

31.10.2018 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 4/5/(4)2015-BO-I(pt.)/C.No.76820]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1787-—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध एवं ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) और ख᭛ड 8 के उप-

(क) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, एत᳏ारा, बᱹक आफ इंिडया के महाᮧबंधक ᮰ी राज कमल वमाᭅ (ज᭠म ितिथ

07.02.1959) को उनके पदभार ᮕहण करने कᳱ तारीख से 28.02.2019 तक अथाᭅत अिधवᳶषता कᳱ आयु ᮧा᳙ करने कᳱ तारीख तक

अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूिनयन बᱹक आफ इंिडया मᱶ कायᭅपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुᲦ करती है।

[फा.सं. 4/5/(2)2015-बीओ-I (पाटᭅ)/कं.सं.76820]

᭄ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 9^th August, 2016

S.O. 1787.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) 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 and sub

clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the

Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Raj Kamal Verma (DOB: 07.02.1959), General Manager, Bank of India as

Executive Director, Union Bank of India from the date of his taking over charge of the post and upto 28.02.2019 i.e.

the date of his attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 4/5/(2)2015-BO-I(pt.)/C.No.76820]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1788-—भारतीय ᭭टेट बᱹक अिधिनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) कᳱ धारा 19 के ख᭛ड (ख) और धारा 20 कᳱ उप-

धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, भारतीय ᳯरजवᭅ बᱹक से परामशᭅ करने के प᳟ात, एत᳏ारा, ᮰ी ᳰदनेश

कुमार खारा (ज᭠म ितिथ 28.08.1961) को उनके पदभार ᮕहण करने कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ

तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय ᭭टेट बᱹक मᱶ ᮧबंध िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुᲦ करती है।

[फा.सं. 2/1/2016-बीओ-I ]

᭄ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4009

New Delhi, the 9^th August, 2016

S.O. 1788.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section (19) and Sub-Section (1) of Section

20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955(23 of 1955), the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank

of India, hereby appoints Shri Dinesh Kumar Khara (DOB: 28.08.1961) as Managing Director of State Bank of India

for a period of 3 years from the date of his taking over charge of the post or until further orders whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 2/1/2016-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1789-—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध एवं ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1), खंड 6 और ख᭛ड 8

के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पᳯठत, बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उपधारा (3)

के खंड (क) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, भारतीय ᳯरजवᭅ बᱹक से परामशᭅ करने के प᳟ात, एत᳏ारा, इि᭛डयन

ओवरसीज बᱹक के कायᭅपालक िनदेशक ᮰ी पवन कुमार बजाज (ज᭠म ितिथ 21.09.1958) को उनके पदभार ᮕहण करने कᳱ तारीख से

30.09.2018 तक अथाᭅत अिधवᳶषता कᳱ आयु ᮧा᳙ करने कᳱ तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, युनाइटेड बᱹक आफ

इंिडया मᱶ ᮧबंध िनदेशक एवं मु᭎य कायᭅकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयुᲦ करती है।

[फा.सं. 4/4/2016-बीओ-I]

᭄ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 9^th August, 2016

S.O. 1789.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) 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, clause 6

and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Pawan

Kumar Bajaj (DOB: 21.09.1958), Executive Director, Indian Overseas Bank as MD & CEO, United Bank of India

w.e.f his taking over charge of the post and up to 30.09.2018 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of superannuation or

until further orders, whichever is earliest.

[F. No. 4/4/2016-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1790-—भारतीय ᳯरजवᭅ बᱹक अिधिनयम, 1934 कᳱ धारा 8 कᳱ उपधारा (4) के साथ पᳯठत उपधारा (1) के खंड (क)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, एत᳏ारा, डॉ. उᳶजत आर. पटेल को ᳰदनांक 04.09.2016 से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ

अविध के िलए भारतीय ᳯरजवᭅ बᱹक के गवनᭅर के पद पर िनयुᲦ करती है।

[फा.सं. 1/3/2013-बीओ-I]

िगरीश च᭠ᮤ मुमूᭅ, अपर सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th August, 2016

S.O. 1790.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Sub-Section 1 read with Sub-Section (4) of

Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government, hereby appoints Dr. Urjit R. Patel, as

Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from 04.09.2016.

[F.No. 1/3/2013-BO-I]

GIRISH CHANDRA MURMU, Addl. Secy.

(राज᭭ व िवभाग)

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1791-—के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकᳱय ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए ᮧयोग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप

िनयम (4) के अनुसरण मᱶ राज᭭ व िवभाग के अधीन ᮧवतᭅन िनदेशालय के सूरत उप-ᭃेᮢीय कायाᭅलय, िजसके 80 ᮧितशत से अिधक

अिधकाᳯरयᲂ/कमᭅचाᳯरयᲂ ने िह᭠ दी का कायᭅ साधक ᭄ान ᮧा᭡ त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/1/2016-एडी(िह᭠ दी-4)]

मीमांसक, संयु᭍ त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

4010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2016

S.O. 1791.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the Surat Sub Regional Office of the Directorate of

Enforcement Under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/1/2016-AD(HINDI-4)]

MIMANSAK, Jt. Director (O.L.)

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

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1792-—dsUnz ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds

lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, gfj;k.kk jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx fnukad 4-2015 dh

vf/lwpuk la- 22@4@2015&3,pth&I ds rgr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kjk 420] 467] 468] 471 ds lkFk ifBr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh

/kjk 120&[k rFkk lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh vf/fu;e] 2000 dh /kjk 66?k ds v/hu fofHkUu Hkkjrh; ukxfjdksa vkSj fons'k esa jg jgs vizoklh

Hkkjrh;ksa ds fo#¼ fd, x, "kM~;a=k] /ks[kk/M+h vkSj tkylkth dk ekeyk ftlesa /ks[kk/M+h dh jkf'k gfj;k.kk jkT; ds fofHkUu LFkkuksa ij

osLVuZ ;wfu;u ;k fdlh vU; ,tsalh ds ekè;e ls izkIr dh tk jgh gS_ ntZ djus vkSj vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kf/dkj {ks=k dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ gfj;k.kk jkT; ij djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 228@81@2014&,ohMh&II]

,y- ih- 'kekZ] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1792.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Haryana vide Home Department Notification No. 22/4/2015-3HG-I dated 4.2015, hereby extends

the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of

Haryana for registering and investigating a case of conspiracy, cheating and forgery U/s 120-B IPC R/w 420 IPC, 467

IPC, 468 IPC, 471 and Sec. 66 D of Information Technology Act, 2000 committed against various Indian citizens ande

NRIs staying abroad, in which cheated amounts are being received through Western Union or any other Agency at

various places in the State of Haryana.

[F. No. 228/81/2014-AVD-II]

L. P. SHARMA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1793-—dsUn ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds

lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, egkjk"Vª jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] eSMe dkek ekxZ] gqrkRek

jktxq: pkSd] ea=kky;] eqacbZ dh lgefr ls fnukad 12-02-2016 ds vkns'k la- ih,MCY;w&0413@lhvkj&247@fo- 6 }kjk iqfyl LVs'ku

y[kkuh] ftyk Hk.Mkjk (egkjk"Vª) ds ;kSu vijk/ ls cPpksa dk laj{k.k vf/fu;e] 2012 (2012 dk vf/fu;e la- 32) dh /kjk 4

vkSj 6 ds lkFk ifBr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 201] 302 o 376 ds v/hu ntZ vijk/

la- 40@2013 dk vUos"k.k djus vkSj mDr ekeys ls lacaf/r vijk/ksa ls lacaf/r iz;kl] nq"izsj.k vkSj "kM~;a=kksa dh vksj mDr rF;ksa ls

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4011

mtkxj gksus ds nkSjku ?kfVr vU; fdlh vijk/ ds vUos"k.k ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj

U;k;kf/dkj {ks=k dk foLrkj egkjk"Vª jkT; ij djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 228@55@2015&,ohMh&II]

,y- ih- 'kekZ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2016

S.O. 1793.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya,

Mumbai vide Order No. PAW-0413/CR-247/Spl. 6 dated 12.02.2016, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Maharashtra for the investigation of the

case of Crime No. 40/2013, under section 201, 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) read

with sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012) of Police

Station Lakhni, District Bhandara (Maharashtra) and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in

connection with the offences in the said case and any other offence committed in the course of same transaction or

raising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/55/2015-AVD-II]

L. P. SHARMA, Under Secy.

मानव संसाधन िवकास मंᮢालय

(उ᭒ चतर िशᭃा िवभाग)

(राजभाषा यूिनट)

नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 17 अग᭭ त, 2016

dk-vk- 1794-—के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकᳱय ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए ᮧयोग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप-

िनयम 4 के अनुसरण मᱶ, मानव संसाधन िवकास मंᮢालय (स् कूल िशᭃा एवं साᭃरता िवभाग) के अंतगᭅत िन᭥ निलिखत कायाᭅलयᲂ को,

ऐसे कायाᭅलय के ᱨप मᱶ, िजसके 80 ᮧितशत से अिधक कमᭅचारी-वृ᭠ द ने िह᭠ दी का कायᭅसाधक ᭄ान ᮧा᭡ त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती

है:-

कᱶᮤीय िव᳒ालय संगठन, ᭃेᮢीय कायाᭅलय, ितनसुᳰकया, कᱶᮤीय िव᳒ालय, ओ.आई.एल. पᳯरसर दुिलयाजान, पो᭭ ट

दुिलयाजान, िजला- िडᮩुगढ़ (असम) - 786602

कᱶᮤीय िव᳒ालय संगठन, ᭃेᮢीय कायाᭅलय, गुड़गाँव, के.िव. सं.1 ए.एफ.एस. पᳯरसर, सै᭍ टर -14, गुड़गाँव-122001

कᱶᮤीय िव᳒ालय सं.- 2, सोहना रोड, गुड़गाँव, (हᳯरयाणा) 122001

कᱶᮤीय िव᳒ालय भाकली, तहसील – कोसली, िजला- रेवाड़ी, हᳯरयाणा - 123302

कᱶᮤीय िव᳒ालय, उभावाल, िजला संगᱨर (पंजाब)

[सं.11011-3/2016-रा.भा.ए.]

सुखबीर ᳲसह संधु, संयु᭍ त सिचव

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O. L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2016

S.O. 1794.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Human

Resource Development, (Department of School Education & Literacy) as office, whose more than 80% members of the

staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

4012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Tinsukia, Kendriya Vidyalaya, OIL Campus Duliajan, Post-

Duliajan, Distt. Dibrugarh (Assam) -786602

2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Gurgaon, K.V. No. 1 A.F.S. Campus, Sector-14, Gurgaon

(Haryana)- 122001

3. Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Sohna Road, Gurgaon (Haryana)- 122001

4. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bhakli, Tehsil- Kosli, Distt- Rewari, Haryana-123302

5. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ubhawal, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab)

[No. 11011-3/2016-O.L.U]

SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.

पेᮝोिलयम और ᮧाकृितक गैस मंᮢालय

नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 12 अग᭭ त, 2016

का.आ. 1795.—राजीव गांधी पेᮝोिलयम ᮧौ᳒ोिगकᳱ सं᭭ थान (आरजीआईपीटी) अिधिनयम, 2007 के िनयम 5 (1) के तहत

ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार एत᳏ारा िन᭥ निलिखत ᭪ यिᲦयᲂ को आरजीआईपीटी के पुनगᭅᳯठत अिधशासी मंडल मᱶ

ᳰदनांक 29.07.2016 से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, सद᭭ य िनयु᭍ त करती है :

᮰ी एस.पी. गथू, िनदेशक (एचआर), बीपीसीएल

ii) ᮰ी डी.डी. िम᮰ा, िनदेशक (एचआर), ओएनजीसी

iii) ᮧो. पी. के. भार᳇ाज, रसायन िवभाग, आईआईटी, कानपुर

[फा. सं. जे-25021/13/2014-जन. (पाटᭅ)]

राज ᳰकशोर, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2016

S.O. 1795.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 5(1) of the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum

Technology (RGIPT) Act 2007, the Central Government hereby appoints the following persons as Members on the

reconstituted Board of Governors of RGIPT with effect from 29.07.2016 for a period of three years of until further

orders, whichever is earlier :-

(i)

Shri S. P. Gathoo, Director (HR), BPCL

(ii)

Shri D.D. Mishra, Director (HR), ONGC

(iii) Prof. P. K. Bhardwaj, Deptt. Of Chemistry, IIT, Kanpur

[F. No. J-25021/13/2014-Gen. (Pt.)]

RAJ KISHORE, Under Secy.

वािण᭔य एवं उ᳒ोग मंᮢालय

(वािण᭔य िवभाग)

नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 1 िसत᭥ बर, 2016

का.आ. 1796.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, िनयाᭅत (गुणवᱫा िनयंᮢण एवं िनरीᭃण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के उपिनयम (2)

के साथ पᳯठत, िनयाᭅत (गुणवᱫा िनयंᮢण एवं िनरीᭃण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) कᳱ धारा 7 कᳱ उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा

ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, मैससᭅ थैरा᭡युᳯट᭍स केिमकल ᳯरसचᭅ कॉपᲃरेशन, 151 मा᭠चेशवर इंड᭭ᮝीयल इ᭭टेट, से᭍टर-ए,

जोन-बी, भुवने᳡र – 751010 को इस अिधसूचना के राजपᮢ मᱶ ᮧकाशन कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए भारत सरकार

के वािण᭔य मंᮢालय कᳱ शासकᳱय राजपᮢ भाग-II, ख᭛ ड-3, उप-ख᭛ ड (ii), मᱶ ᳰदनांक 20 ᳰदस᭥बर, 1965 कᳱ अिधसूचना

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4013

सं. का.आ. 3975 के तहत ᮧकािशत अिधसूचना मᱶ उपाब᳍ अनुसूिचयᲂ मᱶ िविन᳸द᳥ खिनज और अय᭭क, (समूह-।), अथाᭅत् लौह

अयस् क और मᱹगनीज अय᭭क को ᮓमश: िनयाᭅत से पूवᭅ िन᳜िलिखत शतᲄ के अधीन पारादीप और धामरा पᱫन मᱶ उ᭍ त खिनज और

अय᭭ क के िनरीᭃण करने के िलए एक अिभकरण के ᱧप मᱶ मा᭠यता देती है, अथाᭅत् :

( i ) यह ᳰक, उᲦ एजᱶसी खिनज और अय᭭क समूह-I का िनयाᭅत (िनरीᭃण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िनरीᭃण का

कायाᭅ᭠वयन करने के िलये उनके ᳇ारा अपनाई गई िनरीᭃण प᳍ित कᳱ जांच करने के िलए िनयाᭅत िनरीᭃण पᳯरषद् ᳇ारा िनिमᱫ

नामिन᳸द᳥ अिधकाᳯरयᲂ को पयाᭅ᳙ सुिवधाएं देगी; और

( ii ) यह ᳰक, यह एजᱶसी इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायᲃ के पालन मᱶ िनदेशक (िनरीᭃण और गुणवᱫा िनयंᮢण) िनयाᭅत

िनरीᭃण पᳯरषद ᳇ारा समय-समय पर िलिखत ᱨप मᱶ ᳰदए गए ऐसे िनदᱷशᲂ से आब᳍ हᲂगी।

[फा.सं. 4/9/2016 - िनयाᭅत िनरीᭃण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयुᲦ सिचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2016

S.O. 1796.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

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

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation,

151 Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Sector-A, Zone-B, Bhubaneswar – 751010, as an agency, herein after referred as the

said agency, for the inspection of Minierals and Ores (Group-I), namely, Iron Ore and Manganese ore as specified in

the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the

Gazette of India, part II, section 3, sub-section (ii), vide S.O. 3975, dated the 20^th December, 1965, prior to export of

the said Minerals and Ores at Paradip and Dhamra Ports, for a period of three years from the date of publication of this

notification in the official Gazette, subject to the following conditions, namely : -

(i)

The said agency, shall provide adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in

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

the Export of Minerals and Ores – Group I (inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii)

The said agency, in performance of their functions under this notification, shall be bound by such directions as

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

[F. No. 4/9/2016-Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 1 िसत᭥ बर, 2016

का.आ. 1797.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, िनयाᭅत (गुणवᱫा िनयंᮢण एवं िनरीᭃण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के उपिनयम (2)

के साथ पᳯठत, िनयाᭅत (गुणवᱫा िनयंᮢण एवं िनरीᭃण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) कᳱ धारा 7 कᳱ उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ

शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, मैससᭅ इंसपे᭍टोरेट िᮕᳰफथ इंिडया ᮧाइवेट िलिमटेड, ᭡लाट नं. 73, से᭍टर 11, जीआईडीसी, गांधीधाम,

क᭒छ, गुजरात – 370201 को इस अिधसूचना के राजपᮢ मᱶ ᮧकाशन कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के

वािण᭔य मंᮢालय कᳱ अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975, तारीख 20 ᳰदस᭥बर, 1965 कᳱ अनुसूची मᱶ िविन᳸द᳥ खिनज और अय᭭क समूह-।,

अथाᭅत् बॉ᭍साइट के िनयाᭅत से पूवᭅ िन᳜िलिखत शतᲄ के अधीन पोरबंदर, जामनगर (बेदी), ओखा तथा कांडला पᱫन पर उᲦ खिनजᲂ

और अय᭭कᲂ का िनरीᭃण करने के िलए एक अिभकरण के ᱧप मᱶ मा᭠यता देती है, अथाᭅत् :-

(i) मैससᭅ इंसपे᭍टोरेट िᮕᳰफथ इंिडया ᮧाइवेट िलिमटेड, ᭡लाट नं. 73, से᭍टर 11, जीआईडीसी, गांधीधाम, क᭒छ, गुजरात –

370201, खिनज और अय᭭क समूह-। का िनयाᭅत (िनरीᭃण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िविन᳸द᳥ िनरीᭃण का कायाᭅ᭠वयन

करने के िलये िनयाᭅत िनरीᭃण पᳯरषद् ᳇ारा नािमत अिधकाᳯरयᲂ को पयाᭅ᳙ सुिवधाएं देगी;

(ii) मैससᭅ इंसपे᭍टोरेट िᮕᳰफथ इंिडया ᮧाइवेट िलिमटेड, ᭡लाट नं. 73, से᭍टर 11, जीआईडीसी, गांधीधाम, क᭒छ, गुजरात – 370201,

इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायᲄ के िन᭬पादन मᱶ िनदेशक (िनरीᭃण और गुणवᱫा िनयंᮢण), िनयाᭅत िनरीᭃण पᳯरषद ᳇ारा समय-

समय पर िलिखत ᱨप मᱶ ᳰदए गए ऐसे िनदᱷशᲂ से आब᳍ होगी।

[फा.सं. 04/07/2016 - िनयाᭅत िनरीᭃण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयुᲦ सिचव

4014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2016

S.O. 1797.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

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

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Private Limited,

Plot No. 73, Sector 11, GIDC, Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat- 370201, as an agency for a period of three years with

effect from the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of minerals and ores Group-I namely, Bauxite

as specified in the Schedule to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O.

3975 dated the 20 December 1965, prior to export of said minerals and ores at Porbandar, Jamnagar (Bedi), Okha and

Kandla Ports, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i)

M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Private Limited, Plot No. 73, Sector 11, GIDC, Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat-

370201, shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to

carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I (Inspection) Rules,

1965;

(ii)

M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Private Limited, Plot No. 73, Sector 11, GIDC, Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat-

370201, in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directions as the

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

[F.No. 04/07/2016 – Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

उपभो᭍ ता मामले, खा᳒ और सावᭅजिनक िवतरण मंᮢालय

(खा᳒ और सावᭅजिनक िवतरण िवभाग)

नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 24 अग᭭ त, 2016

का.आ. 1798.—के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के शासकᳱय ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए ᮧयोग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप

िनयम (4) के अनुसरण मᱶ उपभो᭍ ता मामले, खा᳒ और सावᭅजिनक िवतरण मंᮢालय (खा᳒ और सावᭅजिनक िवतरण िवभाग) के

ᮧशासिनक िनयंᮢणाधीन िन᭥ निलिखत कायाᭅलय, िजनके 80 ᮧितशत से अिधक कमᭅचारीवृ᭠ द ने िह᭠ दी का कायᭅसाधक ᭄ान ᮧा᭡ त कर

िलया है, को राजपᮢ मᱶ अिधसूिचत करती है : -

1. भारतीय खा᳒ िनगम, ᭃेᮢीय कायाᭅलय, तृतीय तल,

हाका भवन, पि᭣लक गाडᭅन रोड, हैदराबाद-500004

2. भारतीय खा᳒ िनगम, िजला कायाᭅलय, वृंदावनम,

ने᭨ लूर – 734004

[सं. ई-11011/1/2008-िह᭠ दी]

टी. के. मनोज कुमार, संयु᭍ त सिचव

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Deptarment of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1798.—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

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 :

Food Corporation of India,

Regional Office, 3^rd Floor,

Haka Bhawan, Public Garden Road,

Hyderabad – 500004

Food Corporation of India,

District Office, Brindavanam,

Nellore-524001

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

T. K. MANOJ KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4015

व᭭ ᮢ मंᮢालय

नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 24 अग᭭ त, 2016

का.आ. 1799.—के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार, (संघ के शासकᳱय ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए) राजभाषा िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम

(4) के अनुसरणमᱶ, व᭭ ᮢ मंᮢालय के अंतगᭅत आने वाले िन᭥ निलिखत कायाᭅलय को िजसके 80% से अिधक कमᭅचाᳯरयᲂ ने ᳲहदी का

कायᭅसाधक ᭄ान ᮧा᭡ त करल िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है : -

िवपणन एवं सेवा िव᭭ तार के᭠ ᮤ, िवकास आयु᭍ त (ह᭭ तिश᭨ प) कायाᭅलय, ᭭ कूल रोड, देवराली, पो᭭ ट ऑᳰफस तादᲂग –

737102, गंगटोक (िसᳰᲥम)

[सं. ई-11016/1/2015-ᳲहदी]

गीता नारायण, संयु᭍ त सिचव

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 24^th August, 2016

S.O. 1799.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the official purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following office of the Ministry of Textiles, more

than 80% staff where of have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :

Marketing and Service Extension Centre, School Road, Deorali, P.O. Tadong-737102, Gangtok (Sikkim).

[No. E-11016/1/2015-Hindi]

GEETA NARAYAN, Jt. Secy.

᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य और पᳯरवार क᭨ याण मंᮢालय

नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 अग᭭ त, 2016

का.आ. 1800.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, सरकारी ᭭थान (अᮧािधकृत अिधभोिगयᲂ कᳱ बेदखली) अिधिनयम, 1971 (1971 का 40)

कᳱ धारा 3 ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए और भारत सरकार के ᭭वा᭭᭝य और पᳯरवार क᭨याण मंᮢालय (᭭वा᭭᭝य िवभाग), कᳱ

अिधसूचना सं᭎ यांक का.आ.291, तारीख 7 जनवरी, 1981 को उन बातᲂ के िसवाए अिधᮓंत करते ᱟए िज᭠हᱶ ऐसे अिधᮓमण से पहले

ᳰकया गया है, या करने का लोप ᳰकया गया है नीचे दी गई सारणी के ᭭तंभ (1) मᱶ उि᭨लिखत अिधकारी, को, जो सरकार के राजपिᮢत

अिधकारी है, उᲦ अिधिनयम के ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए संपदा अिधकारी िनयुᲦ करती है, जो उᲦ सारणी के ᭭तंभ (2) मᱶ िविन᳸द᳥ सरकारी

᭭थान कᳱ बाबत उसकᳱ अिधकाᳯरता कᳱ ᭭थानीय सीमाᲐ के भीतर उᲦ अिधिनयम ᳇ारा या उसके अधीन संपदा अिधकारी को ᮧदᱫ

शिᲦयᲂ को ᮧयोग करने या उस पर अिधरोिपत कतᭅ᳞ᲂ का पालन करेगा ।

सारणी

अिधकारी का पदनाम

सरकारी ᭭थान के ᮧवगᭅ और अिधकाᳯरता कᳱ ᭭थानीय सीमा

(1)

(2)

डा. मनोज कुमार, सहायक आचायᭅ,

सू᭯ म

जीविव᭄ान

िवभाग,

लेडी

हाᳺडग मेडीकल कॉलेज और सहब᳍

िचᳰक᭜ सालय, नई ᳰद᭨ ली ।

1. लेडी हाᳺडग मेडीकल कॉलेज और सहब᳍ िचᳰक᭜ सालय, नई ᳰद᭨ ली जैसे सभी आवासीय

इकाईयां जैसे, बंगले, ᭢लैटस्, ᭍ वाटᭅर, हो᭭ टल आवास, संब᳍ इकाईयां जैसे गैरेज, सवᱸट

᭍ वाटᭅर आᳰद,

2. पी.के.रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ ली टाईप-4, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 001-006, 101-108, 201-208,

301-308, नव िनᳶमत ।

3. पी.के.रोड नई ᳰद᭨ ली टाइᭅप-3 ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 31-60 नव िनᳶमत

4. ᮰ीिनवास पुरी, नई ᳰद᭨ ली टाईप-4 ᭣ लॉक सं. 16, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 001, 101, 201,

301, 401, 501, 602 और ᭣ लॉक सं. 15, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 101, 201, 202, 301 ।

4016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. ᮰ीिनवास पुरी, टाईप-3 ᭣ लॉक 17, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 01, 101, 201, 301, 401, ᭣ लॉक

सं. 18, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 01, 02, 03, 101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302,

303, 401, 402, 403, ᭣ लॉक सं. 19 ᭍ वाटᭅर सं. 01, 02, 03, 101, 102, 103,

201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501, 502, 503, 601, 602,

603, 701, 702, 703 ᭣ लॉक सं. 21 ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 01,101 ।

6. ᮰ीिनवासपुरी, टाईप-3 (केवल कलावती सरन बाल िचᳰक᭜ सालय के िलए) ᭣ लॉक सं. 21,

᭍ वाटᭅर संख् या 02, 03, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402,

403, 501, 503, 601, ᭣ लॉक सं᭎ या 22 ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 01, 02, 03, 101, 102,

103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501, 502, 503, 601,

602, 603, 701, 702, 703 ।

7. टेलीᮕाफ ᭭ ᭍ वायर, नई ᳰद᭨ ली टाईप-3, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 01, 04, 06, 08,10,12,13,

33, 35 ।

8. टेलीᮕाफ ᮝैᳰफक ᭡ लेस, टाईप-3, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 01, 03, 05, 06, 08 ।

9. टेलीᮕाफ ᮝैᳰफक ᭡ लेस, नई ᳰद᭨ ली टाईप-3 ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 12, 13, 14,15,17 ।

10. फौच ᭭ ᭍ वायर, नई ᳰद᭨ ली टाईप-3, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या ई-63 ।

11. राजा बाजार, नई ᳰद᭨ ली, टाईप-3, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 24ए, 24बी, 24सी, 24डी, 24ई,

24एफ ।

12. पी.के.रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ ली, टाईप-3, ᭣ लॉक-1 ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 01 से 15, ᭣ लॉक-2 ᭍ वाटᭅर

सं᭎ या 16 से 30 ।

13. पी.के.रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ ली, टाईप-2, ᭣ लॉक-1, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 01 से 15, ᭣ लॉक-2, ᭍ वाटᭅर

सं᭎ या 16 से 30 ।

14. नानक पुरा, नई ᳰद᭨ ली टाईप-2, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या ई-22ए, ई-25, ई-25ए, ई-26, ई-28,

ई-29, ई-30ए, ई-31ए, ई-34, ई-39ए ।

15. ᳲमटो रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ ली । टाईप-2, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 01, 08, 17, 28, 35, 36, 37, 40,

41, 44, 47, 53, 54, 55, 60 ।

16. पी.के.रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ ली । टाईप-1, ᭣ लॉक 112, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 01 से 112 ।

17. पी.के.रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ ली । टाईप-1, ᭣ लॉक-45, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या 113 से 157 ।

18. पी.के.रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ ली। टाईप-1, ᭣ लॉक 85, ᭍ वाटᭅर सं᭎ या120 से 127, 133 से 139,

265 से 309 ।

[फा. सं. वी-21020/21/2015-एच-2]

संजय पंत, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

New Delhi, the 19^th August, 2016

S.O. 1800.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in

the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health) number S.O. 291, dated 7^th January, 1981, except as

respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the

officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, being Gazetted Officer of Government to be the Estate Officer

for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on an Estate

Officer by or under the said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in

column (2) of the said Table.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4017

TABLE

Designation of officer

Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Dr. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Professor,

Department

Microbiology,

Lady

Hardinge Medical College and Associated

Hospitals, New Delhi.

1. All residential units like bunglows, flats, quarters,

hostel accommodation, appurtenant

units like

garages, servants quarters etc. of Lady Hardinge

Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New

Delhi.

2. P.K. Road, New Delhi. Type-IV, Quarter numbers

001-006,

101-108,

201-208,

301-308,

newly

constructed,.

P.K. Road, New Delhi Type-III, Quarter numbers

31-60, newly constructed,.

4. Sri Niwas Puri, New Delhi. Type-IV Block No. 16,

Quarter numbers 001, 101, 201, 301, 401, 501, 602,

and Block No. 15, Quarter numbers 101, 201, 202,

301.

Sri Niwas Puri, Type-III Block 17, Quarter numbers

01, 101, 201, 301, 401, Block No. 18, Qtr. No. 01,

02, 03, 101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 301,302, 303,

401, 402, 403, Block No. 19, Quarter numbers 01,

02, 03, 101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303,

401, 402, 403, 501, 502, 503, 601, 602, 603, 701,

702703, Block No. 20, Quarter numbers 01, 02, 03,

101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401,

402, 403, 501, 502, 503, 601, 602, 603, 701, 702,

703, Block No. 21, Quarter numbers 01, 101.

6. Sri Niwas Puri, Type-III (only for Kalawati Saran

Children Hospital)

Block No. 21, Quarter numbers 02, 03, 102, 103,

201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501,

503, 601 Block No. 22 Quarter numbers 01, 02, 03,

101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401,

402, 403, 501, 502, 503, 601, 602, 603, 701, 702,

703.

Telegraph Square, New Delhi Type-III, Quarter

numbers 01, 04, 06, 08, 10,12,13,33,35.

8. Telegraph Traffic Place, Type-III, Quarter numbers

01, 03, 05, 06, 08.

9. Telegraph Traffic Place, New Delhi Type-III,

Quarter numbers 12, 13, 14, 15, 17.

10. Fouch Square, New Delhi Type-III, Quarter numbers

E-63.

11. Raja Bazar, New Delhi, Type-III, Quarter numbers

24A, 24B, 24C, 24D, 24E, 24F.

12. P.K. Road, New Delhi, Type-III, Block-I, Qtr No.

01 to 15, Block-II, Qtr. No. 16 to 30.

13. P.K. Road, New Delhi Type-II, Block-I, Quarter

numbers 01 to 15, Block-II, Quarter numbers 16 to

30.

4018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. Nanak Pura, New Delhi. Type-II, Quarter numbers

E-22A, E-25, E-25A, E-26, E-28, E-29, E-30A,

E-31A, E-34, E-39A.

15. Minto Road, New Delhi. Type-II, Quarter numbers

01, 08, 17, 28, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 53, 54, 55,

60.

16. P.K. Road, New Delhi. Type-I, Block 112, Quarter

numbers 01 to 112.

17. P.K. Road, New Delhi. Type-I, Block 45, Quarter

numbers 113 to 157.

18. P.K. Road, New Delhi. Type-I, Block 85, Quarter

numbers 120 to 127, 133 to 139, 265 to 309.

[No. V. 21020/21/2015-H-II]

SANJAY PANT, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1801-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkaHkj

lkYV~l fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 6@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@228@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2016

S.O. 1801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 6/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

management of the Sambhar Salts Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/228/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 6/2016

Reference No. L- 42011/228/2015-IR (DU) Dated: 19.01.2016

The president

Sambhar Salts Karmachari Sangh

Salt Colony, Station Road, Sambhar Lake,

Jaipur- 303604.

V/S

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4019

The General Manager

Sambhar Salts Ltd,

B-427, Pradhan Marg , Malvia Nagar,

Jaipur-303604.

AWARD

29.6.2016

The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2 (A) of

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

adjudication:-

^^D;k izca/ku egkizca/kd ¼dk;Z½] lkaHkj lkYVl fyfeVsM+] lkaHkj ysd] ftyk t;iqj dk lkaHkj lkYV deZpkjh la?k dh

ekaxksa dh ikyuk uk fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks ;wfu;u fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk

vf/kdkjh gS\ß

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

tribunal fixing 23.3.2016 for filing statement of claim.

On 23.3.2016 authority was filed on behalf opposite party. None appeared from the applicant side & statement

of claim was note filed. Applicant was served & acknowledgment with reference to service of notice by registered post

is on record. Case was adjourned in the interest of justice furnishing opportunity to the applicant fixing 4.5.2016 for

filing statement of claim. On 4.5.2016 also none appeared on behalf of applicant & applicant side was absent. Learned

representative on behalf of opposite party Shri K.L.Indoria, Assistant Law Officer was present. Case was adjourned by

tribunal suo moto & 23.6.2016 was next date fixed for filing statement of claim.

On 23.6.2016 also neither anyone appeared on behalf of applicant nor was statement of claim filed. Shri

K.L.Indoria, Assistant Law Officer was present for opposite party. Objection was raised by learned representative of

opposite party, the Law Officer that earlier tribunal has adjourned the case on its own motion twice & none is

appearing from the side of applicant & no interest is shown by them to file statement of claim hence, further

opportunity should be closed. Accordingly, opportunity to the applicant for filing statement of claim was closed by

tribunal & case was reserved for award.

It is pertinent to note that reference order dated 19.1.2016 was sent by ministry to applicant with direction to

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

claim on the direction of Ministry nor on notice & knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal. It appears

that applicant is not interested & willing in submitting the claim for adjudication. In absence of statement of claim &

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.

Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D. Act.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1802-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fefyVªh

bathfu;¯jx l£ol ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 7@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011@23@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2016

S.O. 1802.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 7/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

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

Military Engineering Service and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16.08.2016.

[No. L-14011/23/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

4020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 7/2016

Reference No. L-14011/23/2015-IR (DU) Dated: 19.01.2016

The Secretary

MES Employees Union,

Hanuman Hatta, Gali No.1,

Bikaner – 334001.

V/s

The CWE

Military engineering Service

Bikaner – 334001.

Durg Abhiyanta

North M.E.S.,

Binaner – 334001.

AWARD

29.7.2016

The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of

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

adjudication:-

^^D;k izca/ku nqxZ vfHk;ark] mRrj chdkusj dk ,e0 bZ0 ,l0 ,EiykbZt ;wfu;u] chdkusj ds ;wfu;u dk;kZy; ij

rkyk yxk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks ;wfu;u fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**

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

the tribunal fixing 23.3.2016 for filing statement of claim. On 23.3.2016 applicant was absent & Sh. Babulal Raigar,

Office Supdt., was present on behalf of opposite party. Applicant was served & acknowledgement sent to the applicant

with notice has been received back & is available on the record of the file. In the interest of justice case was adjourned

& next date 5.5.16 was fixed for filing statement of claim by applicant.

On 5.5.2016 applicant was absent & statement of claim was not filed by applicant. Sh. Babulal Raigar, Office

Supdt., appeared for opposite party. In the interest of justice case was adjourned by the tribunal on it’s own motion like

past date & another date 9.6.2015 was fixed for filing statement of claim by applicant. Authority presented on behalf of

opposite party was annexed on record. On 9.6.2015 also neither anyone appeared from the side of applicant nor

statement of claim was filed. Sh. Babulal Raigar, Office Supdt., was present on behalf of opposite party. 12.7.2016 was

next date fixed for filing statement of claim by applicant.

On 12.7.2016 neither anyone appeared on behalf of applicant nor statement of claim was filed. Sh. Babulal

Raigar, Office Supdt., appeared on behalf of opposite party. Observing that applicant is not interested in filing

statement of claim once again 29.7.2016 was next date fixed for filing statement of claim providing last opportunity to

the applicant with further observation that if statement of claim is not filed the case will be decided in absence of

statement of claim.

On 29.7.2016 none appeared on behalf of opposite party & statement of claim was also not filed. Sh. Babulal

Raigar, Office Supdt., present on behalf of opposite party submitted that applicant is not filing statement of claim & in

spite of his non-appearance opportunities are extended to him by tribunal without adjournments or appearance from the

side of applicant. Looking into objection from the opposite party further opportunity for filing statement of claim by

opposite party was closed & case was reserved for award.

It is important to note that when notices were sent to parties for filing statement of claim for date fixed

23.3.2016 a registered letter containing a bundle of document containing nearly 200 page have been received which

have been taken on record. These documents are to protest the claim of the applicant & has been addressed to tribunal.

From perusal of the documents it appears that these documents are expected annexures with reply against anticipated

statement of claim. It is clear from above fact & circumstance that till now statement of claim has not been filed by

applicant despite service of notice against him and repeated opportunities given to applicant.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4021

It is pertinent to note that reference order dated 19.1.2016 was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction to

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

claim on the direction of Ministry nor on notice & knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal. It appears

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

of statement of claim & material evidence brought on record, tribunal is unable to record the finding on the reference

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

is answered accordingly.

Award as above.

Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D.Act.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1803-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy

xouZesaV gsYFk Ldhe ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 64@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@50@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2016

S.O. 1803.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 64/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Central Government Health Scheme and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 16.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/50/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 64/2015

Reference No. L-42011/50/2015-IR (DU) Dated: 18.06.2015

Shri Pramod Kumar

S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad,

Plot No. 280, Aamagarh,

Vaidhpuri Harijan Basti,

Agra Road, Jaipur -303105

Vimla Devi

W/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad,

Plot No. 280, Aamagarh,

Vaidhpuri, Harijan Basti,

Agra Road, Jaipur.)

V/S

The Addition Director,

Central Government Health Scheme,

Kendriya Sadan Parisar, Khand –B,

Sector -10 Vidyadhar nagar,

Jaipur -302039.

4022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present :

For the Applicant

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Chauhan Adv.

For the Non-Applicant

Sh. Kunal Rawat Adv.

AWARD

Dated :29.7.2016

The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2 (A) of

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

adjudication:-

^^D;k izca/ku dsUnzh; ljdkj LokLF; ;kstuk] t;iqj dk izkFkhZ izeksn dqekj dks fnukad 08-05-2001 ds ckn ls

vuqdEik fu;qfDr uk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks izkFkhZ fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh

gSsA**

Briefly fact of the case is that applicant No.1 Sh. Pramod Kumar is son of applicant No.2 Smt. Vimla Devi w/o

Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad. Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad was a class IV employee in the office of Additional Director, Central

Government Health Scheme, Jaipur who died on 22.2.2001 during service. After death of deceased Sh. Jagdish Prasad

his family became helpless & there was none to bear the expenses of the deceased’s family. After death of Late Sh.

Jagdish Prasad his wife Smt. Vimla Devi moved an application on 8.5.2001 before Additional Director, Central

Government Health Scheme, Jaipur for appointment of his son Sh. Pramod Kumar in dying in harness which was not

considered. The fact of moving application on 8.5.2001 was admitted before the Regional Labour Commissioner by

opposite party in dispute raised by applicant Sh. Pramod Kumar before the RLC, Jaipur.

Applicant Sh. Pramod Kumar was issued a letter No. CGHS/JPR/1-21/2013 (A.D.M.N.) 229 dated 2.4.2014 from

the office of Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Jaipur which was received by him on 10.4.2014.

In this letter referring to letter dated 28.3.2014 of the office of Director General an intimation was given that

applications relating to appointment on the basis of dying in harness must reach to the office of Director General, New

Delhi by 15.4.2014. It was also intimated that such application must reach to the office of Additional Director, Central

Government Health Scheme, Jaipur by 10.4.2014 so that it may be transmitted to New Delhi to reach in time.

Further, it has been alleged in para 3 of statement of claim that applicant Sh. Pramod Kumar submitted the

application in proforma with all documents before the Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Jaipur

on 11.4.2014 which was rejected on the ground that applicant was married on the date of application dated 11.4.2014.

The information regarding rejection of application was sent to the applicant vide letter No. CGHS/JPR/1-

21/2013(A.D.M.N.) 1194 dated 11.4.2015 from the office of Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme,

Jaipur. It has been alleged that it is pertinent to mention that applicant had submitted his application for appointment on

the basis of dying in harness on 8.5.2001 & had become entitled for appointment on that basis at that time itself

whereas his marriage was solemnised on 7.2.2010 i.e. after laps of nearly ten years from application dated 8.5.2001.

It has been further alleged that reference of the Ministry regarding dispute for adjudication of award dated

18.5.2015 sent by Ministry was received by applicant hence, he submitted the statement of claim to secure appointment

on the basis of dying in harness. Accordingly, applicant has requested that his application for relief for appointment be

allowed & order passed in his favour for appointment.

After receipt of reference notices were sent to the parties & on 1.12.2015 statement of claim was filed by

applicant Sh. Pramod Kumar as indicated above. Copy of the statement of claim was given to opposite party on

1.12.2015 & 25.1.2016 was date fixed for filing reply to statement of claim. After 25.1.2016 next dates 4.4.2016,

10.5.2016, 20.6.2016 & 27.7.2016 were fixed for filing reply to statement of claim by opposite party but no reply to

statement of claim was filed.

On 27.7.2016 an application was moved by applicant Sh. Pramod Kumar to withdraw the application with

contention that by mistake he has moved the statement of claim before the tribunal & he is interested in presenting his

petition before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur. Allowing the application of the applicant following

order was passed on the application of the applicant on 27.7.2016 which reads as under :-

27-07-2016 vkt i=koyh izLrqr gqbZA vkosnu ;kph dh rjQ ls izLrqr gqbZ ftlesa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd ekeys dks

okfil ysus dh vkKk iznku dh tk;A foi{k }kjk vf/kdkj i= izLrqr gqvkA ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k rFkk foi{k ds

fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh dq.kky jkor mifLFkr gSA vkt gh vkosnu fuL=kj.k ij cy fn;k x;kA vkosnu ij mHk; i{k

dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA vkosnd ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk dFku gS fd vkosnd eqdnesa dks okil

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4023

ysuk pkgrk gS rFkk ekuuh; iz’kklfud vf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds le{k ekeys dh izLrqfr djuk pkgrk gSA foi{k ds

fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh cgl gS fd mUgsa vkifRr ugha gSA vukifRr ds lUnHkZ esa vkosnu ij Hkh foi{k }kjk mYys[k fd;k

x;k gSA vkosnu esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd i=koyh fnukad 03-08-2016 dks tckc gsrq fu;r gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad

13-10-2014 dks Je vk;qDr ds le{k vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk fd izkFkhZ ds firk Jh txnh’k izlkn] vij

funsZ’kd egksn;] dsUnzh; ljdkj LokLF; ;kstuk] t;iqj esa prqFkZ Js.kh ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks ftudh lsok dky ds

nkSjku fnukad 22-02-2001 dks e`R;q gks x;h vkSj eqR;q ds ckn e`rd dk ifjokj vlgk; gks x;k D;ksafd ?kj dk [kpkZ

pykus ckyk dksbZ ugha FkkA izkFkhZ dh ekrk us izkFkhZ dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr djkus gsrq ,d izkFkZuk i=

fnukad 08-05-2001 dks foi{kh ds ;gkWa izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftl ij lgkuHkwfriwoZd fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA ;g Hkh dgk

x;k gS fd izkFkhZ us fof/kd Hkwyo’k ;g ekeyk ekuuh; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;k gS] vr% bl ekeys dks

okil ysus dh vuqefr iznku dh tk; D;ksfd izkFkhZ ekeys dks ekuuh; dsUnzh; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr djuk

pkgrk gSA mDr fLFkfr ls ;g rF; fufoZokn izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ ekeus dks vkxs ughs pykuk pkgrk gS ,oa okil

ysuk pkgrk gSA ;g rF; Hkh fufoZokn gS fd foi{k dks izkFkhZ }kjk ekeys dks okil ysus esa dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS vr%

izkFkhZ dh vkosnu bl ekeys dks [kkfjt djrs gq, Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gS]

vkns’k

izkFkhZ dh vkosnu Lohdkj dh tkrh gS ekeys dks okil ysus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk ekeys dks

okil fy;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij rnuqlkj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA i=koyh ,okMZ gsrq vkjf{kr dh tkrh gSA

Award as above.

Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D.Act.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1804-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fczfV'k

bafM;k dkjiksjs'ku ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 29@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@04@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 29 of 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the British India Corporation and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/04/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 29 of 2011

Between :

Sri Hari Kishan Gupta,

Son of late Sri Virendra Swarup Gupta,

2/132 Gwaltoli,

Kanpur

4024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And

The Chairman,

British India Corporation,

Head office, Elgin Mills Co. Ltd, Mill No.1,

Parwati Bagla Road,

Civil Lines,

Kanpur

AWARD

Central Govt., MoL & Employment, New Delhi, vide notification No. L-42012/04/2011-IR (DU) dated

05.05.2011, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of British India Corporation Ltd, M/s. Elgin Mills Co. Limited Kanpur in

terminating the services of Sri Hari Kishan son of late Virendra Swarup Gupta with effect from 25.09.2000 without

following any procedure under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and even during the pendency of Industrial Dispute for

adjudication at Labour Court, Kanpur (State Government) is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?

The case of the worker in short is that he was appointed under the employment of the opposite at the post of 4^th

grade worker in Elgin Mill No.1, Parwati Bagla Road, Kanpur and he was removed by the employer violating the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with effect from 25.09.2000 without adopting any legal procedure

accordingly he has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages.

Management has filed its preliminary objection stating that the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad had instituted

liquidation proceedings against the answering company and as such the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the

powers of Hon’ble Labour Court are hit by section 446 of the Company’s Act. The employer is covered under the

provisions of certified standing order and the standing orders are applicable on both the parties. It is also pleaded that

due to unavoidable circumstance coped with financial problems the company had to stopped production from 1993 and

almost all the employees had taken up their full and final payment. The person mentioned in the reference order is not a

workman as defined under the Act.

On merit it is denied that the worker was ever appointed by the opposite party in his capacity as Telephone

Operator. Management has also denied the entire claim of the worker and prayed that the worker is not entitled for any

relief as the claim is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.

I have heard the parties representative on the application of management 17/1 for staying / closing further

proceedings of this case in accordance with the provisions of section 446 of the Company’s Act.

It is stated in the application supported by affidavit that in the writ petition No. 24/09 M/s Kotak Mahendra Bank

versus The Elgin Mills Co. Ltd, the Hon’ble High Court vide 25.10.10 ordered that the company may be wound up

under section 434 of the Company’s Act and official liquidator shall take charge of the company which is paper

No.17/3 and two other orders of Hon’ble High Court dated 7.3.13 and 29.7.13 are filed to show that official liquidator

has been appointed which are paper No.17/4-5.

It is pertinent to mention that in this industrial dispute case reference is sent to this tribunal by the Ministry vide

order dated 5.5.11 i.e. after the passing of the orders for appointment of liquidator by Hon’ble High Court.

Section 446(1) of Company’s Act provides that when a winding up order has been made ior the official liquidator

has been appointed no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced or if pending at the date of winding up order

shall be proceeded with against the company except by leave of the court and subjudice in such terms as the court may

impose.

10.

As discussed above, in this case reference has been made after the orders of the Hon’ble High Court for winding

up the company and appointment of official liquidator, therefore, this case cannot be proceeded as reference is made

after passing of order of appointment of official liquidator as provided under 446 of Company’s Act.

11.

As such this tribunal is not competent to decide the case and pass award.

12.

Reference is decided accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1805-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vk£d;ksykWftdy losZ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4025

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 51@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@49@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1805.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 51 of 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Archaeological Survey of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/49/2009-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 51 of 2009

Between :

The National President,

Bhartiya Puratatv Sarvekshan Karamchari Parishad,

(Intuc) 2/236 Namner,

Agra 282007.

And

The Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

22 Mall Road,

Agra Circle,

Agra.

AWARD

Central Govt. MoL, New Delhi, vide notification No. L-42011/49/2009-IR(DU) dated 30.11.2009, has referred

the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the demand of Bhartiya Puratatv Sarvekshan Karachari Parishad for grant of compassionate

appointment to Sri Shiv Prasad son of late Sri Panna Lal by the management of Archeological Survey of India Agra is

legal and justified? If yes to what relief the legal representative of the late workman is entitled to?

In short the union in its claim petition filed on behalf of Shiv Prasad has alleged that he is the son of late Panna

Lal and that said Panna Lal on the basis of award given by this Tribunal in industrial dispute No. 122 of 91 got

employment under the management and he died in harness. By the said award one Shiv Shanker also obtained

employment under the management who also died during his service period and his son Sri Jai Pal was employed by

the employer on compassionate ground by letter dated 06.01.2010. Sri Shiv Prasad made a request to appoint him on

compassionate ground but his request was denied and this issue is pending before the tribunal. On the basis of above

grounds it is prayed by the union to grant relief of appointment on compassionate ground to Sri Shiv Prasad.

Along with the claim statement representative for the union has filed certain documents.

Shiv Prasad has also filed affidavit in support of the contention of the claim petition.

Management has filed written statement in which apart from preliminary objection the claim of the union has

been refuted on merit also. It is also pleaded that the management against the award of this tribunal has filed a writ

petition before the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad which is still pending as such reference is premature and is not

maintainable before this tribunal. It is absolutely denied that the engagement of Jai Pal was on compassionate ground

rather he was engaged as casual Labour from time to time by the management, therefore, the present claim petition

filed by the union is liable to be rejected and should be rejected being devoid of merit.

4026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No rejoinder has been filed in the case by the Union.

No oral evidence has been given by the person on whose behalf appointment on compassionate ground has been

claimed by the union. Only certain photocopies of some documents have been filed by the union but the same has not

been proved.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as above, it is concluded that the union has

completely failed to prove its case before the tribunal by adducing cogent and convincing evidence.

10.

As such it is concluded that the union has failed to prove its case and in result it is held that the claim of the union

is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected holding that the union is not entitled for any relief.

11.

Reference is answered against the union.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1806-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV]

508 vkehZ csl odZ'kkWi ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 16@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011@11@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1806.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 16 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Commandant, 508 Army Base Workshop and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-14011/11/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 16 of 2014

Between :

Sri C. D. Pal,

General Secretary,

Mazdoor Union

508 Army Base Workshop,

Allahabad Union Office,

E/D51, ADA Colony,

Allahabad. 211008.

And

The Commandant,

508 Army Base Workshop,

Fort Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No. L-14011/11/2013-IR(DU) dated 21.01.2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of 508 Army Base Workshop for recovering the wages already paid to the

office bearers of the union as per annexure 1 against special casual leave already granted is legal ad justified? If not to

what relief the concerned workmen / union is entitled and to what extent.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4027

In the list annexed with the reference, the number of worker is 62 and in appendix list the number of worker is 10

which have been sent to this tribunal. However, the claim statement s filed by Sri C. D. Pal on behalf of only 16 workers.

Shortly stated facts of the case as pleaded in claim statement are that all the office bearers of the union are

entitled for 20 days special casual leave in a calendar year but n the year 2012 after payment of salary on 3.9.13 DO-2

has converted the special leave in to extra ordinary leave. Union has moved a joint application 05.10.13 for cancellation

of EOL and the amount paid was recovered from the salary of September 2013. Worker have moved an application

before CAT Allahabad but no stay h been granted. It is prayed that in the year 2012, 16 office bearers from Sri C. D.

Pal to R. K. Yadav mentioned in the attached list be held entitled for special casual leave and order dated 3.9.13 for

converting the leave in extra ordinary leave be cancelled.

In the written statement filed by the management it is stated that there is a provision for grant of special casual

leave to office bears of recognized trade union for participation in its activities has been incorporated in Civilian

Personnel Routine Order and AG Branch letter dated 31.7.91 applicable in the department as well as SOP (Standard

Operating Procedure) dated 26.12.11 of 508 Army Base Workshop Allahabad ad said special type of leave an

employee in the capacity of office bearer can be permitted to proceed on leave only if the same has been prior sanction

by the competent authority. Office bearers without having prior sanction of the said casual leave is not authorized to

proceed away from the duty place and in that case it shall be treated as absent without leave which is a very serious

offence under service rules. It is further stated that applications in connection with the special casual leave being

received from the union were not in adherence to the SOP despite of having full awareness of instructions hence were

not accepted in order to grant the said leave. Eve during the various forums/meeting at the unit level as well as unions

was apprised about applicants. However majority of the effected excluding the applicants office bearers in response to

instruction conveyed applied for another type of leave for the relevant spell of absence in order to get it regularized on

sanction by the competent authority and accordingly payment already made to them were not deducted on

regularization. Whereas particularly as EOL published under daily orders part II payment already made had to be

recovered as per the financial rules.

Applicant union filed OA No. 1272/13 application before CAT Allahabad for seeking same and similar relief and

the same has been decided at the admission stage.

It is also submitted that the present reference is bad in law and without jurisdiction.

Union has also filed rejoinder but nothing new has been pleaded therein.

Both parties have filed documents which shall be discussed at appropriate stage.

10.

On behalf of union Sri C. D. Pal General Secretary of the union has examined himself as W.W.1. Management

has not adduced any oral evidence.

11.

I have heard the arguments of the parties at length and have perused the records.

12.

It is admitted fact that 16 workers on whose behalf the present claim statement has been filed have applied for

special casual leave for different period but without having received the sanction order of special casual leave

proceeded to avail it and they have been paid salary for the whole month including the period for which they have

applied for special casual leave and thereafter department has asked them to apply for another kind of levee available to

them. Besides these 16 workers other union workers have applied for another kind of leave but these 16 workers have

not applied therefore, the department has granted extraordinary leave to these 16 employees in respect of the period for

which they applied for special casual leave and deducted the salary for the said period.

13.

WW.1 C.D. Pal has stated in his cross-examination that he has given application for special casual leave and he

does not know whether his leave was sanctioned or not. He has applied for 19 days special casual leave and on his

return he was told by the clerk that his leave was sanctioned. It is in his knowledge that department has given him in

writing that his leave was not sanctioned, he should apply for another kind of leave so that payment for the said period

may be regularized but he had not applied for another kind of leave but has submitted his reply.

14.

Learned authorized representative has contended that special casual leave cannot be taken as a matter of right and

before proceeding on special casual leave prior sanction is mandatory. He has admitted that the office bearers of

recognized trade union / service association are entitled to 20 days special casual leave in a calendar year as provided in

SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) and for grant of special casual leave relevant CPRO (Civil Personnel Routine

Order) dated 31.7.91 is applicable in the department as well as SOP dated 26.12.11 of 508 Army base Workshop

Allahabad prepared with a view to streamline the procedure for grant of special casual leave is applicable.

15.

On perusal of CPRO dated 31.7.91 it appears that in para 1A(3) it is provide that special casual leave admissible

has to be applied for and got sanctioned in advance and that special casual leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right

and it is open to toe competed authorities as to refuse the special leave if the competent authorities is satisfied that the

4028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

leave is not for taking part in the activities of the recognized association / union and in the SOP dated 17.1.12 has also

adopted the same as narrated in para 9. On perusal of photocopies of leave applications applied by 16 workers filed by

union it appears that no specific reason has been given regarding activities of trade union or no specific purpose has

been assigned.

16.

Besides this workers have proceeded on special casual leave without having any knowledge whether special

casual leave was sanctioned or not. It is against the provisions of aforesaid CPRO and SOP. Secondly workers cannot

claim special casual leave as a matter of right and if the competent authority is not satisfied he has ample power to

reject the same and asks the workers to apply for another kind of leave and in this case workers who have applied

another kind of leave the same was sanctioned and the salary was paid to them for the said period. The department has

shown sympathetic attitude towards these 16 workers in granting extra ordinary leave so that there may not be any

break of service in their carrier.

17.

The contention of the union is that they have received the salary for the period they have applied for special

casual leave means that special casual leave has been granted. It cannot be accepted because payment of salary to the

staff is done in routine way and if they have received the salary it cannot be presumed that special casual leave is

sanctioned to them and on written direction by the department to workers to apply any other kind of leave, the workers

who has applied for another kind of leave were granted salary for leave period and those worker who have not applied

for any other kind of leave in their case the department was justified in granting them extraordinary leave and

recovering wages already paid to the office bearers of the union.

18.

In view of above discussions, the action of the management for recovering wages already paid to 16 office

bearers of the union is legal and justified.

19.

Reference is accordingly decided against the union and in favor of the management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1807-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fefuLVªh

vkWiQ f'k¯ix ,aM ljisQl VªkaliksVZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 93@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@41@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1807.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 93 of 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/41/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 93 of 2013

Between :

Sri Pradeep Kumar Nishad,

Son of Sri Santosh Kumar Nishad,

House No. 54 Chhatnag,

Uparhar, PO Jhunsi,

Allahabad

And

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4029

The Director,

Ministry of Shipping Transportation,

Government of India,

Post-Guljarbagh Gaya,

Patna (Bihar)

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification No. L-42012/41/2013-IR(DU) dated 04.07.13, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Inland Waterways Authority of India in terminating the services of Sh.

Pradeep Kumar Nishad w. e. f. 27.12.11 without complying with the provisions of section 25F of Industrial Disputes

Act is legal and justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent?

It is pertinent to point out here that as per terms of reference order the tribunal has to examine a very short

question regarding applicability of the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, having regard to the

case set up by the worker.

From the order sheet it is clear that worker filed his claim petition on 13.12.13 and the copy of the same was

given to the management. As none was present from the side of the management on 14.03.14 opportunity to file written

by the management was closed. This order was recalled by the tribunal vide order dated 09.12.14 and the written

statement filed by the management was taken on record. After availing several opportunities neither any rejoinder nor

any documents was filed by the worker in the case. The worker has not turned up in the case.

In short the case as set up by the worker in his claim statement is that he was engaged as lascar on 01.08.09 on a

wage of Rs.2500/- per month by the opposite party and his wages were enhanced to Rs.8670/- per month with effect

from 27.12.11. It is claimed by the worker that he worked with the opposite party continuously from 01.08.09 to

27.12.11 without any break and payment of wages was made to him in cash after obtaining his signatures. The opposite

party without there being any sufficient cause have terminated his services and had also not complied with the

provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, inasmuch as neither any notice, notice pay nor

retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of his termination as such the termination of the worker is bad

in law being in breach of the provisions of section 25F of the Act, and thus he is entitled for his reinstatement with full

back wages.

The opposite party filed written statement alleging therein that present claim has been filed by the worker without

any cause of action suppressing the material facts as such is a fit case for rejection. It is stated that one of the

contractors of the management is M/s. Durgawati Enterprises who employed the present workman Pradeep Kumar

Nishad and relationship of employer and employee if any was between the Contractor and the worker. As per record of

the management said contractor started work from 12.05.09 and continued the contract work till 15.05.11 and the

worker was engaged with the said contractor. In the month of June the management was in need of some casual

workers on daily wages and then the alleged worker started working with the management on daily wage basis and the

worker in this way started working for the management on daily basis with effect from 01.06.11 and worked as such up

to 26.12.11 where after he made his service unavailable as daily wager and filed this case. Opposite party never made

any payment to the worker prior to 01.06.11 and he received payment of wages from the opposite party only for the

period 01.06.11 to 26.12.11 that is for six months. The worker has not completed 240 days of continuous services

therefore, there is no requirement to comply with the provisions of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the

case of the worker and as such the claim of the worker is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit.

The management has filed 8 documents in support of its pleadings. Worker has not filed any documents nor has

adduced his evidence in the case.

I have heard the arguments of authorized representative for the management and none for worker to make any

submission.

Worker has not adduced any oral evidence nor has produced any documents. Management has also not examined

any witness but has submitted 8 documents through list 13/1.

10.

A perusal of documents produced by the management it appears that worker Pradeep Kumar Nishad has been

engaged to work through contractor for the period August 09 to March 11 on the pay role of M/s. Durgawati

Enterprises but after March 11 he remained absent as shown in the certificate issued by the contractor which is paper

No.13/2. Management has also filed papers to show that the worker was engaged on casual basis for the month June to

August, 2011 and thereafter in October, 2011. As such worker has not completed 240 days of continuous working as

casual Labour proceeding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of termination i.e. 27.12.11.

4030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

From the documents produced by the management it is clear that worker was engaged through contractor and

thereafter engaged by the management as casual Labour for few months and this period of working is much less than

240 days as such provisions of section 25F of the Act cannot be made applicable in the case of the worker and on this

score the worker is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him.

12.

Accordingly reference is decided against the worker holding that he is not entitled for any relief as claimed by

him pursuant to the present reference order.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1808-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 68@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@146@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1808.—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 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/146/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 68 of 2015

Between :

Yogedra Puri son of Gokulpuri,

Vill-Chatnag, P.O.Jhunsi,

Allahabad – 211019

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification No. L-42012/146/2015-IR (DU) dated 09.09.2015, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the workman Shri Yogendrapuri son of Sri Gokulpuri, can be said to be the workman of Allahabad

University and if so whether the termination of services of the workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?

In instant case after receipt of reference order, registered notices to the opposite parties were sent by the tribunal

fixing 01.01.2016 as a date for filing the statement of claim and written statement by the opposite parties. On the date

fixed on behalf of the Allahabad University one Sri V. K. Gupta filed his power in the case but none was present on

behalf of the worker nor was any claim statement filed on his behalf in the case.

After availing sufficient opportunities worker failed to file his claim in the case which clearly indicate that the

worker is not interested in prosecuting his case, therefore all opportunities available to him were closed by order of the

tribunal dated 12.04.2016 and the case was reserved for award.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4031

From the above facts and circumstances of the case, the reference is bound to be decided against the worker in

the absence of pleadings and proof.

Accordingly the reference is decided against the worker and in favor of the management of Allahabad University.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1809-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 69@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@145@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1809.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 69 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/145/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 69 of 2015

Between :

Sri Rajesh kumar Tiwari,

Son of Kripa Shanker Tiwari,

Chakarhinagar

PO Saraintaki Jhunsi,

Allahabad

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification No. L-42012/145/2015-IR (DU) dated 09.09.2015, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the workman Shri Yogendrapuri son of Sri Gokulpuri, can be said to be the workman of Allahabad

University and if so whether the termination of services of the workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?

In instant case after receipt of reference order, registered notices to the opposite parties were sent by the tribunal

fixing 01.01.2016 as a date for filing the statement of claim and written statement by the opposite parties. On the date

fixed on behalf of the Allahabad University one Sri V K Gupta filed his power in the case but none was present on

behalf of the worker nor was any claim statement filed on his behalf in the case.

After availing sufficient opportunities worker failed to file his claim in the case which clearly indicate that the

worker is not interested in prosecuting his case, therefore all opportunities available to him were closed by order of the

tribunal dated 12.04.2016 and the case was reserved for award.

4032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

From the above facts and circumstances of the case, the reference is bound to be decided against the worker in

the absence of pleadings and proof.

Accordingly the reference is decided against the worker and in favor of the management of Allahabad University.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1810-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 90@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@43@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1810.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 90 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/43/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 90 of 2015

Between :

Suresh Narain Shukla,

Son of Sri Mata Prasad Shukla,

88 Chakdoud Nagar,

Naini,

Allahabad-211008

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No.L-42012/43/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Suresh Narain Shukla can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether the

termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT cum Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT cum Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 90 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4033

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1811-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 91@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@44@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 91 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/44/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 91 of 2015

Between :

Sri Prabha Shanker Tripathi,

Son Samgan Lal Tripathi,

Village Payasi Ka Pura,

Post Atrampur, Nawabganj,

Allahabad-226012

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No.L-42012/44/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Prabha Shaker Tripathi can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether

the termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT cum Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT cum Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 91 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1812-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 92@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@45@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1812.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 92 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/45/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 92 of 2015

Between :

Sri Ashok Kumar Pal,

Son of Achhey Lal,

Village Deragadai,

Post Tharwai,

Allahabad-211019

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No.L-42012/45/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Ashok Kumar Pal can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether the

termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT cum Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT cum Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 92 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4035

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1813-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 93@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@46@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 93 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/46/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 93 of 2015

Between :

Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey,

Son of Sri Umakant Pandey,

Village Bargarh,

Post Bargarh,

District Chitrakoot,

Allahabad-210208

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No.L-42012/46/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether the

termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT cum Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT cum Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 93 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1814-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 94@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@47@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 94 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/47/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 94 of 2015

Between :

Sri Amarnath Yadav,

Son of Sri Chhotey Lal Yadav,

Village Basaudhe,

Post Sikandra,

Phoolpur,

Allahabad-212109

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No.L-42012/47/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Amarnath Yadav can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether the

termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 94 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4037

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1815-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 95@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@48@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 95 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/48/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 95 of 2015

Between :

Sri Subhash Chandra,

Son of late Hiralal,

375A/1B Meerapur,

Allahabad-211002

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No. L-42012/48/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Subhash Chandra can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether the

termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 95 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1816-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 96@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@49@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 96 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/49/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 96 of 2015

Between :

Sri Praphull Kumar,

Son of Srideo Brijendra Mishra,

Village & Post Kalyanpur

Allahabad-212502

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No.L-42012/49/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Praphull Kumar can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether the

termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 96 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4039

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1817-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 97@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@50@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 97 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/50/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 97 of 2015

Between :

Sri Hari Kirti Singh,

Son of late Amar Bahadur Singh,

Village Chakpuri Miyankhurd (Miyan ka Pura)

Post & Tehsil Naini,

Allahabad-211010

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No. L-42012/50/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Hari Kirti Singh can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether the

termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 97 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1818-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 98@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@51@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 98 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/51/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 98 of 2015

Between :

Sri Vijai Singh,

Son of Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh,

Village & Post Jagatpur

Allahabad-221505

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No.L-42012/51/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Vijai Singh can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether the

termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 98 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4041

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1819-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 100@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@53@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 100 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/53/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 100 of 2015

Between :

Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey,

Son of Sri Raj Narain Pandey,

Village Semri Post Pratappur,

Allahabad-212402

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No. L-42012/53/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether

the termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 100 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1820-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 101@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@54@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 101 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/54/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 101 of 2015

Between :

Sri Pramod Kumar Tiwari,

Son of Sri Gulab Shanker Tiwari,

Village Sumerpur,

Post Chhibaiyan,

Allahabad-211002

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No. L-42012/54/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Pramod Kumar Tiwari can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether

the termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 101 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4043

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1821-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 103@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@56@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 103 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/56/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 103 of 2015

Between :

Sri Ghanshyam Tiwari,

Son of Sri Shitla Prasad Tiwari,

Village Pandit Ka Pura,

Post Tharwai,

Allahabad-211013

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No. L-42012/56/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Ghanshyam Tiwari can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether the

termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date?

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 103 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1822-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 107@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@60@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 107 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/60/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 107 of 2015

Between :

Sri Yudhishthir Prasad Sharma

Son of Sri Jamuna Prasad,

277-B/10B Kandhaipur,

Dhoomanganj,

Allahabad-211011

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No. L-42012/60/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Yudhishthir Prasad Sharma can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so

whether the termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 107 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4045

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1823-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 113@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@66@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 113 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/66/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 113 of 2015

Between :

Sri Arun Kumar Mishra,

Son of Sri Awadh Bihar Mishra

Village Ram Nagar,

Post Ram Nagar,

District Chitrakoot-210205

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No. L-42012/66/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Arun Kumar Mishra can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether

the termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 113 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1824-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 115@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@68@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 115 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/68/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 115 of 2015

Between :

Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,

Son of Raj Bahadur Yadav,

Village Badhanpur,

Post Smailganj,

District Allahabad-211013

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No. L-42012/68/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav can be regarded as the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether the

termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from what date.

Earlier the instant reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Lucknow for filing his claim in

the case. Later on the said reference was transferred to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, from CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur. On receipt of this file it was registered with I.D. No. 115 of 2015 and again registered notice was issued

to the worker for filing claim statement in the case. On 09.05.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker

turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker

is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to

give an award in the case against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4047

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1825-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuoflZVh ,aM vkWnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 62@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@137@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 62/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/137/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 62 of 2015

Between :

Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey,

Son of Daljit Narain Pandey,

Vill. Tikri, P.O. Atrampur

District Allahabad.

And

1. The Registrar, Allahabad University, Allahabad.

2. The Director, M/s Fighting Four Security Services Pvt. Ltd.,

FF No 59/88 Khyajana Shopping Complex, Ashiyana, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Govt., MoL & Employment, New Delhi, vide notification No.L-42012/137/2015-IR (DU) dated

21.08.2015, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey can be said to be the workman of Allahabad University and if so whether

the termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal & justified? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled and from which date?

3. After receipt of the reference notices were sent to the parties to file their claim petition and written statement

fixing 18.02.2015.

4. On 18.12.2015 when the case was taken up none appeared from the side of the worker although representative

for both the opposite parties were present. However more opportunities to the worker was afforded to file

claim petition by fixing 12.02.16 & 29.03.16, but on the said dates none appeared from the side of the worker

nor filed claim petition in the case.

5. On the basis of above it is concluded that the worker has been given adequate opportunity to discharge his

obligation by filing claim petition during the statutory period granted by this tribunal but the worker failed in

doing so.

4048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6. Therefore, from the above it is absolutely clear that the worker is not interested in contesting the present

dispute, therefore, it is held that the worker is not entitled for any relief in the absence of pleadings and proof.

7. Reference is answered accordingly against the worker and in favor of the opposite parties.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1826-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

;wfuoflZVh ,aM vkWnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 63@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@136@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 63/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the Allahabad University and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/136/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 63 of 2015

Between :

Sri Kamlesh Kumar Mauraya,

Son of Sri Ganda Lal Mauraya,

Govindpur Chauraha P.O. Nyayapuri

District Allahabad.

AND

3. The Registrar, Allahabad University, Allahabad.

4. The Director, M/s Fighting Four Security Services Pvt. Ltd.,

FF No 59/88 Khyajana Shopping Complex, Ashiyana, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Govt., MoL & Employment, New Delhi, vide notification No. L-42012/136/2015-IR (DU) dated

21.08.2015, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether Sri Kamlesh Kumar Maurya can be said to be the workman of Allahabad University and if so

whether the termination of employment of the concerned workman is legal & justified? If not to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?

3. After receipt of the reference notices were sent to the parties to file their claim petition and written statement

fixing 18.12.2015.

4. On 18.12.2015 when the case was taken up none appeared from the side of the worker although representative

for both the opposite parties were present. However more opportunities to the worker were afforded to file

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4049

claim petition by fixing 12.02.16 & 29.03.16 but on the said none appeared from the side of the worker nor

claim petition filed in the case.

5. On the basis of above it is concluded that the worker has been given adequate opportunity to discharge his

obligation by filing claim petition during the statutory period granted by this tribunal but the worker failed in

doing so.

6. Therefore, from the above it is absolutely clear that the worker is not interested in contesting the present

dispute, therefore, it is held that the worker is not entitled for any relief in the absence of pleadings and proof.

7. Reference is answered accordingly against the worker and in favor of the opposite parties.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1827-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy

VsDlVkby dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 110@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@68@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1827.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 110/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the National Textile Corporation Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/68/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 110/2014

Between :

The President, NTC Staff Association,

4/5 New Victoria Mills Banglow,

14/1 Civil Lines, Kanpur 208001

AND

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

National Textile Corporation Limited,

Core – IV Scope Complex,

7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoL, New Delhi vide notification No. L-42011/68/2014-IR(DU) dated 01.09.2014, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of National Textile Corporation Ltd in not implementing the

recommendations of 6^th Pay Commission in respect of NTC sub office and its mills at Kanpur is just fair and

legal? If not to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?

4050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. It is stated by the Association raising the dispute that National Textile Corporation Limited was established in

the year 1968 to manage the affairs of sick textile undertakings taken over by the Government of India and all

the employees of the subsidiary have become the employees of the management at New Delhi ad are governed

under the one set of service rules of the corporation. It is alleged that in the corporation two wage patterns are

in existence for the employees who have been governed under CDA rules and since the members of the union

opted Central Dearness Allowance at par with Central Government employees and have been allowed the

benefit of IV & V Pay Revision from time to time as and when the pay revision of Central Govt. employees

taken place in view of the above cited order of the Apex Court. Thereafter after quoting several notification of

Government of India issued from time to time it is stated that the order of the President does not discriminate

the employees for implementation of its recommendations to the employees of the Corporation and it means

that the employees of the corporation are entitled to get benefit of Sixth pay Commission and it is panic that

the corporation has not allowed the benefit of sixth pay commission to the employers of sub offices employed

in the domain of U.P. in terms of presidential order and guidelines framed by DPE in the above said letter

dated 30.04.13. It is also pleaded that the employees of the corporation were paid interim relief as per

recommendations of sixth pay commission set up by Government of India. The matter was raised before the

RLC© Kanpur and in the conciliation proceedings management vide letter dated 09.04.14 has informed that

the demand of implementation of sixth pay commission is under consideration. However the management has

not considered legitimate demand of the union and consequent upon the present dispute has been referred to

this tribunal. Accordingly it is prayed by the Association that this tribunal be pleased o hold the action of the

management in not implementing the recommendation of sixth pay commission to the employee of NTC sub

office and its mills at Kanpur is illegal and unjustified and further pleased to direct the employers to allow the

benefit of sixth pay commission with retrospective effect at par with other employees of the corporation along

with interest.

4. Management has not filed written statement. No parties have given oral or documentary evidence.

5. Management has moved an application 8/1 along with along with application of Sri R D Tyagi President of

NTC Staff Association Kanpur, wherein it is stated that the Association has raised the present dispute but the

association do not want to press the present dispute as the demand of the Association do not survive after the

implementation of the recommendation of 6^th Pay Commission. The application is also signed by the

representative for the association which is not opposed by the management.

6. I have heard the parties and perused the record.

7. It appears that matter in the dispute has been resolved and NTC Staff Association does not want to press the

dispute, therefore, reference is decided accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1828-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy

VsDlVkby dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 12@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@133@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 12/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

management of the National Textile Corporation and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/133/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4051

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-

LABOUR-COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 12 of 2012

Between :

The Joint Secretary,

Cotton & Woolen Textile Worker’s Union,

102/95-A Colonel Ganj, Kanpur.

AND

The Managing Director,

M/s. National Textile Corporation,

Sylverton, 14/82 Civil Lines, Kanpur

AWARD

1. Central Govt. MoL & Employment, vide notification No. L-42012/133/2011-IR(DU) dated 24.01.12, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of management of National Textiles Corporation in denying the NTC revised pay scale(s)

w.e.f. 1.1.87 and 1.1.96 to Sri Kedar Nath Dixit is justified and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?

3. Heard the authorized representative for the management and none was present on behalf of the worker to

advance the arguments.

4. Both the parties have exchanged the pleadings.

5. During the proceedings of the case the authorized representative for the management filed certified copy of

order of the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad dated 31.03.15 passed in writ © No. 66504 of 12 M/s. National

Textile Corporation, Kanpur, versus Union of India and others wherein Hon’ble High Court Allahabad has

observed that under the circumstances I do not find that any industrial dispute exists in terms of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act and set aside the reference made in this Industrial dispute case dated 24.01.12 passed

by Central Government.

6. Against this order Sri Kedar Nath Dixit has filed special appeal defective No.425 of 15 against M/s. National

Textile Corporation and others which has also been dismissed by order dated 2.7.15 and order of single judge

of Hon’ble High Court has been affirmed.

7. In view of above as the reference passed by Central Government has been set aside by Hon’ble High Court

Allahabad, there appears no jurisdiction to proceed further in the present industrial dispute case.

8. Award is passed accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1829-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhvkbZVh 33@1995) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@83@94&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CIT 33/1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of

the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-40012/83/94-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

4052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

dsl ua- lh-vkbZ-Vh- 33@1995

jSQjSal% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns’k Øekad% ,y&40012@83@94&I.R.(D-U) ubZ fnYyh]

fnukad 09-06-1995

1- jkes'ojyky tkV iq= Jh cD'kkjke tkV] xkao fot;iqjk]

ukulj] ih-vks- fcUnk;dk] >ksVokMk] t;iqjA

---izkFkhZ

cuke

1- mi e.My vf/kdkjh QksUl] Hkkjr ljdkj fuxe

fyfeVsM] lkaxkusjh xsV] t;iqjA

---vizkFkhZ

mifLFkr

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % Jhefr 'kqHkk esgrk] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls %

Jh ,e- ,Q- cSx]

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls %

Jh vfHkuUnu tSu]

fnukad % 30-06-2016

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk Øekad ,y & 40012@83@94 I.R.(D-U)& ubZ fnYyh] ls fuEu vuqlwph

dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks fnukad 23-08-1995 dks bl vk'k; dk izkIr gqvk gS fd &

"Whether the action of the SDO (P), Telecom, Deptt. Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur in terminating the services of

Shri Rameshwar Lal Jat, a casual labour on daily rate basis on muster roll, is valid proper and justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

izkFkhZ jkes'oj yky dh vkSj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe bl vfHkdFku dk izLrqr fd;k gS fd mldh izFke fu;qfDr

foi{kh ds }kjk p;u izfØ;k viukdj nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds in ij fnukad 29-11-1978 dks vkns'k Øekad

bZ&17,@78&79@72 ds }kjk dh xbZ Fkh vkSj fu;kstu dkMZ la[;k lh&8757@78 tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] mldk dk;Z lnSo

vPNk jgk gSA mlus foi{kh foHkkx esa fujUrj uks o"kZ rd dk;Z fd;kA foi{kh foHkkx us mldh lsok,a fu;fer djus ds fy,

mls QkWeZ Hkjdj nsus ds fy, dgk] tks Jfed us fnukad 12-01-1989 dks Hkjdj tek djok fn;kA fnukad 15-01-1989 dks

mldh fpfdRldh; tk¡p foi{kh foHkkx ds MkWDVj }kjk dh xbZ] izek.k i= Hkh tkjh fd;k] tks foHkkx esa fn;k x;kA fnukad

24-03-1988 dks dkj.k crk, fcuk vkSj uksfVl o eqvkotk jkf'k fn, fcuk mldh lsok,a lekIr dj nhA fnukad 24-03-1988

dks tc og dk;Z ij mifLFkr gqvk rks ckj&ckj iwNus ij mls dkj.k ugha crk;k x;k vkSj dgk x;k fd mlds dk;Z dh

vko';drk ugha gSA mlds ckn Hkh og foi{kh ds yxkrkj lEidZ esa jgk vkSj dk;Z ij j[kus dh izkFkZuk dhA foi{kh us mls

cnfu;fr ls fnukad 21-05-1988 dks uksfVl fHktok;k] ftlesa feF;k vkSj eu?kMa+r vkjksi yxk, vkSj rhu fnu esa tokc

izLrqr djus dks dgk vkSj tokc izLrqr djus esa vleFkZ jgus ij fnukad 28-06-1988 ls dk;Z eqDr crk;kA mlus uksfVl

fnukad 21-05-1988 dk foLr`r tokc] lHkh dFkuksa ls bUdkj djrs gq,] iszf"kr dj fn;k FkkA foi{kh us vU; yksxksa dks Qk;nk

nsus dh uh;r ls mUgsa fu;qDr fd;k vkSj mUgsa LFkkbZ Hkh dj fn;kA Jfed us ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS]

mls fcuk uksfVl fn, vkSj lquokbZ dk ekSdk fn, lsokeqDr fd;k x;k gS] tks /kkjk 25 ,Q] th vkSj ,p vkS/kksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e dk mYy?kau gSA vr% Jfed dks fnukad 24-03-1988 voS/k lsok eqfDr ds fnu] ls iqu% lsok esa lHkh ykHkksa ds lkFk

fy, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkosA

foi{kh fuxe us LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe dk tokc izLrqr dj fojks/k fd;kA mudk mRrj esa ;g vfHkdFku gS fd

foHkkxh; fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ilZuy QkbZy dk vfHkys[k rhu o"kZ rd foHkkx esa jgrk gS vkSj mlds ckn vfUre :i ls

fuLrkfjr dj fn;k tkrk gSA Jfed ds dFkukuqlkj mls fnukad 24-03-1988 dks gVk;k x;k Fkk] tks chl lky iqjkuh ckr gS

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4053

vkSj izkFkhZ dk dksbZ fjdkMZ foHkkx esa miyC/k ugha gSA fookn vR;Ur foyEc ls mBk, tkus ds dkj.k Hkh fujLruh; gS] fujLr

fd;k tkosA

foi{kh us LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd muds foHkkx esa eLVªksy dh ys[kk

iqLrdsa Hkh ikap o"kZ rd j[ks tkus dk izko/kku gS vkSj mlds ckn ml vfHkys[k dks fuLrkfjr dj fn;k tkrk gSA izdj.k esa

o"kZ 2007 esa uksfVl feyus ds ckn fjdkMZ dkQh ryk'k fd;k x;k] ijUrq bl laca/k esa dksbZ vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha gqvkA

izkFkhZ us fnukad 24-03-1988 dks foi{kh }kjk gVkuk crk;k] ijUrq vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe esa ;g ugha crk;k fd fdlds }kjk

mls fu;qfDr nh xbZ vkSj fdlds }kjk gVk;k x;k vkSj fdlds }kjk uksfVl fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh ugha crk;k fd mlus

fdl vf/kdkjh dks lacksf/kr djrs gq, uksfVl dk tokc fn;k vkSj u gh ml Jfed dk uke crk;k] ftls Jfed dh txg

fu;qfDr nsrs gq, LFkkbZ fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us dkYifud vkSj vk/kkjghu rF; LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe esa vafdr fd, gSaA izkFkhZ us

dksbZ fu;qfDr i= vkSj lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k izLrqr ugha fd;k gS] dsoy foi{kh dks rax djus ds m)s'; ls ;g LVsVesaV vkWQ

DySe izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks fujLruh; gS] fujLr fd;k tkosA

izkFkhZ Jfed us tokc my tokc izLrqr dj vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd izkFkhZ Lo;a dks gVk, tkus ds ckn ls fujUrj

dk;Zokgh dj jgk gS vkSj mlus foHkkx dks i= vkSj uksfVl fn, gSaA vr% fjdkMZ fuLrkfjr djus dk dFku xyr gSA foi{kh

foHkkx us fjdkMZ dh vuqIyC/krk ds laca/k esa dksbZ izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ ds lkFk dk;Zjr dbZ O;fDr;ksa dks

foi{kh foHkkx fu;fer dj pqdk gSA izkFkhZ ds lkFk dk;Z djus okyksa esa dqN O;fDr;ksa ds uke xksiky yky ekyh iq= Jh

cksnwjke ekyh] NksVwyky tks'kh iq= Jh izgykn tks'kh] uUnyky 'kekZ iq= Jh txnh'k ukjk;.k 'kekZ ,oa jkeyky ekyh iq= Jh

:iukjk;.k ekyh gSaA

fnukad 07-04-1998 dks vf/kdj.k }kjk izdj.k esa izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ e; izfrfuf/kx.k ds mifLFkr ugha gksus ds dkj.k

fookn jfgr iapkV ikfjr fd;kA

Jfed ds izfrfuf/k }kjk izdj.k dks iqu% uEcj ij fy, tkus gsrq izkFkZuk i= fnukad 16-02-2005 dks izLrqr fd;k

x;k] ftl ij vf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 02-11-2006 ds }kjk mDr izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj djrs gq, izdj.k dks iqu% uEcj ij

ntZ fd, tkus ds vkns'k fn, x,A

Jfed us vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe ds leFkZu esa Lo;a jkes'oj yky tkV ,oa 'kadj yky ekyh ds 'kiFk i= is'k

fd;k] ftuls foi{kh fuxe }kjk izfrijh{kk dh xbZ rFkk nLrkosth lk{; esa QksVks izfr;kWa fu;qfDr izek.k i= izn'kZ McY;w&1]

jftLVªs'ku i= izn'kZ McY;w&2] 'kiFk i= izn'kZ McY;w&3] dk;Z vof/k ds izek.k i= tks mie.My vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd,

x, izn'kZ McY;w&4 yxk;r izn'kZ McY;w&14] lgdfeZ;ksa dh lwph izn'kZ McY;w&15 iznf'kZr djok, x,A

foi{kh fuxe us e`xsUnz flag ;kno dk 'kiFk i= is'k fd;k x;k] ftlls Jfed ds izfrfuf/k us izfrijh{kk dhA

cgl lquh xbZ rFkk i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 29-11-1978 dks p;u izfdz;k viukdj foi{kh us fu;ksftr fd;k

Fkk vkSj mlus fcuk :dkoV 9 o"kZ rd foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Z fd;k gSA mls fnukad 24-03-1988 dks vdkj.k gh ekSf[kd vkns'k

ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA mudk rdZ gS fd mDr lHkh rF; lk{kh jkes'oj yky vkSj 'kadjyky ds dFku rFkk mudh

vksj ls izLrqr ys[ki= QksVks izfr;kWa fu;qfDr izek.k i= izn'kZ&1] jftLVªs'ku i= izn'kZ&2] 'kiFk i= izn'kZ&3] dk;Z vof/k ds

izek.k i= tks mie.My vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd, x, izn'kZ&4 yxk;r izn'kZ&14] lgdfeZ;ksa dh lwph izn'kZ&15 ls izekf.kr

gksrs gSaA mudk rdZ gS fd mldh lsok laca/kh vfHkys[k foi{kh ds dk;kZy; esa Fkk] ijUrq foi{khx.k us mls izLrqr ugha fd;k

vkSj ;gh dgk fd ,slk dksbZ vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha gSA izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds ;gka ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z

fd;k gS vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh ds fy, ;g vko';d Fkk fd og vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] th] ,p

dh ikyuk djrs] tks Lohd`r :i ls ugha dh xbZA vr% lsok i`Fkd vkns'k fnukad 24-03-1988 voS/k gSA

mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd mlds }kjk izn'kZ McY;w&1 fu;qfDr laca/kh ys[k i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj foi{kh ds

lk{kh us ;g Lo;a ds ysVjisM ij gksuk vkSj bl ij lhy Hkh foHkkx dh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk izn'kZ McY;w&4 ls

yxkdj izn'kZ McY;w&13 izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr dk vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;k gS] mls Hkh foi{kh us vLohdkj ugha fd;kA bu lHkh

rF;ksa ls ;g izekf.kr gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds ;gka fu;ksftr Fkk vkSj mlus yxkrkj 9 o"kZ dk;Z fd;k gSA

blds foijhr foi{kh ds izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks p;u izfØ;k viukdj fu;qfDr iznku dh xbZ] izkFkhZ us 9

o"kZ ;k ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k vkSj mls fnukad 24-03-1988 dks lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;k] mDr

lHkh rF; izkFkhZ dks viuh ldkjkRed lk{; ls izekf.kr djus gSA izkFkhZ viuh lk{; ls mDr rF; izekf.kr djus esa loZFkk

vlQy jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks ys[ki= izn'kZ McY;w&1 viuh fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k x;k

gS] og fcuk fMLiSp uEcj dk gS vkSj okLro esa rFkkdfFkr fu;qfDr vkns'k rks izLrqr gh ugha fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ McY;w&2

'kiFk i= foHkkx dks izLrqr fd;k x;k gks] ,slk bls ns[kus ls izdV ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe esa

uksfVl fn, tkus] mldk tokc nsus] fu;fer djus gsrq dgus vkSj QkeZ Hkjdj nsus] fpfdRldh; ijh{k.k djokdj izek.k i=

nsus ds vfHkdFku fd, gSa] ijUrq buds laca/k esa ,d Hkh ys[ki= izLrqr ugha fd;k gS vkSj vU; lk{kh 'kadj yky lk{; esa

mifLFkr gqvk gS] mlds dFku vkSj izkFkhZ ds dFku esa xaHkhj fojks/kkHkkl gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ekSf[kd vkSj ys[ki=h;

4054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lk{; ls LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe ds vfHkopu drbZ izekf.kr ugha gksrs gSa vkSj u gh ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds

;gka ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA

eSaus rdZ fordZ ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;kA

izkFkhZ dks p;u izfØ;k viukdj fnukad 29-11-1978 ds vkns'k }kjk foi{kh ds ;gka fu;qfDr nh xbZ vkSj og 9 o"kZ

rd yxkrkj lsokjr jgk] mldh lsok,a fnukad 24-03-1988 dks lekIr dh xbZ vkSj mlus lsok eqfDr ls iwoZ ds ,d dsys.Mj

o"kZ esa 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k] mDr lHkh rF; izkFkhZ dks gh viuh fo'oluh; vkSj ldkjkRed lk{; ls izekf.kr

djus FksA foi{kh Hkkjr lapkj fuxe] dsUnz ljdkj dk lkoZtfud miØe gS] ftlesa fofgr izfØ;k dks viukdj gh fu;qfDr

nh tk ldrh gSA izkFkhZ dks fdlh izdkj dh p;u izfØ;k viukdj fu;qfDr nh xbZ] izkFkhZ us ugha crk;k vkSj u gh ,slk dksbZ

nLrkost izLrqr fd;k gS] ftlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gks fd p;u izfdz;k foHkkx }kjk viukbZ xbZ vkSj izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr nh

xbZ Fkh] ,slk izkFkhZ us vius bl vfHkdFku ds leFkZu esa dksbZ fu;qfDr i= Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls bl

laca/k esa ys[k i= izn'kZ McY;w&1 ftlesa gLrk{kjksa ds uhps fnukad 03-12-1984 vafdr gS] izLrqr fd;k gS vkSj izkFkhZ }kjk ;g

dgk x;k gS fd blesa mlds fu;qfDr vkns'k dk gokyk gSA ;g ys[k i= izFke rks fu;qfDr i= ugha gS] f}rh; bl ij fdlh

izdkj dk dksbZ fMLiSp uEcj vkfn vafdr ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd foi{kh ds lk{kh us ;g foHkkx ds ySVjgsM ij gksuk vkSj

bl ij foHkkx dh lhy gksuk izdV fd;k gS] ijUrq mDr dkj.k ls gh bls Lohd`r nLrkost ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA bl

ys[k i= ij fdlds gLrk{kj gSa] ;g izkFkhZ jkes'oj yky viuh izfrijh{kk esa ugha crk ik;k gSA bl lk{kh us viuh izfrijh{kk

esa ;g dgk gS fd mls ;g nLrkost ,lMhvks vkWfQl ,lth ls nLrh fn;k x;k Fkk] tks egsUnz flag xqysj us fn;k FkkA mDr

egsUnz flag xqysj dks izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls lk{; esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh mls lk{; esa cqykus dk gh dksbZ iz;Ru

fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ys[k i= izn'kZ McY;w&1 fof/k dh vis{kk ds vuq:i izekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrk vkSj blds

vk/kkj ij ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 29-11-1978 dks foi{kh ds ;gka fu;qfDr nh xbZ gksA izkFkhZ dh vkSj

ls ,d 'kiFk i= izn'kZ McY;w&2 dh QksVksizfr izLrqr dh xbZ gS vkSj izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj mlus ;g 'kiFk i= fnukad 23-04-

1984 dks ,lMhvks vkWfQl ,lth lkaxkusjh xsV esa fn;k FkkA bl ys[k i= ij bls foi{kh ds vkWfQl esa fn, tkus dk dksbZ

vadu ugha gS vkSj fnukad 23-04-1984 frfFk rks izkFkhZ dh igpku djus ds ckn fd, x, gLrk{kjksa ds uhps gSA 'kiFk i=

QksVks izfr gS vkSj bldh iq'r ij LVkWEi [kjhnus ds laca/k esa tks vadu gksrk gS mldh dksbZ izfr izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS] ;fn

og izLrqr dh tkrh rks vf/kdj.k ;g ns[kus esa l{ke gks ldrk Fkk fd fdlds }kjk] fdl m)s'; ls mDr LVkWEi fy;k x;k

FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ys[k i= Hkh u rks fof/kuqlkj izekf.kr gS vkSj u gh blls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ fnukad 23-04-

1984 dks ;k vU; fdlh fnu foi{kh ds ;gka fu;ksftr FkkA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks ,d vU; ys[k i= jftLVªs'ku i= izLrqr

fd;k gS; blds ckjs esa Hkh izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mls ;g Kkr ugha gS fd fdl vf/kdkjh }kjk mls

tkjh fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr mDr rhuksa nLrkost fof/k dh vis{kkvksa ds vuqlkj izekf.kr ugha gSa vkSj buls ;g

izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds ;gka fu;fer p;u izfØ;k viukdj fnukad 29-11-1978 dks fu;qfDr nh xbZA

izkFkhZ jkes'oj yky us foi{kh ds ;gka viuk dk;Z fd;k tkuk izekf.kr djus ds fy, QksVks izfr ys[k i= izn'kZ McY;w&4

izLrqr fd;k gSA ;g ys[k i= fdlds gLrys[k esa gS vkSj bl ij fdlds gLrk{kj gSa] ;g izkFkhZ us ugha crk;k gSA bl ys[k

i= dks ns[kus ls Li"V gks jgk gS fd bl ij dksbZ frfFk vafdr ugha gS vkSj u gh dksbZ fMLiSp uEcj gh vafdr gSA bl ys[k

i= esa ekg twu] tqykbZ] vxLr] 1979 esa jkes'oj yky tkV }kjk fd, x, dk;Z fnol nf'kZr gSa] ijUrq ;g ys[k i= fdl

vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij fufeZr fd;k x;k gS] ;g bls ns[kus ls izdV ugha gks jgk gSA ftu ys[k i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g cuk;k

x;k gS] os lk{; esa izLrqr ugha gq, gSaA oSls Hkh bl ys[k i= dks jpus okyk vkSj gLrk{kj djus okyk O;fDr lk{; esa Hkh ugha

vk;k gSA ;gh fLFkfr izn'kZ McY;w&5 yxk;r izn'kZ McY;w&13 dh gSA ;s lHkh nLrkost Hkh fof/k dh vis{kkvksa ds vuq:i

izekf.kr ugha fd, x, gSa vkSj bu ij gLrk{kj djus okys O;fDr lk{; esa ugha vk, vkSj u gh bu ij dksbZ fMLiSp uEcj gh

vafdr gSaA

,slh fLFkfr esa bu nLrkostksa ls ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds ;gka fu;ksftr dj o"kZ 1978 ls

fujUrj 9 o"kZ rd dk;Z fd;k gSA

izkFkhZ us vius vfHkdFku esa ;g dgk gS fd mls fnukad 24-03-1988 dks foi{khx.k }kjk lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;kA dsUnz

ljdkj }kjk iszf"kr funsZ'k esa Jfed dh lsok i`Fkd dh dksbZ fnukad vafdr ugha gSA vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe esa mlus ;g

rks vafdr gh ugha fd;k fd mls fdlus lsok i`Fkd fd;kA lsok i`Fkd fd, tkus dk dksbZ vkns'k izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr

ugha fd;k x;k gSA mlus rks ;g dgk gS fd mls ekSf[kd :i ls gVk;k x;k FkkA izfrijh{kk esa blus iwNs tkus ij ;g

crk;k fd mls enu flag jkBkSM ,lMhvks ,lth vkSj fnyhi pUnzk us ekSf[kd vkns'k ls gVk;k FkkA bu nksuksa ds }kjk bls

gVk;k x;k Fkk rks ;g buesa ls fdlh dks Hkh izkFkhZ lk{; esa ryc djok ldrk Fkk vkSj de ls de muds uke rks vius

LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe esa ntZ dj gh ldrk FkkA lk{kh jkes'oj yky tkV us osru] okmpj ij jsosU;w fVfdV yxkdj fn, tkuk

dgk gS] ijUrq bl Hkqxrku dk Hkh dksbZ ys[k i= mlus izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe esa ;g Hkh

vfHkdFku jgk gS fd mls fu;fer djus dh lwph o"kZ 1989 esa fudkyh xbZ Fkh] ijUrq ,slh dksbZ lwph Hkh izLrqr ugha dh xbZ

gS] ftlesa bldk uke gksA bldh fpfdRldh; tkWap gqbZ gks vkSj mlus izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k gks] ,sls fdlh izek.k i= dh

izfr Hkh blds }kjk izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA bl lk{kh us rks viuk iqfyl oSfjfQds'ku gksuk Hkh dgk gS] ijUrq ml laca/k esa

fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA bl lk{kh us foi{kh foHkkx esa dk;Z fd;k vkSj dk;Z ds fy, mlus LVksj

vkfn ls lkeku b';w fd;k x;k gks vkSj dk;Z lkSaik x;k gks] bl laca/k esa Hkh mlus dksbZ ys[k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA ,slh

fLFkfr esa Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us ftrus Hkh vfHkopu vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe esa fd, gSa] mUgsa izekf.kr djus ds fy, dksbZ

lk{; esa xzkg~; nLrkost izLrqr dj] mUgsa izekf.kr dj] rF;ksa dks lkfcr ugha fd;k gSA

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4055

lk{kh 'kadj yky ekyh izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ftlus vius eq[; dFku ds 'kiFk i= esa rks lu~

1982 esa viuh fu;qfDr foi{kh ds ;gka gksuk vkSj jkes'oj yky tkV ds lkFk fu;fer :i ls dk;Z djuk crk;k gS vkSj ;g

dgk gS fd os u, Qksu dusD'ku dh ykbZu yxkrs] tksM+rs] mUgsa nq:Lr djrs FksA bl lk{kh us fnukad 15-09-1993 dks Lo;a

dh lsok,a fu;fer fd;k tkuk dgk gS vkSj ;g Hkh izdV fd;k fd lu~ 1985 esa izdkf'kr lwph esa jkes'oj yky dk uke Fkk

vkSj lwph esa of.kZr lHkh O;fDr;ksa dks foHkkx }kjk fu;fer dj fn;k x;kA

eSaus bl lk{kh ds dFku dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;kA ;g lk{kh izkFkhZ jkes'oj yky ds xkao dk gS vkSj mls tUe

ls gh tkuuk dgrk gSA bl lk{kh us izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls tkudkjh ugha

gS fd jkes'oj yky dks fu;qfDr dk i= fdlus fn;kA jkes'oj yky dks D;k dk;Z fn;k x;k] mldk Hkh dksbZ fyf[kr vkns'k

ugha ns[kuk bl lk{kh us Lohdkjk gSA bl lk{kh us jkes'oj yky ds lkFk lkaxkusjh xsV ij dk;Z djuk dgk gS] ij Lohdkjk

gS fd mldk mifLFkfr jftLVj vkSj jkes'oj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj leku ugha FkkA jkes'oj yky fdl eLVªksy vf/kdkjh

}kjk fu;qDr fd;k x;k] bl laca/k esa Hkh mlus vufHkKrk tkfgj dhA mlus Lohdkjk gS fd mlus jkes'oj yky dks yxkus]

gVkus ds dksbZ dkxt ugha ns[ksA jkes'oj yky ds lkFk vkSj dkSu&dkSu deZpkjh dk;Z djrs Fks] muds uke Hkh ;g ugha crk

ik;k gSaA jkes'oj yky dks lsok i`Fkd fdl o"kZ esa fd;k x;k] bldh Hkh mls tkudkjh ugha gSA bl lk{kh us vius 'kiFk i=

esa ;g dgk gS fd lu~ 1985 esa nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dh lwph izdkf'kr dh xbZ vkSj ml lwph esa vafdr lHkh

deZpkfj;ksa dks ckn esa foHkkx us fu;fer dj fn;k tcfd viuh izfrijh{kk esa mlus ;g dgk gS fd lu~ 1989 esa fu;fer

fd, tkus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh lwph tkjh dh xbZA vkxs bl lk{kh us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mlus bl lwph dks ns[kk gh ugha]

blfy, bldks tkudkjh ugha gS fd bl lwph esa fdu&fduds uke gSaA viuh izfrijh{kk esa bl lk{kh us vkf[kjdkj ;g Hkh

Lohdkj dj fy;k fd og jkes'oj yky ds dgus ls vk;k gS vkSj mlds 'kiFk i= esa D;k vafdr gS] mls irk ugha gSA bl

izdkj ls Li"V gS fd jkes'oj yky ds xkao dk gksus ls ;g lk{kh vf/kdj.k esa dFku djus vk x;k vU;Fkk bls fookn ds

laca/k esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS vkSj bl lk{kh ds dFku drbZ fo'oluh; ugha gSaA

mi;ZqDr foospukuqlkj izkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ gS] mlls izkFkhZ vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe esa

vfHkdfFkr rF;ksa dks izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls lk{kh e`xsUnz flag ;kno ,lMhvks Qksu lkaxkusjh xsV dk

'kiFk i= izLrqr gqvk gS] ftlus ;gh dgk gS fd muds ikl jkes'oj yky] izkFkhZ] ls lacaf/kr fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vfHkys[k

ugha gSA iphl o"kZ iqjkuk ekeyk gS] tcfd vfHkys[k rhu o"kZ ds ckn gh u"V dj fn;k tkrk gS vkSj mUgsa o"kZ 2007 esa

uksfVl feyus ij izdj.k dh tkudkjh gqbZ gSA

eSaus bl lk{kh ds dFkuksa dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;kA ;g lgh gS fd bl lk{kh us ;g izdV fd;k gS fd izn'kZ

McY;w&15 muds foHkkx dk gks ldrk gS vkSj bl lk{kh us izfrijh{kk esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd izn'kZ 5 ij Hkh ,lMhvks ds

gLrk{kjksa dks ugha igpkurk vkSj izn'kZ 6 ij foHkkx dh lhy gS vkSj izn'kZ 1 yxk;r izn'kZ 13 ij ftu vf/kdkfj;ksa ds

gLrk{kj gSa] muds laca/k esa mlus dksbZ tkudkjh ugha yh] ijUrq bl lk{kh ds izfrijh{kk esa mDr dFku djus ek= ls ;g ugha

ekuk tk ldrk fd foi{kh us] izkFkhZ ds }kjk tks nLrkost izLrqr fd, gSa vkSj ftlds laca/k esa Åij foospu fd;k gS] dks

Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA ;g izkFkhZ dk nkf;Ro Fkk fd og fo'oluh; lk{; ls ,oa fof/k dh vis{kkvksa ds vuq:i bu nLrkostksa

dks izekf.kr djrk] dsoy nLrkost ij fdlds gLrk{kj gSa] bldh tkudkjh ugha gksuk dg nsus dks bls foi{kh dh

LohdkjksfDr ugha ekuh tk ldrhA ,slh fLFkfr esa Li"V gS fd foi{kh ds lk{kh us Hkh izkFkhZ ds vfHkdFkuksa ds fdlh rF; dh

fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ LohdkjksfDr ugha dh gSA

izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izLrqr ekeys esa foi{kh dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr ys[k i= tku cw>dj izLrqr

ugha fd, x, gSa vkSj dsoy rhu o"kZ esa ys[k i=ksa dks u"V djus ds fu;e dk cgkuk fy;k x;k gS vkSj foi{kh us lk{; dks

tku cw>dj Nqik;k gSA vr% mlds fo:) foijhr vk'k; fy;k tkosA vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu fofu'p; izLrqr fd;k&

AIR 2006 S.C. 355,

R.M. Yellatti Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer.

eSaus bl rdZ ij euu fd;k vkSj izLrqr fofu'p; dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;kA

orZeku izdj.k esa foi{kh us vkjEHk ls gh rhu o"kZ iqjkus nLrkostksa dks u"V djuk dgk gSA izkFkhZ us bu nLrkostksa

dks ryc djokus ds fy, fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ izkFkZuk i= Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA blds foijhr foi{kh ds lk{kh us 'kiFk

ij bUgsa foHkkx esa mDr nLrkost miyC/k ugha gksus dk dFku fd;k gSA oSls Hkh tks fofu'p; izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fd,

x, gSa] mlesa Hkh ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;gh dgk gS fd Jfed fu;ksftr Fkk vkSj mlus 240 fnu] ,d o"kZ esa] dk;Z

fd;k gS] ;g izekf.kr djus dk Hkkj Jfed ij gS vkSj og bl nkf;Ro dks ekSf[kd vkSj nLrkosth izHkko'kkyh (Cogent) lk{;

is'k djds gh fuoZgu dj ldrk gSA foijhr vk'k; fudkyk tkuk vr% gj ekeys ds rF;ksa ij fuHkZj djrk gS vkSj dsoy

'kiFk i= vFkok Jfed dk Lo;a dk vfHkdFku ;g izekf.kr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gS fd mlus ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z

fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa orZeku izdj.k esa ,sls rF; ugha gSa fd foi{kh ds fo:) foijhr vk'k; fy;k tkosA

i=koyh ij tks Hkh ekSf[kd vkSj ys[k i=h; lk{; gS] mlls esjs fopkj ls izkFkhZ ;g drbZ izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS

fd izkFkhZ jkes'oj yky foi{kh ds ;gka fu;ksftr fd;k x;k vkSj mls fnukad 24-03-1988 dks lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;k vkSj lsok

i`Fkddj.k ls igys mlus ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gSA tc izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr gh ugha dj ik;k gS

rks izkFkhZ fdlh izdkj dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe fujLruh;

gSA

mi;qZDr foospu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa fuEu vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS %&

4056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vf/kfu.kZ;

**Jfed jkes'ojyky tkV iq= Jh cD'kkjke tkV] xkao fot;iqjk] ukulj] ih-vks- fcUnk;dk] >ksVokMk] t;iqj dk

foi{kh mi e.My vf/kdkjh QksUl] Hkkjr ljdkj fuxe fyfeVsM] lkaxkusjh xsV] t;iqj ds ;gka fu;kstu esa gksuk izekf.kr ugha

gksus ls mldk LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ fdlh rjg dh dksbZ jkgr ,oa vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk

vf/kdkjh ugha gSA**

'kqHkk esgrk] U;k;k/kh”k

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1830-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 110@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@11@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 110/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-40011/11/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 110/2014

Between:

The District Secretary,

National Union of BSNL Workers FNTO,

West Godavari District,

Eluru.

The District Secretary,

Telecom Employees Progressive Union,

W.G.Distt Branch, Eluru-2.

…Petitioner/Union

AND

The General Manager,

Telecom District, BSNL,

Eluru, W.G.Dist.,

…Respondent

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4057

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri William Burra, Advocate

For the Respondent : Party in person/Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40011/11/2014-IR(DU) dated 2.6.2014

referred the following dispute between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and their workman under

section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demands of the workmen of BSNL, Eluru is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the

workmen are entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 110/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The case stands posted for filing of documents by the Petitioner.

Inspite of availing several opportunities to file documents, the Petitioner union failed to file documents and

remained absent. No steps are taken on their behalf inspite of repeated calls which clearly indicates that the dispute of

the Petitioner union has already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner union has

got no claim to raise. Hence, ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 18^th day of

March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1831-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jfo

baVjizkbtst ,aM vkWnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 66@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-

08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@103@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

4058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1831.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 66/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

the management of the Ravi Enterprises and other and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/103/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Friday, the 5^th August, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 66/2014

BETWEEN :

Sri A.P. Nageswaran

: 1^st Party/Petitioner

Sri N. Somasundaram

Sri A. Senthilkumar

Sri G. Muruganandam

Sri K. Sathyanarayanan

(Workmen Committee)

And 27 Others

AND

M/s. Ravi Enterprises

: 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

23, Manali High Road, Jai Hind Nagar

Ernavoor Chennai-600057

The Superintendent Engineer

: 2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

Corporation Ltd.

Mechanical Maintenance-II

Ennore Thermal Power Station

Chennai-600006

M/s. South India Corporation Ltd.

: 2^nd Party/3^rd Respondent

603, Anna Salai Chennai-600006

The South India Corporation Agency

: 2^nd Party/4^th Respondent

Ltd. South India House

No. 36-40, Armenian Street

Chennai-600001

M/s. Chandi & Co.

: 2^nd Party/5^th Respondent

No. 9, Balaji Nagar, Ernavoor

Chennai-600057

M/s. Ganesh Enterprises

: 2^nd Party/6^th Respondent

23, Manali High Road

Jai Hind Nagar, Ernavoor

Chennai-600057

M/s. Geeta Enterprises

: 2^nd Party/7^th Respondent

84, South Mada Street, Thiruvottiyur

Chennai-600019

(1^st and 7^th Respondent deleted from Party Array

as per Order dated 13.04.2016)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4059

Appearance:

For the Petitioners 1 to 5 & 27 Others

: M/s P. Parthiban, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

: Deleted from Party Array

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Respondents

: M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/5^th Respondent

: Set Ex-parte

For the 2^nd Party/6^th Respondent

: Set Ex-parte

For the 2^nd Party/7^th Respondent

: Deleted from Party Array

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/103/2014-IR (DU)

dated 05.08.2014 and 17.02.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

As per the reference dated 05.08.2014 the Ministry has sent the names of only 5 persons. Those are the names

given in the cause title as the petitioners. As per the reference dated 17.02.2015 the Ministry has sent names of 27 more

workmen as those claiming the same relief. It is stated in the reference that those workmen are also claiming

permanency with the Second Respondent in the dispute raised by the Workmen Committee shown in the cause title.

The names of these 27 persons are given as an annexure to the award.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., South

India Corporation Ltd., South India Corporation Agency Ltd., M/s. Chandi & Co., M/s. Ravi Enterprises, M/s.

Ganesh Enterprises and M/s. Geeta Enterprises over the issue of non-regularization of contract labourers i.e.

Sri A.P. Nageswaran & 4 Others with effect from 09.11.1992 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workmen are entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 66/2014 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioners and Respondents 2, 3 and 4 have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and

Counter Statements respectively. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statements.

Respondents 5, 6 and have remained ex-parte. R1 and R7 were deleted from the party array. The 27 persons who have

subsequently entered appearance also have filed Claim Statement. The Counsel for Respondents 2, 3 and 4 have filed

Memo stating that what applies to Nageswaran and 4 Others who are shown in the cause title would apply equally to

the newly added 27 workmen and these Respondents have no objection to the award made in respect of Nageswaran

and 4 Others being made applicable to the 27 contract workmen.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioners in brief are these:

The petitioners have worked as Contract Labourers under the Second Respondent at Chennai Harbour, Dock-

II. Firstly with the Third Respondent as the Contractor and thereafter with Respondents 1 and 4 to 7 as Contractors

respectively. The Second Respondent who is the principal employer is generating electricity and distributing the same

inside and outside the State of Tamil Nadu. For generating electricity through thermal power station coal is required

and this is obtained from many parts of the country through harbor. The Second Respondent engaged contractors to

unload coal from the ship to the Rail Wagon Yard. For distributing coal to different Thermal Power Station the Second

Respondent engaged Contractors. Coal was brought through conveyors belonging to the Second Respondent.

Conveyors are operated and maintained by the contract labourers under the supervision of the Officers of the Second

Respondent. The coal conveyor is a rubber belt at the stretch of 500 metres, each with more than two segments totaling

a km. length. Each segment of the conveyor is attached with drive house alongwith electrical house. These drive house

and electrical house were operated by the petitioners and such persons. The conveyor is operated round the clock with

three shifts including general shift. The petitioners’ work involved operation of dust suppression pumps, spraying of

water to suppress the dust, etc. The petitioners have joined as workers in the Second Respondent on different dates in

1992 and 1993. Though the contractors were changed from time to time the petitioners were engaged continuously for

doing the work. The petitioners worked under the direct control of the Second Respondent till 30.09.2002. During 1998

the petitioners and 68 others were identified for regularization in service. Though the Second Respondent absorbed

some contract labourers as a one-time measure, the names of the petitioners were not in the list for regularization. In the

Writ Petition filed by the petitioners and others, the Second Respondent was directed to dispose representation

submitted by the petitioners and similar persons for regularization. But it was not disposed of till date. The petitioners

are entitled to be regularized in service. An order may be passed directing the Second Respondent to absorb the

petitioners as Helpers.

4060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The 27 workmen who have entered appearance based on the reference dated 17.02.2015 have filed a joint

Claim Statement in tune with the Claim Statement filed earlier raising similar contentions except for the difference in

the date of joining of different workman.

The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The dispute relates to Ennore Thermal Power Station. The Second Respondent used to engage contract

workmen for maintenance work primarily. Regular appointments in the service of the Board can be made only against

the posts sanctioned, in the manner prescribed by the Service Regulations. In 1986 the Board prescribed qualification

of National Trade Certificate / National Apprenticeship Certificate awarded by the National Council for Training and

Vocational Training for the category of workmen by name helpers. This was challenged by the workmen. When the

matter reached the Apex Court Justice Khalid, Former Supreme Court Judge was appointed as a Commission to

consider what should be the criteria to be applied for Helpers. Justice Khalid considered the question of absorption of

contract workmen in the service of the Board also. As per the report of Justice Khalid, 18006 contract workmen were to

be absorbed in the establishment. However, owing to continuous losses incurred by the Board and lack of resources

absorption could not be carried out within the time frame fixed by the Commission. In the year 1997 the National

Productivity Council, Chennai was asked to study the work allocation and assessment of manpower on a scientific

method in the Four Thermal Power Stations of Tamil Nadu and submit report. Based on the report of the Council the

Engineers of the Board assessed the manpower requirements of each Thermal Power Station. After considering the

report, the Board sanctioned 488 supernumerary posts for Ennore Thermal Power Station alongwith such posts for

other power stations. By proceedings dated 28.04.1999 the Board gave guidelines as to the manner in which the

contract workmen are to be considered for absorption against the supernumerary posts. Those who had served the

Board for more number of days were to have preference over others who had worked for less number of days. The right

of the contract workmen to be absorbed in the services of the Board is subject to the said conditions. The total number

of contract workmen identified for absorption in Ennore Thermal Power Station was 1867 while the sanctioned posts

required to be filled-up were only 512. If a claim for permanency is not available on the basis of sanctioned posts, the

claim will have to made only in terms of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of

Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. Instructions were issued to the Selection Committee that the contract workmen

who had put in continuous service of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months should be identified for absorption.

The National Productivity Council did not allocate manpower for handling of coal in the Yard Jawahar Dock-II. So

there was no scope to consider absorption of any of the contract workmen engaged for handling of coal in

Jawahar Dock-II. The vacancies identified in Ennore Thermal Power Station for absorption of contract workmen did

not cover the coal yard in Jawahar Dock-II. However, circulars and notices were issued to the Engineers of all the

yards. It is accordingly the names of contract workmen from the Yard happened to be forwarded to be considered for

absorption. The present dispute should be treated as individual disputes of 5 workmen. It is not a collective dispute

under Section-2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The five workmen cannot claim to represent a substantial section of

the workmen. The petitioners were not engaged as contract workmen after 2002. Merely because some claims were

wrongfully made and were wrongfully entertained it would not confer right on the contract workmen to be absorbed in

the establishment. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

Respondents 3 and 4 have filed separate counter statements stating that they are unable to confirm or

deny the averments in the Claim Statement and that Coal Handling was shifted from Madras Harbour to Ennore Port

in 2001 and the petitioners could not have worked with them thereafter.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W63 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M37.

10.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Second Respondent and Other Respondents in not regularizing the concerned

contract workmen w.e.f. 09.11.1992 is legal and justified?

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which the workmen are entitled?

The Points

11.

The concerned workmen were working in the Second Respondent establishment under different Contractors

including Respondents 1 and 3 to 7 at Jawahar Dock-II. Coal used to be brought through this Dock for the purpose of

the Second Respondent. It was brought through conveyor belonging to the Second Respondent. The concerned

workmen were working in different capacities at the Dock. The Second Respondent has decided to absorb all the

contract employees who had been working with it as on 05.01.1998. Order has been passed to this effect. According to

the concerned workmen though they were also identified as persons to be absorbed their name did not appear in the list

prepared for the purpose. According to them, they have started to work for the establishment on various dates during

the period from 1992-1994 and thus had been working for a long time and had completed more than 3000 days of work

in the establishment. They are aggrieved that the Second Respondent did not absorb them in service in spite of the

decision taken to this effect.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4061

12.

According to the second Respondent which is the contesting Respondent the National Productivity Council

had submitted a report regarding the work allocation and assessment of manpower and on the basis of this report the

engineers of the Second Respondent had prepared a review report and thereafter the Board had issued an order on

28.04.1999 sanctioning supernumerary post. The number of posts allowed for Ennore Thermal Power Station under

which the concerned workmen comes had been only 488. But out of this none were in respect of Jawahar Dock-II

where the concerned workmen have claimed to have been working, 7 posts of engineers in different category only were

allowed for Jawahar Dock-II. The 488 vacancies identified in Ennore Thermal Power Station for absorption of contract

workmen did not cover the coal yard in Jawahar Dock-II at all. Thus according to the 2^nd Respondent it was not

possible to absorb any of the workmen who had worked as contract workers in Jawahar Dock-II. Their names were not

included in the list for the purpose of absorption. Thus according to the second Respondent none of the concerned

workmen are entitled to be absorbed in the establishment.

13.

The concerned workmen have produced documents to show that they were working in the establishment from

1992 onwards and had worked for a long time and they were also considered for absorption, though it never

materialized. Ext.W12, Ext.W29, Ext.W30, Ext.W31, Ext.W32, Ext.W51 and Ext.W55 are experience certificates

issued by the different Contractors for the concerned period during which the workers have worked under them. After

the Second Respondent has decided to absorb the contract workmen, identification of the workmen was done and for

this purpose their particulars were called for in a format. Ext.W1, Ext.W5, Ext.W6, Ext.W7, Ext.W8, Ext.W26,

Ext.W27, Ext.W48, Ext.W49, Ext.W52 and Ext.W53 are the formats submitted by the concerned workmen for their

identification done on two occasions. It could be seen on going through this that the form contains the signature of the

Contractor and is also countersigned by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Second Respondent. In all this, the first

date of appointment of the workmen is on different dates during the period from 1992 to 1994. There are also the

identification cards issued to the different workmen marked as Ext.W11 (series), Ext.W50 (series) and Ext.W54

(series). There is also the register of workmen and wage register marked as Ext.W24 and Ext.W25 respectively. These

documents are sufficient to show that the concerned workmen have been working in the Coal Yard at Jawahar Dock-II

that they have started to work during the period from 1992 to 1994 and have been working there until the work of

shifting the coal was shifted from the place and the entire establishment was dismantled in 2002.

14.

Ext.W43 is the proceedings of the Second Respondent dated 06.09.2007 on the basis of which it was decided

to constitute a committee to examine the work of contract labourers who were not covered by the previous settlement in

this respect, for absorption. This was done on the basis of the representation made by the contract workmen. It could

be seen from the subsequent proceedings of the Board that though the Contractors changed from time to time they were

not allowed to change the contract workmen and were insisted that the same workers who were already working should

be engaged. Ext.M8 dated 28.04.1999 by which regular and supernumerary posts of Helpers have been sanctioned to

accommodate contract workers states that those who were identified as on 05.01.1998 shall be absorbed and the

process of absorption shall take effect from 01.05.1999. Ext.M9, the proceedings dated 05.01.1998 of the Second

Respondent has given direction that a specific condition is to be prescribed in the agreement with the Contractors that

the existing manpower shall not be increased and that new workers shall not be engaged. Thus it could be seen that as a

preliminary to absorption of contract workmen, the Board had started to insist even in 1998 that the same set of

contract workmen who were already working for the Board should be taken for work by the new Contractors also.

Ext.W22 is the instruction given by the Chief Engineer on 22.02.1999 that engagement of new contract workers in

place of previously working contract workers is not in order. Ext.M10 dated 26.09.1999 is the proceedings approved

by the Board by which permission was granted to continue the works contract for discharge of coal through conveyor at

Chennai Port Trust. Ext.M12 is the proceedings dated 29.04.1999 by which the Board had decided to absorb all the

contract workers based on seniority from among the persons who were already identified. It further states that the

seniors in the list will be absorbed first and for this purpose the list of persons already identified as on 05.01.1998 and

available with the Chief Engineer will be the basis. It of course states that any contract labourer who does not find a

place in the list is not entitled to absorption. However it is clear from the previous proceedings of the Board that it

had decided to absorb the contract labourers based on seniority. There is no case for the Second Respondent that any of

the concerned workmen are not eligible to be included in the list for the reason that they have not been working as

contract workmen as on 05.01.1998. The only case is that when posts were sanctioned no sanction was made for

providing workmen at Jawahar Dock-II. This seems to be the reason for not including the concerned workmen in the

list in spite of the fact that they have submitted formats as required. However, absence of sanction of posts for Jawahar

Dock-II is not of any consequence if the concerned contract workmen had been working in the place for a long time

continuously. It is the case of the workmen that though they were engaged as contract workmen, they were under the

control of the Officers of the second Respondent itself. The very fact that the Second Respondent was deciding the

manner in which the workmen are to be engaged, the fact that they were insisting that the same old set of contract

workmen should be engaged continuously would show that those workmen were working continuously and were

directly under the control of the Second Respondent. In any case as per Ext.M14 dated 27.10.1999 the Board had

decided that those workmen who remained after posting in the sanctioned strength shall be diverted to other areas as

directed. It is clear from the different proceedings of the Board that the decision of the Board was to absorb all the

contract workmen who were working in the Board as on 05.01.1998 on the basis of their seniority. If this criteria is

taken into account the names of the concerned workmen should have found a place on the top of the list prepared for

4062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the purpose of absorption. They were omitted from the list only on the ground that the posts were not sanctioned for

Jawahar Dock-II. This was not fair on the part of the Second Respondent. The decision was to create supernumerary

posts as Helpers to absorb the contract workmen and in that case even if posts were not sanctioned for Jawahar Dock-

II, they should have been included in the list and also given absorption as Helpers in some other sanctioned posts, based

on their seniority.

15.

The counsel for the Respondent has raised several technical contentions against the dispute raised by the

petitioner. It is stated in the Counter Statement itself that the claim is not based on a collective dispute and it cannot be

considered as one under Section-2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, it should be treated as

individual disputes under Section-10(1)(d) of the Act. The counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in

RAM PRASAD VISHWAKARMA VS. CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA reported in AIR 1961 SC

857 in this respect. The dictum laid down therein is that the dispute between an industrial workman and an

employer cannot be an industrial dispute as defined in Section-2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. But the same

decision states that it becomes a dispute as defined in Section-2(k) if it is taken up by a Union of Workmen or by a

considerable number of workmen. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the present dispute is one taken up by

a considerable number of workmen and that a workman committee has been constituted for the purpose. It could be

seen from the very order of reference that Nageswaran and Four Others shown in the reference raised the dispute as a

workmen committee. Even other documents would show that a committee was constituted for the purpose. Ext.W29 is

the letter written by the First Petitioner herein referring to as the Workmen Committee to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner. This states that a Committee of Workmen in the name of Nageswaran and Four Others was formed and

dispute was raised before him and the dispute has been registered already. Ext.M28 is the order of the High Court

which shows the petitioner as the contract labour welfare association represented by its Secretary, Nageswaran, the

First Petitioner herein. So it is clear that it is not a dispute raised by some individual workmen in their individual

capacity but was raised by a group of aggrieved workmen after forming a committee for the purpose. So there is no

basis for the contention that the dispute cannot be considered as one under Section-2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

16.

Another contention that has been advanced on behalf of the Respondent is that there is huge delay in raising

the dispute and for this reason also the claim cannot be entertained. According to the counsel, in view of the delay no

dispute either existed or is apprehended and for this reason itself the claim is to be rejected. The counsel has referred to

the decision in OSHIAR PRASAD AND OTHERS VS. EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF

SUDAMDIH COAL WASHERY OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED reported in 2015 4 SCC 71 in this

respect. Some contract employees of the colliery were terminated from service in the year 1981. They raised dispute

claiming absorption in the colliery. The Apex Court found that the service of the concerned workmen were terminated

long prior to the making of the reference and they were not in the service of either the Contractor or the Colliery on the

date of making the reference in question and therefore there was no industrial dispute existing or apprehended in

relation to the absorption of the concerned workmen on the date of making the reference. It was further held that the

appropriate government is empowered to make a reference under Section-10 of the Act only when industrial dispute is

existing or was apprehended between the parties. Reference was also made to the decision in PRABHAKAR VS.

JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in 2015 SCC ONLINE SC 1055 in

this respect. It was held in this that in those cases where period of limitation is prescribed within which action is to be

brought before the Court, if the action is not brought within the prescribed period the aggrieved party loses remedy and

cannot enforce its legal right after the period of limitation is over. Likewise in other cases even where no limitation is

prescribed, but for a long period the aggrieved party does not approach the machinery provided under law for redressal

of grievance it can be presumed that the relief can be denied on the ground of unexplained delay and latches and on the

presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced into the act of the other.

17.

The argument on behalf of the Respondent based on the legal proposition laid down above will not hold good

for different reasons. In support of his case that there was delay on the part of the workmen in approaching the

authority the counsel has referred to Ext.M36, the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 12304/2004. In this the

Hon’ble High Court passed an order on 12.10.2004. It was a Writ Petition filed by one Muruganandan, an aggrieved

workman claiming absorption in the service of the Board. The High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition giving the

petitioner liberty to approach the statutory authority under the relevant provisions of the Act. This application has been

filed by a single person and cannot be made applicable to other persons. Apart from this, the claim of the petitioner in

that case was to approach the authority under the Tamil Nadu (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act. This should not

dissuade the petitioner or other aggrieved workman from seeking relief through any other forum.

18.

Admittedly the service of the concerned workmen came to an end on 30.09.2002. The argument of the counsel

for the Respondent is that the dispute was raised only in 2013, as could be seen from the order of reference. There is no

doubt about this fact. However, it could be seen that the workmen have started their attempt for absorption in the

Second Respondent establishment immediately after the Board has decided to absorb the contract workmen based on

seniority. Reference has already been made to the forms submitted by them for the purpose of identification for fixing

their seniority. Apart from this, there are the different proceedings initiated by them before the High Court. Writ

Petition No. 14144/99 was filed by them. Then 10 of them again approached the High Court and filed Writ Petition No.

15226/1999 claiming permanency. This was disposed directing the Second Respondent to dispose the representation

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4063

submitted by the petitioners, but it was not disposed. They again approached the High Court with Writ Petition No.

16307/1999 claiming permanency and again direction was given to the Second Respondent to dispose the

representation given by the petitioners within a prescribed period but the Second Respondent is said to have not passed

any order. They again approached the High Court with Writ Petition No. 17887/1999 and this was also disposed

directing to consider the representation. Petitioners have stated in the Claim Statement that they have submitted several

representations before the higher authorities of the Second Respondent but they have not taken any action. It could be

seen from the documents produced that the petitioners were continuously raising the issue. Ext.W44 to Ext.W47 would

prove that the issue was remaining alive. Ext.W46 dated 09.02.2011 is the reply written by the Chief Engineer of

Ennore Thermal Power Station to the Chief Engineer of the Board about the claim. Ext.W47 dated 23.02.2011 is also

one such letter. Thus it could be seen that the issue always remained live in spite of the fact that the concerned

workmen were stopped from work in the year 2002. Even in Prabhakar’s case referred to earlier while stating that the

right becomes non-existent in case of delay, the Apex Court has cautioned that in those cases where Court finds that

disputes still existed though raised belatedly it is always permissible for the Court to take the aspect of delay into

consideration and mould the relief. In such cases it is still open for the Court to either grant reinstatement without

backwages or lesser backwages or grant compensation instead of reinstatement, it was held. Thus, it could be seen that

the matter need not become a closed chapter in view of the delay alone. On the other hand, each case has to be

considered on the particular facts and circumstances and in case it is found that the dispute is a valid one relief can be

moulded considering the delay also.

19.

It has also been argued on behalf of the Respondent that only when a contention is raised that the contract

entered into between the Management and the Contractor is a sham one the industrial adjudicator would get jurisdiction

to decide the issue. The counsel has referred to the decision in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2006 12 SCC 233 in this respect. It was held here that when a stand

was taken by the employees that they have been working under the Contractors the issue cannot be adjudicated by the

Tribunal. However, the dictum laid down in the above decision will not be a hurdle to the petitioners in view of the

very stand taken by the First Respondent. The case of the petitioner is that though they were working through the

contractor, they were under the direct control of the Second Respondent. This is not disputed. More than this, there

is the decision of the Second Respondent to absorb all the contract labourers who were working for it as on 05.01.1998.

The Second Respondent has already decided that those workmen are its workers and had even directed the Contractors

to engage only those workers. By virtue of the decision of the Second Respondent to absorb all those workmen, they

are to be treated to have been the workmen of the Second Respondent as on the date on which the decision was taken.

Act of the Second Respondent to absorb them and regularize them was only a matter of implementation of the decision

that was already taken. So the dispute is to be treated as espoused by the group of workmen who were working for the

Second Respondent under it. The objection raised by the Second Respondent in this behalf also is to be rejected.

20.

The Schedule of reference is whether the action of the Respondents on the issue of non-regularization of the

labourers is legal. However, in the context of the dispute it is to be read as reinstatement and regularization, though not

expressively stated in the schedule of reference. The concerned workmen are entitled to the relief claimed.

Accordingly, an award is passed as below:

The Second Respondent is directed to reinstate, absorb and regularize all the workmen concerned in the

dispute within two months of the publication of the Award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the

5^th August, 2016)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri A.P. Nageswaran

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

: MW1, Sri R. Shankar

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext. No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

12.11.1998

Form of the first time identification conducted by the 2^nd

Respondent corporation for absorption for the post of Helper

Ex.W2

04.03.1999

The CE/Personal instructions in continuation of his earlier

communication to send particulars of the CL as on 05.01.1998

4064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.W3

19.03.1999

Instructions given by the CE/ETPS to identify the contract

labourers as per the above instructions given on 04.03.1999

Ext.W4

22.03.1999

Circular intimating the absorption of the contract labourers pasted

the

Jawahar

Dock-II

the

Assistant

Executive

Engineer/ETPS

Ext.W5

30.03.1999

Second time identification done by the 2^nd Respondent

corporation through the EE/ETPS for 23^rd persons

Ext.W6

31.03.1999

Second time identification done by the 2^nd Respondent

corporation through the EE/ETPS for 29^th persons

Ext.W7

02.04.1999

Second time identification done by the 2^nd Respondent

corporation through the EE/ETPS for 3 persons

Ext.W8

02.04.1999

Second time identification done by the 2^nd Respondent

corporation through the EE/ETPS for 14th persons

Ext.W9

28.04.1999

(Per) B.P. (FB) No. 17

Ext.W10

03.01.2000

Order of W.P. No. 16307 of 1999

Ext.W11

Passes and identification card issued by the 1^st Respondent

Corporation

Ext.W12

Experience certificates issued by the 1^st Respondent, 3^rd

Respondent, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th Respondent to the Petitioner

Ext.W13

06.06.1997

ESI Card issued by the ESI Corporation

Ext.W14

12.10.2004

Order passed in WP No. 12304/2004

Ext.W15

12.05.2008

B.P. No. 9 passed by the Respondent Corporation

Ext.W16

27.11.2010

Letter communication by the CE/Personnel to the 2^nd Respondent

instructing to furnish the details of the identified CLs without

delay

Ext.W17

23.02.2011

Letter communication by the CE/Personnel to the 2^nd Respondent

instructing to furnish the details of the identified CLs

Ext.W18

25.02.2011

Letter communication by the 2^nd Respondent to his superior

furnishing the details of the identified CLs

Ext.W19

28.02.2011

Letter communication by the CE/ETPS to the CE/P enclosing the

details of the identification files of 399 sheets

Ext.W20

Quick reference of the petitioner’s engagement with the 2^nd

Respondent for his claim for absorption

Ext.W21

15.07.1997

The 3^rd Respondent submitting his half yearly return under the

relevant of the CLRA Act, Central Rules, 1971 to the

ALC/Central/Madras

Ext.W22

23.02.1999

Instruction given by the Chief Engineer / ETPS to the 2^nd

Respondent for engaging the petitioners permanently where the

Contractors changes time to time

Ext.W23

Photographs showing the petitioners and the other similarly

placed contract labours engaging in the Coal Conveyor Plant JD-

Ext.W24

1995

Rule 75 of the Contract L;abour (Central) Rules 1971) for the

year 1995 of 59 CLs including the petitioners

Ext.W25

1995

Wage Register (FORM XVII (Rule 78(1)(a)(i) of the Contract

Labour (Central) Rules 1971)

Ext.W26

12.11.1998

Form of the first time identification conducted by the 2^nd

Respondent Corporation for absorption for the post of Helper for

the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th petitioner

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4065

Ext.W27

31.03.1999

Second time identification done by the 2^nd Respondent

Corporation for the 1^st, 2^nd 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th Petitioner

Ext.W28

1992-2002

Passes and identification card issued by the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th 6^th and

7^th Respondent for 2^nd 3^rd, 4^th & 5^th Petitioner

Ext.W29

1992-2002

Experience Certificate issued by the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th

Respondents for the 2^nd Petitioner

Ext.W30

1992-2002

Experience Certificate issued by the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th

Respondents for the 3^rd Petitioner

Ext.W31

1992-2002

Experience Certificate issued by the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th

Respondents for the 4^th Petitioner

Ext.W32

1992-2002

Experience Certificate issued by the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th

Respondents for the 5^th Petitioner

Ext.W33

ESI Card issued by the ESI Corporation to the 3^rd and 5^th

Petitioner

Ext.W34

Employee Card issued by the 3^rd and 7^th Respondent for the 2^nd,

3^rd, 4^th and 5^th Petitioner

Ext.W35

5/2011

Proceedings of the Chief Engineer / ETPS to the Chief

Engineer/Personnel in respect of the absorption of the petitioners

alongwith 64 others

Ext.W36

19.03.1999

Instruction given by the CE/ETPS to identify the CLs as per the

instructions given on 04.03.1999

Ext.W37

06.01.2000

Order issued by the AEE/ETPS/Coal movement to the Vigilance

Officer/Chennai Port Trust for issuing temporary monthly photo

pass to the petitioners and others

Ext.W38

04.05.2013

Information obtained through RTI in connection with the vacancy

for the post of Helper in the 2^nd Respondent corporation as on

31.03.2013

Ext.W39

01.09.2014

Reply given by the Information Officer/TNEB to the 1^st

Petitioner with regard to the papers claimed for his Absorption

Ext.W40

Statements showing the National Productivity Council (NPC)

with regard to the absorption of CLs

Ext.W41

Statement showing the names of the permanent employees of the

2^nd Respondent (TNEB Staff) worked in the Conveyor Plant

during the petitioners were engaged

Ext.W42

Quick reference of the petitioner’s engagement with the 2^nd

Respondent

Ext.W43

09.01.2008

Per B.P. (Chairman) No. 9

Ext.W44

07.10.2010

Letter communication by the CE/Personnel to the Second

Respondent instructions to furnish details of the identified CLs

without delay (documents received from RTI)

Ext.W45

21.01.2011

Letter communication by the CE/ETPS of 2^ndRespondent to

instructions to furnish details of the identified CLs without delay

(documents received from RTI)

Ext.W46

09.02.2011

Letter communication by the CE/ETPS of Second Respondent to

CE/Personnel for Muruganandam and 59 Others permanent

absorption (received from RTI)

Ext.W47

23.02.2011

Letter communication by the CE/Personnel to the Second

Respondent request for absorption in TNEB details called for

Ext.W48

12.11.1998

Form of the first time identification obtained through Right to

Information Act, conducted by the 2^nd Respondent Corporation

4066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for absorption for the post of helper for 6^th to 23^rd petitioners

alongwith translated copies.

Ext.W49

30.03.1999 to

Second time identification done by the 2^nd Respondent

02.04.1999 Corporation, through RTI, by the EE/ETPS for 23

petitioners from 6^th to 23^rd petitioner with translated copy in

English

Ext.W50

1992-1993

Passes and identification card issued by the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and

7^th Respondents for 6^th to 23^rd petitioner

Ext.W51

1992-2002

Experience certificates issued by the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th & 7^th

respondents for 6^th to 23^rd petitioner

Ext.W52

12.11.1998

Form of the first time identification, conducted by the 2^nd

Respondent corporation for absorption for the post of helper for

29^th and 30^th petitioners with English translation

Ext.W53

30.03.1999 to

Second time identification done by the 2^nd Respondent

02.04.1999

corporation, for 29^th, 30^th, 31^st & 32^nd petitioner with translated

copy in English

Ext.W54

1992-2002

Passes and identification card issued by the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th 6^th and

7^th Respondents for 29^th, 30^th and 32^nd petitioner

Ext.W55

1992-2002

Experience certificates issued by the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th

Respondents for 29^th and 32^nd petitioner

Ext.W56

12.01.2001

Letter issued by the AEE/ETPS for continuous work

Ext.W57

05.08.2014

Order of the Ministry of Labour referring the ID 66/14

Ext.W58

Notice to the petitioners for filing claim in the ID by this Court

Ext.W59

02.09.2014

Representation given by the workmen committee for inclusion of

27 contract workmen

Ext.W60

08.01.2015

ALC/C letter to Sec. to Government to include the 27 person in

the present ID

Ext.W61

09.02.2015

Lawyer notice issued to the Secretary to Government

Ext.W62

Receipt & Acknowledgement of notice served above

Ext.W63

17.02.2015

Communication sent to the Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, by the Ministry of Labour & Employment

On the Management’s side

Ext. No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

1967

Extract of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations – 2

Sheets

Ext.M2

15.09.1978

Registration Certificate u/r C.L. (R&A) Act – Ref.No. 6/78 dated

15.09.1978 – B3-2046-78-enclosing Form-II

Ext.M3

25.05.1998 and

Amendment to R.C. u/r Ref.No. C/2137/98 dated 25.05.1998 –

From Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories – I Division, Chennai-

600006 to Principal Employer, ETPS., Chennai-600057 –

enclosing list of 60 Contractors

Ext.M4

30.11.1992

Licence issued by ALC (C) under Contract Labour (Regulation

and Abolition) Act – Form – VI – Licence No. L-I-96-92 dated

30.11.1992 by ALC (Central), Madras – to M/s. South India

Corporation Ltd., 603, Anna Salai, Rani Seethai Hall, Madras-

600006

Ext.M5

14.12.1996

Renewal of License u/r C.L.R.A Act – Ref. M46 (115) – 92 –

I/D2 dated 14.12.1996 – Issued by ALC (C) – I, Chennai to

South India Corporation Ltd., 603, Anna Salai, Rani Seethai Hall,

Madras-600006

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4067

Ext.M6

20.08.1997

Board’s Proceedings (F.B.) No. 67

Ext.M7

28.04.1999

Board’s Proceedings (B.P.) No. 16 enclosing the number of posts

recommended in ETPS, TTPS and MTPS enclosing proposal of

NPC with the recommendation of the concerned officers of the

TNEB.

Ext.M8

28.04.1999

B.P. (FB) No. 17 enclosing name of Contract of Workmen – List

of 1867 Contract Labour

Ext.M9

05.01.1998

Memo No. 00088/I/IR (1) 98-1-Instructions for engagement of

contract labours – Direction not to increase existing manpower

and not to engage new workers

Ext.M10

26.09.1999

Departmental Note by C.E., ETPS to M.(G), TNEB for

terminating of running maintenance contracts in reference to BP-

17 of 28.04.1999 – work carried out by South India Corporation

Agencies Limited from 01.11.1998 and to continue the contract

of SICAL at Harbour till 31.10.1999

Ext.M11

10.06.1999

Letter from Chief Engineer/Mechanical (I/C), Thermal Stations,

Chennai-600002 – To Chief Engineer, Ennore Thermal Power

Station, Chennai-600057

Ext.M12

29.04.1999

Memo No. 025908/35/CL/A2/99-4 dated 29.04.1999 from

TNEB, Chennai-600002 to Chief Engineers of 4 Thermal Power

Stations

Ext.M13

07.05.1999

Proceedings of M(G) under Memo No. 025908/35/CL/JA2/99-5

regarding absorbing of contract labours in 4 Thermal Stations as

on 05.01.1998 as Helpers – Instructions/Guidelines – Issued.

Ext.M14

27.10.1999

Memo No. 025908/35/CL/JA2/99-25 dated 27.10.1999 from

Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB – Chennai-600002 to – Chief

Engineers of 4 Thermal Power Stations

Ext.M15

17.12.1998

Works Contract (WCT) issued by ETPC to South India

Corporation Agencies Limited for Coal Handling work at

Jawahar Dock-II, Chennai Harbour (WCT-3494/D/047/98 dated

17.12.1998

Ext.M16

27.04.2000

Works Contract (WCT) issued to Ravi Enterprises for

18.05.2000

18.05.2000 Coal Handling work at Jawahar Dock-II, Chennai

Harbour (WCT-3724/D/139/2000) dated 27.04.2000/18.05.2000

Ext.M17

10.04.2001

Works Contract (WCT) issued to Geetha Enterprises for

24.05.2001

Coal Handling work at Jawahar Dock-II, Chennai Harbour

(WCT/613/D/79/2001) dated 10.04.2001/25.05.2001

Ext.M18

22/25.09.2000

Works Contract (WCT) issued to Sri Ganesh Enterprises for Coal

Handling work at Jawahar Dock-II, Chennai Harbour – (WCT-

3788/D/507/2000)

dated

22/25/09/2000

and

WCT

No.

3788/F/Amendment/D/181/2001 dated 23/26.07.2001

Ext.M19

01.11.2000

Works

Contract

Sri

Ganesh

Enterprises

–

WCT-

3788/D/577/2K/01.11.2000

Ext.M20

15.12.2001

Sri Ganesh Enterprises – Works Contract – WCT.3887/D-

01/23.11.2001 – K2 Agreement+004/2001-2002

Ext.M21

24.05.2003

Letter from ETPS to Chennai Port Trust – Reg. – Dismantling of

Coal Movement Division – land, building and conveyor system at

JD-II effective on 15.05.2003 and requesting clearance certificate

Ext.M22

25.06.2003

Letter from ETPS to Chennai Port Trust that having vacated the

site effective 15.05.2003 – paying of license fee for land and

building beyond 15.05.2003 does not arise

4068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M23

25.07.2003

Letter from SICAL Logistics to TNEB, Chennai acknowledging

handing over of site occupied by Conveyor System at JD-II,

Chennai Harbour to Chennai Port. Trust (Ref..SICAL/099/03-04

dated 25.07.2003)

Ext.M24

29.03.2004

Letter from Superintending Engineer, ETPS to Chennai Port

Trust – No licence fee is payable from June 2003

(ETPS/F31/D1081/2004 dated 29.03.2004)

Ext.M25

28.06.2000

Letter from South India Corporation (Agencies) Limited to ETPS

claiming reimbursement of PF and ESI contributions from ETPS

(Ref.SICAL/COAL/348 dated 28.06.2000)

Ext.M26

21.09.1999

Writ Petition No. 16307 of 1999 – Affidavit dated 20.09.1999 of

A.P. Nageswaran – filed on behalf of Members of ETPS

Conveyor (Harbour Contract Labours Welfare Association)a

Ext.M27

29.12.1999

Counter of TNEB dated 29.12.1999 in WP No. 16307 of 1999

Ext.M28

03.01.2000

Order dated 03.01.2000 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP

No. 16307 of 1999 and WMP No. 23590 of 1999

Ext.M29

01.07.2000

Letter from ETPS to A.P. Nageswaran with postal acknowledgement

Ext.M30

28.07.1999

Affidavit dated 28.07.1999 filed by Umasivan and Others

including – Claimants – K. Sathyanarayanan, G. Muruganandam

and N. Somsundaram) – W.P. 15226 of 1999

Ext.M31

07.10.1999

Counter affidavit of TNEB – in W.P. No. 15226 of 1999

Ext.M32

03.01.2000

Order dated 03.01.2000 of Madras High Court in WP No. 15226

of 1999 & WMP No. 22003 of 1999

Ext.M33

31.01.2000

Representation of S. Umasivan and 11 others to EPPS –

Chennai – 600057

Ext.M34

19.04.2000

Letter from S.E. – ETPS – to g. Muruganandam – (Ref.

ETPS/043/2000 dated 19.04.2000)

Ext.M35

23.01.2004

Order in WP No. 17887 of 1999 – W.P. closed – (filed by G.

Muruganandam and 58 Others)

Ext.M36

12.10.2004

Order of Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 12304 of 2004 and

WPMP 14379/2004 – filed by G. Muruganandam

Ext.M37

28.04.1999

Ennore Thermal Power Station (TNEB Ltd.) – Name of 1867

Contract Labour Referred in B.P. 17 dated 28.04.1999

Names of 27 persons listed in the Annexure:

Sri Y. Gnanaprakasam

15. Sri K. Subramaniyan

Sri S. Sampathkumar

16. Sri H. Bailen Thomas

Sri K. Venkatesan

17. Sri G.P. Annadurai

Sri M. Murugan

18. Sri S. Umasivan

Sri A. Georgekumar

19. Sri V. Selvakumar

Sri G. Raja

20. Sri M. Ramesh

Sri R.S. Sankar

21. Sri S. Subramani

Sri B. Arunachalam

22. Sri M. Ganesh

Sri R. Balasubramaniyam

23. Sri R. Arulsamy

10.

Sri R.R. Sivakumar

24. Sri D. Arul

11.

Sri R. Srinivasan

25. Sri D. Sivakumar

12.

Sri J. Ananthram

26. Sri M.A. Sambath Kumar

13.

Sri E. Samson

27. Sri V. Nethaji

14.

Sri T. Madraiveeran

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4069

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1832-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad

banksj ds :Ik esa foy; dj fn;k Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 60@97) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@202@95&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1832.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 60/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

to the management of the State Bank of Indore Merged as State Bank of India and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-12012/202/95-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/60/97

General Secretary,

All India State Bank of Indore Employees Congress,

Hardev Nivas, 9,

Sanver Road,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Manager,

State Bank of Indore

Merged as State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

MP Nagar, Bhopal.

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of July, 2016

1. As per letter dated 4-3-97 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-12012/202/95-IR(B). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, State Bank of Indore, Zonal Office, Bhopal in

not granting increment to Sjhri Balwant Singh Gour w.e.f. 29-10-93 is justified or not? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

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

at Page 5/1 to 5/6. Case of Ist party Union is workman Balwant Singh Gaur was working as clerk cum cashier at

Sumerakheda branch Ujjain. Chargesheet was served to him on 25-5-92. Workman was under suspension from

3-6-91 to 25-5-92. Chargesheet was issued after 11 months. Workman under his reply dated 9-9-92 denied charges

against him. That Mr. Balkishan Mittal Proprietor of M/S Bharat Electricals who is dealing with business

agricultural equipments. That there were several dealers with same business. Branch Manager used to grant loan

for purchasing agricultural equipments. Loan amounting not less than 50 Lakh granted to purchase equipments to

dealer Balkishan. Workman was issued chargesheet. That he fraudulently got sanctioned loan of Rs.55,800/-. It is

reiterated that said loan was sanctioned by Branch Manager beyond his delegated powers of Rs.15000/-. The entire

4070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

loan amount was transferred in current account of Shri Balkishan. The loan granted for equipments, equipments

were not got insured. Enquiry conducted against workman in violation of principles of natural justice. Workman

reiterates that he was not concerned with sanction of loan, enquiry was not properly conducted, workman was not

supplied documents. Opportunity of defence was not allowed to him, enquiry is vitiated. Punishment imposed

against workman withholding 4 increments is illegal. Findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. On such ground,

Ist party prays for setting aside order of punishment.

3. 2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 14/1 to 14/7 opposing claim of Ist party. Preliminary objection is

raised that penalty of stoppage of 4 increment was imposed after holding enquiry. Workman had filed Writ Petition

No. 336/99 challenging the punishment. Writ Petition is pending. Dispute has been referred his barred by

resjudicata. 2^nd party submits that workman was appointed as clerk cum cashier on 30-9-82. He was posted at

Khategaon branch in 1985. He was transferred to Sumerakheda branch. Preliminary enquiry was conducted. On

the basis of complaint, chargesheet was issued to workman on 5-1-95 for misconduct under Clause 19.5 for

misconduct under Clause 19.5 of Bipartite settlement. That Enquiry Officer was appointed to Shri R.S.Parekh,

G.L.Jain was appointed as Presenting Officer. Enquiry was conducted, 3 witnesses were examined. Workman was

given opportunity for his defence. Enquiry Officer submitted his findings that charges against workman are

proved. Punishment imposed against workman is proper and legal. 2^nd party prays reference be answered in its

favour.

4. Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating contentions in statement of claim. Management also filed rejoinder

reiterating his contentions in Written Statement.

5. As per order dated 14-8-2013, enquiry conducted against workman was found illegal. Management was

permitted to prove misconduct adducing evidence.

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

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

(i) Whether the misconduct alleged against workman

proved

from

evidence

Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of with holding

increment against workman is proper and

legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

7. Enquiry conducted against workman is found illegal. 2^nd party was permitted to prove misconduct by

adducing evidence. Management filed affidavit of Shri Suresh Bhide. Affidavit of management’s witness is on

the point chargesheet issued to workman on 5-1-95 workman filed reply to chargesheet on 5-7-96. Enquiry Officer

was appointed. Statement of witnesses Ashok Kumar, Gulab Thakur, Narayan Singh were recorded. Whole

evidence of management’s witness is about conducting enquiry against workman. His evidence is absolutely silent

about charges alleged against workman in document M-2 that the charges against workman pertains to workman

fraudulently getting loan sanction forging the signatures. The affidavit of management’s witness is not devoted on

above point. Therefore the charges alleged against workman could not be proved. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

8. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 Charge against workman is not proved, punishment imposed

against workman withholding his 4 increments as per order dated 9-6-98(M-8) cannot be sustained, it deserves to

be set-aside. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

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

(1) The action of the management is not proper and legal.

(2) Order of punishment is set-aside. 2^nd party is directed to release 4 increments of workman.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4071

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1833-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

lhihMCY;wMh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 104@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 24-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@41@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1833.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/03) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of CPWD, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/41/2003-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II,

DELHI 110 032

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 104/03

The Presiding,

All India CPWD (MRM) KaramchariSangathan (Regd.)

4823, Balbir Nagar Extension,Gali No. 13 Shahdra.

Vurses

The Executive Engineer,

CPWD, Electrical -15, I.P. Bhawan.

New Delhi.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour Vide Letter No. L-42012/41/20003 dated 10.07.2003

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

“Whether the demand of the Union in relating to regularization of the services of workman, Sh. Brij Mohan

Chitra, Ex-Motor Lorry Driver worked as Contract Labour in the establishment of Central Public Works

Department, Electrical Division -15, I.P.Bhawan , New Delhi is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the

workman is entitled and from which date?

On 12.08.2003 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No.104/2003 and claimant was

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

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman filed claim statement on 24.11.2003. Where-in he prayed as follows:-

hold the termination of claimant No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and entitled to reinstatement in his service w.e.f

24.08.2001 with continuity of service with all consequential benefits including full back wages and interest

thereon;

b. hold that the claimant No. 2 is entitled to be regularized against available sanctioned vacant posts of Motor

Lorry Driver for having rendered more than 240 days of work in a year interruptedly;

during the pendency of claim petition before Hon’ble Tribunal it is requested that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the claimant No. 21 with all consequential relief and beliefs U/s

33(A) of I.D.Act, 1947;

d. Andpass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

Against claim statement management filed written statement on 24.02.2004 .Through which it prayed as

follows:-

“It is most respectfully submitted that the claim is devoid of merits and deserves NIL award in the matter.”

4072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Against written statement workman filed rejoinder on 19.04.2004. Through which he reaffirmed the contents

of claim statement.

My Ld. Predecessor proceed to decide this Industrial Dispute on the basis questions of determination

mentioned in schedule of reference. He has not framed any issue.

On 1.1.2007 evidence of workman concluded and 15.4.2007 was fixed for management evidence. After

several adjournments management filed affidavit of management witness on 5.5.2008 , copy of which supplied to Ld.

A/R for the workman and fixed for cross-examination of management witness.

Subsequently on 13.01.2009 it was informed on behalf of management that management witness has retired so

he cannot be produced for cross-examination. It was also prayed on behalf of management that new affidavit of new

management witness is to be filed and adjournment has been sought on this count and case was adjourned to 5.3.2009.

On 5.3.2009 affidavit of witness Sh. Ram Kanwar, Executive Eng.Was filed. Copy of which supplied to

workman and 5.5.2009 was fixed for tendering of affidavit and cross-examination of management witness. . On

5.5.2009 adjournment has been sought on behalf of management which was allowed and case was adjourn to

27.07.2009.

On 27.07.2009 witness was not present. Hence case was adjourned to 30.09.2009.

This case was further adjourned to 30.09.2009, 11.12.2009, 18.02.2010, 05.05.2010, 25.08.2010, 9.11.2010,

3.2.2011, 3.05.2011, 21.07.2011, 27.09.2011, 5.12.2012, 29.3.2012, 1.08.2012, 29.10.2012, 10.01.2013, 15.04.2013,

20.05.2013, 26.07.2013, 2.09.2013, 31.10.2013, 9.1.2014, 3.3.2014, 15.04.2014, 30.05.2014, 2.07.2014, 2.9.2014,

20.10.2014, 27.11.2014, 20.01.2015, 30.03.2015, 8.6.2015, 13.08.2015, 29.10.2015, 21.12.2015 and 17.02.2016.

On 13.04.2016 after aforesaid adjournments to management to produce management witness, case was again

adjourned to 6.6.2016.

On 6.6.2016, I closed the right of adducing evidence of management as it is continuously adopting delaying

tactics and I fixed 8.6.2016 for arguments.

On 8.6.2016 none turn up so I reserved the award in this old ID. of 2003. To pass present award in this old

ID. I perused the pleadings and evidence of workman. Perusal of order dated 7.7.2014 makes it crystal clear that

workman filed his affidavit in his evidence and copy of which supplied to management for cross-examination of

workman.

Ld. A/R for the management has cross-examined workman at length but nothing could be extracted out.

Which could be favourable to management.

On the basis of contents of affidavit and cross-examination there appears that workman was employee of

management and no retrenchment compensation was provided to him under section 25-F ID. Act. Which has been

provided to workman at the time termination of his services. So workman is entitled to only compensation of Rs.

50,000/- only on the basis of settled law of Supreme Court on the point of reinstatement and grant of back wages which

shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the facts

of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded. In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Anr Vs.

Gitam Singh, (2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that reinstatement of workman with continuity of

service and 25% back wages was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and the compensation of

Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall meet the ends of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture

Marketing Board &Anr AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3004, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus “the award of reinstatement

with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of

termination particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been

awarded.” In catena of Judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that reinstatement is not automatic, merely

because the termination is illegal or in contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act. In Talwara Co-operative

credit and service society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus,” grant of

relief of reinstatement, it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not automatic.”

Workman of the instant case was not appointed by following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered

service with the respondent as a contractual worker, thus. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) by

way of damages as compensation to the workman/claimant by Management after expiry of period of limitation of

available remedy against Award. That will meet the ends of Justice.

Thus Reference is liable to be decided in favour of workman and against Management. Claim statement is

allowed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-8.07.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4073

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1834-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 74@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@297@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-22012/297/2005-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 74 OF 2006

PARTIES: The management of New Kenda Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.

Vs.

Sri Sibram Bisai

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

: Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman)

: Sri S. K. Pandey, Union Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL STATE

: WEST BENGAL

Dated : 11.08.2016

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.

L-22012/297/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 06.10.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in dismissing Sri Sibram Bisai, Surface Trammer, U.M. No. 897934 w.e.f. 16.07.2001 is legal and

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

1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/297/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 06.10.2006 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 74 of 2006

was registered on 31.10.2006. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered

post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements

along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order

notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through

their representative.

4074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman Sri Sibram Bisai has stated, in brief, in his written statement that he was in employment of New

Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as Surface Trammer bearing him Man No.

097934. He fell sick on and from 21.09.1997 and could not attend his duty. He informed the management about his

sickness. When the concerned workman reported for duty, but he was not allowed to join his duty, rather he was

dismissed from service without serving copy of Charge Sheet. The union raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Raniganj. During the conciliation proceeding the management served the copy of Charge

Sheet and copy of Dismissal Letter. Management did not follow the principle of natural justice. Management conducted

the departmental enquiry ex-parte against the workman and passed the Dismissal Order. Workman was not given

opportunity to prove his innocence. He was never served with the copy of Charge Sheet or Enquiry Notice. He was not

served 2^nd Show Cause Notice before passing Dismissal Order. The management acted in violation of principle of

natural justice. The Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer are highly biased and prejudice against the workman. The

dismissal is illegal. Workman belongs to downtrodden community. He is sitting idle without any job and his whole

family is dying without meal. Workman has prayed that the management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited be directed to re-instate the workman in service with payment of full back wages from

the date of dismissal with all consequential benefits.

Agent of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated in brief in his

written statement that the ex-workman remained absent from his duty continuously since 21.09.1997 without any prior

permission or sanctioned leave. For this act of misconduct the ex-workman was issued Charge Sheet vide letter No.

PERS/NKC/CS/99/1488 dated 16.12.99. Said Charge Sheet was sent to the address of the ex-workman at his home

address. But the ex-workman failed to submit any reply to the said Charge Sheet and as such a domestic enquiry was

held into the said Charge Sheet by the Enquiry Officer. The date of enquiry was fixed on 01.07.2000, 14.08.2000 and

25.08.2000. But in spite of issuance of notice of enquiry to the recorded address of the ex-workman he did not turn up

on any of the dates. Due to his non participation in the enquiry, the enquiry was conducted ex-parte in which the

charges levelled against the workman were duly proved. The competent authority issued 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the

ex-workman. But the ex-workman failed to submit his explanation and as such the Disciplinary Authority awarded an

Order of Dismissal from his service for his misconduct which was very grave in nature. Moreover the ex-workman is a

habitual absentee and he had been punished for similar misconduct. The action of management in dismissing the ex-

workman is totally justified and in proportion to the gravity of misconduct under the provision of the Certified Standing

Order of the company. The past record of the workman was also not satisfactory. Punishment awarded to the ex-

workman is justified in proportion to the gravity of misconduct committed by the ex-workman. The agent of New

Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has denied in his written statement that there was

any violation of principle of natural justice in enquiry proceeding. Ex-workman is not entitled to any back wages. The

action of management is fully justified in dismissing the ex-workman from service. The ex-workman is not entitled to

get any relief.

The union has filed following documentary evidences :

(i) Copy of the Charge Sheet, (ii) Copy of the Enquiry Proceedings, (iii) Copy of the Enquiry Report, (iv) Copy of the

Dismissal Order, (v) Copy of the Identity Card issued to the workman by the company.

Sri Sibram Bisai has filed affidavit in his evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned advocate of

New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

The Agent of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any oral

or documentary evidence.

I have heard Sri S. K. Pandey, learned Union representative on behalf of workman and Sri P. K. Das, learned

Advocate on behalf of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

has argued that the workman has been punished for his long unauthorized absence form duty. In departmental enquiry

his guilt was proved the punishment of dismissal is justified. In past he has also been punished for his unauthorized

absence.

On other hand Sri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative has argued that the concerned workman Sri Sibram Bisai

was absent from duty from 21.09.1997 to 16.12.99 due to his sickness. He was absent due to compelling circumstances

beyond his control. The management without serving copy of Charge Sheet and even without Notice of Enquiry

conducted the ex-parte departmental enquiry in absence of workman. Even opportunity of cross- examination was not

given to the workman. The enquiry was conducted in utter violation of principle of natural justice. The ex-parte enquiry

was conducted for the period 21.09.1997 to 16.12.99 and punishment of stoppage of 3 (Three) increments were

imposed on him. But in the same enquiry for the same period he was punished by dismissal from service. A workman

can not be punished twice for same misconduct.

It is admitted fact that Sri Sibram Bisai was in employment of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited. The workman has challenged the enquiry proceeding being devoid of natural justice, which

has been denied by New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The allegation of New

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4075

Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is that the concerned workman had been absent

in past also. From the perusal of Charge Sheet vide letter No. PERS/NKC/CS/99/1488 dated 16.12.1999 it transpires

that workman has been charge sheeted for his previous absence also. But there are no particulars of his pervious

absence and punishment. Before proceeding with the domestic enquiry against an offending workman, he must be

informed clearly, precisely and accurately of the charges levelled against him. It is the duty of employer to indicate to

the delinquent employee not only the precise nature of the charges but also the documents, if any, upon which the

charges are based. This is all the more necessary where the charges are of a general nature pertains to a period of time.

The Charge Sheet should specifically set out the charges which the workman called upon to show cause against and

should also state all relevant particulars without which he can not defend himself. The object of this requirement is that

the delinquent workman must know what he is charged with so that he may have opportunity to meet the charge and to

defend himself by giving a proper explanation, after knowing the nature of the offence with which he is charged,

otherwise it will amount to his being condemned unheard. If the charges are imprecise or indefinite, the person

charged, would not be able to understand them and defend himself and the resulting enquiry would not be fair and just

enquiry. The employer can not justify his action on any grounds other than those contained in the Charge Sheet. If the

charges are vague and the workman has no opportunity to reply them and if the particulars of charges are also not

disclosed to the workman, the enquiry will not be in confirmatiy with the rules of natural justice. It is incumbent upon

the employer to give the charge sheeted workman sufficient particulars in the Charge Sheet which would enable the

delinquent workman to give proper workman and to defend himself properly. Any amount of evidence lead in the

enquiry is no substitute for a Charge Sheet lacking precise an definite particulars. Any Charge Sheet which fails to

comply with the requirement of the principle of natural justice is no Charge Sheet at all. From perusal of Charge Sheet,

no detail has been mentioned for his previous absence.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Brij Bihari Singh v/s The State Of Bihar, 2016 (148) FLR 197 has held that :

“ It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge, should know not only the accusation but

also the testimony by which accusation is supported. ”

The Enquiry Officer has mentioned in his enquiry proceeding and enquiry report that notice was sent to

delinquent workman on 31.07.2000, 14.08.2000 and 25.08.2000. But he has not mentioned that whether the notice was

served on delinquent workman or not. If notice of date, venue and time of enquiry has been sent to concerned workman

and if it was served on delinquent employee, then after service of notice if delinquent employee does not appear or

participate in enquiry proceeding then Enquiry Officer can very well proceed ex-parte against the delinquent workman.

But before proceeding ex-parte enquiry against the delinquent workman it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to

ensure and record in enquiry proceeding that delinquent was served with notice of enquiry and delinquent failed to

participate in the enquiry. But it is surprising to note that the Enquiry Officer has not recorded any finding regarding

service of notice of enquiry to the delinquent. Even copy of Notice of Enquiry or Postal Receipt has not been filed by

the agent of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. If delinquent after service of

notice does not appear in the enquiry proceeding then he will lose the opportunity of cross-examination. But still he has

right to lead defence evidence. It is mandatory for the Enquiry Officer to fix a date and to provide opportunity to lead

defence evidence to delinquent even in ex-parte enquiry.

10.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Others v/s Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 (124) FLR 857 has held that:

“If delinquent workman does not appear enquiry may proceed ex-parte. He will lose opportunity of cross-

examination but still he has right to lead defence evidence. ”

It is apparent from enquiry proceeding and report that the Enquiry Officer neither fixed a date for defence

evidence nor provided opportunity to delinquent workman to lead defence evidence. Enquiry officer recorded the

evidence of management witness on 25.08.2000 and without fixing a date for defence evidence he send the enquiry

report on very next day i.e. 26.08.2000.

11.

It is apparent from perusal of Enquiry Report that due to absence of delinquent from 21.09.1997 after

conducting ex-parte departmental enquiry the delinquent was awarded punishment with stoppage of 3 (Three)

increments. The delinquent workman was directed by management to resume duty from 07.12.1998 by letter of Area

Authority of Kenda Area vide letter No. Pers/KND/26/2260 dated 17/18.11.1998 and subsequent letter of Dy. CME of

New Kenda Colliery vide letter No. Pers/NKC/98/1423 dated 03/04.12.1998. But delinquent workman did not resume

his duty. Charge Sheet has been issued to the delinquent for absence from 21.09.1997 till which date it was not been

mentioned. Charge Sheet has been issued on 16.12.1999 therefore it indicates that the workman has been charge

sheeted for the period 21.09.1997 to 16.12.1999. It has been mentioned that workman had been punished with stoppage

of 3 (Three) increments for the period of absence form duty since 21.09.1997. But the Charge Sheet reflects that again

he was charge sheeted form 21.09.1997. It means that he has been punished twice for the absence of same period from

21.09.1997. If workman was absent from 21.09.1997 and if was punished with stoppage of 3 (Three) increment. If he

did not resume his duties from 07.12.1998 as per direction of the management then in that case he could again be

charge sheeted and enquired into for the absence form duty from 07.12.1998. The order of punishment regarding

stoppage of 3 (Three) increments is not on record. It appears, that two enquires were conducted against, delinquent

4076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman. One enquiry was conducted, for the absence for the period from 21.09.1997 till date. 2^nd Enquiry was

conducted for the absence from 07.12.1998, whereas the delinquent workman had already been punished for the period

of absence from 21.09.1997. A person or workman can not be punished twice for the same period of absence. This is

against provision of law.

12.

By virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry has to be conducted in

accordance with the rules of the natural justice. Departmental enquiry conducted against the government servant can

not be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceeding also can not be conducted with a closed mind. The Enquiry

Officer has to be un-biased and impartial. The rules of natural justice are required to be observe to ensure that not only

the justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government

servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may calumniate in imposition of punishment including dismissal of

service.

13.

The Agent of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has mentioned in

Para- 3 of his written statement that competent authority issued 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the ex-workman but the ex-

workman failed to submit his explanation, as such the Disciplinary Authority awarded Order of Dismissal from service

for his act of misconduct. Workman has denied issuance of 2^nd Show Cause Notice before passing Order of Dismissal

in Para-8 of his written statement. The copy of 2^nd Show Cause Notice has not been filed on the file of reference by the

agent of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. If relevant documents are

withheld from the party who is in possession of these documents the adverse inference will be drawn that 2^nd

Show Cause Notice was never issued before passing Order of Dismissal. Besides from perusal of dismissal order

Ref. Pers/NKC/Termination/755 dated 16/17.07.2001 it indicates that after conclusion of enquiry the Competent

Authority straightway awarded the punishment of dismissal without issuing 2^nd Show Cause Notice. In the order of

dismissal Ref. Pers/NKC/Termination/755 dated 16/17.07.2001 (supra) there is no mention of 2^nd show cause notice. In

view of law propounded hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Others v/s Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1990 (61) FLR

376, 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the proposed punishment before passing the order of termination is mandatory. When

the rights are affected the principle of natural justice had to be observed. A departmental enquiry, devoid of principle of

natural justice can not be accepted. The misconduct of any delinquent workman has to be proved in accordance with

law. The dismissal of workman by any procedure unknown to law is not only illegal and unjustified but requires

correction.

14.

The workman in Para-13 of his written statement has stated that he belongs to downtrodden community and he

is sitting without any job. His whole family is dying without meal. This fact has not been rebutted by the agent of New

Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The workman Sri Sibram Bisai has stated in

Para-6 of his affidavit that he belongs to Schedule Cast community and he is sitting without any job from the order of

dismissal. He has been cross-examined by the learned advocate of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited. But his statement in examination-in-chef is unrebutted. As per Identity Card of Sri Sibram

Bisai filed on record his date of birth is 28.03.1958 and his date of appointment is 29.09.1980. He has been dismissed

from service w.e.f 16.07.2001. He has put 20 years of service before dismissal. After dismissal w.e.f. 2001 till now he

is jobless. He belongs to Schedule Cast community a weaker section of society. Keeping in view his length of service

period of dismissal and his social strata and unemployment during period of dismissal, there is no possibility of getting

alternative job.

15.

The hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Agarwala v/s General Manager-II & Appointing Authority

State Bank of India & Others, 2016 (148) FLR 865 has relied on Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak

Mahavidyalaya and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 :

“In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the

normal rule. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back

wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first

instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid

payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman

was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of

service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the

person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a

negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to

specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially

similar eMoLuments.”

16.

Therefore in view of law propounded by hon’ble Apex Court the concerned workman Sri Sibram Bisai is

entitled to get full back wage from the date of dismissal till his reinstatement. It is settled law that, consequential

benefits do not mean only back wages, it includes much more things beyond back wages, such as promotions,

fixation of seniority and other financial benefits admissible to post if termination has been declared illegal and

unjustified.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4077

17.

In view of above discussion the action of management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Sibram Bisai with effect from 16.07.2001 is illegal and unjustified. The

management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to reinstate Sri

Sibram Bisai in service with full back wages from order of dismissal i.e. 16.07.2001 till his reinstatement. It is further

directed that Sri Sibram Bisai will be entitled to get all consequential service benefits such as promotions, increments,

fixation of seniority and other financial benefits admissible to the post. Sri Sibram Bisai will be imposed a punishment

of 4 (Four) annual increments without cumulative effect.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1835-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 84@12) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@23@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

management of State Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-12011/23/2012-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/84/12

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp.Engg. College,Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Khatiwala Tank, Indore

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of July, 2016

As per letter dated 19-7-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-12011/23/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of the Union, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan for making payment of

difference of wages as per wages paid to a permanent peon for the period from 15-12-03 to 4-12-2010 to Shri

Narendra Sirsat is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?’

4078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman filed statement of claim through Daily

Wage Bank Employees Union. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged as peon by Branch Manager Shri

Sunil Bhide on 15-12-03. He was working 8 hours per day. He worked more than 240 days during each of the year. He

was paid wages Rs.50 per day. Wages were increased to Rs.70,100,120,140, 170 per day. Wages were paid in name of

Rajiv, Dinesh. After workman claimed regularization and benefit of bonus, his services were terminated on 4-12-2010

in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman challenged his termination raising separate dispute. Workman submits

that he is eligible for skilled wages as per 7^th to 9^th bipartite settlement. That in chapter 16 of Sastry Award, Para 5 to 8,

the employees are classified as Ist party workman was engaged as temporary peon, he is entitled for scale wages.

Workman claimed difference of wages as per 8^th to 9^th settlement.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman that workman was engaged temporarily on

daily wages at Khatiwala tank branch in erstwhile State Bank of Indore. The engagement of Ist party was purely

temporary post on administrative exigencies. Workman was not engaged against vacant post. Bipartite settlements are

not applicable to the daily wage employees. The pay scale under the bipartite settlement are applicable to the regular

employees. 2^nd party denies that workman was engaged for 8 hours every day. It is denied that Ist party workman is

entitled to pay scale as per 5^th & 8^th bipartite settlement. Documents produced by Ist party donot deal with the persons

working on daily wages. Part time employees are not entitled to regularization as they are not working against

sanctioned post. On such contentions, 2^nd party prays reference be answered in its favour.

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

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

(i) Whether the demand of the Union, Dainik Vetan

Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan for making payment

of difference of wages as per wages paid to a permanent

peon for the period from 15-12-03 to 4-12-2010 to Shri

Narendra Sirsat is legal and justified?

In Negative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The terms of reference pertains to payment of difference of wages as to Ist party workman Narendra Sirsatt for

the period 15-12-03 to 4-12-2010. Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence. However he remained absent for

his cross-examination. Therefore his evidence cannot be considered.

Management’s witness Shri Soumyashree Debashish Mishra in his affidavit of evidence states that

workman was engaged for 19 days in 2003, 71 days in 2003-04, 114 days in 2006, 228 days in 2007, 99 days in 2008

on daily wages as per exigency. Workman was not engaged against sanctioned post. He was not appointed as peon

following recruitment rules. The services of workman were avaited for sweeping Bank premises. Workman is not

entitled to salary and allowances paid to permanent employees under bipartite settlement.

Management’s witness in his cross-examination says he did not take any information from Branch Manager

working during period 2003 to 2010. 2 post of peon were sanctioned in the branch. The area of the branch is 2400 sq.ft.

before engaging workman whether permission of Controlling Authority was taken, he claims ignorance. Attendance

Workman was paid wages under voucher. Vouchers are not produced on record. The policy of payment of wages/

salary is not produced.

Documents Exhibit W-1 is affidavit of Rajbhushan Azad submitted before RLC, the working days of Ist party

are shown during the period 2003 to 2008 are less than 240 days. W-2 is reply filed by 2^nd party before RLC. Similar

working days are shown Exhibit W-4 is application submitted by workman before RLC claiming wages. Workman has

not produced documents pertaining to 5^th & 8^th Bipartite settlement.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri Shroti relies on ratio held in

Case of State of Haryana and another versus Tilak Raj and others reported in 2003(6)SCC-123. Their

Lordship dealing with the daily wage employees claiming parity in employment held principle not an abstract one.

Applicability of the principle requires complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming

identical pay scales and others who have already earned such pay scales. Respondent daily workers are not entitled to

claim equal pay for equal work on parity with the regular employees.

For the reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4079

(1)

The demand of the Union, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan for making payment of

difference of wages as per wages paid to a permanent peon for the period from 15-12-03 to

4-12-2010 to Shri Narendra Sirsat is not legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1836-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad

banksj ds :Ik esa foy; dj fn;k Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 49@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@30@97&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of Indore Merged as State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-12012/30/97-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/49/98

General Secretary,

All India State Bank of Indore Employees Congress,

Hardev Nivas, 9,

Sanver Road,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Manager,

State Bank of Indore

Merged as State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

MP Nagar, Bhopal.

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of July, 2016

As per letter dated 11-3-98 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-12012/30/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Indore in suspending Shri Balwant Singh Gour

w.e.f. 3-6-91 treating his suspension period as half duty, stopping four increments during suspension period,

3 increments after the revocation of suspension and one increment as per Bipartite Settlement is just and

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

4080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Both parties failed to participate in reference

proceeding. Ist party failed to file statement of claim. Therefore the dispute could not be decided on merit. No Dispute

Award is passed.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1837-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 192@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@300@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 192/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-12012/300/2001-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/192/2001

Shri Shyamlal Srivas,

Dy.General Secretary,

State Bank of India Staff Congress 5/235,

Pragati State Bank Staff Colony,

Vikasnagar, Jabalpur.

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20^th day of June, 2016

1. As per letter dated 11-12-2001 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12012/300/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saikheda branch, Distt. Narsinghpur despite Shyamlal

Shrivas working from 19-8-88 to 31-12-88 for 112 days, 3-1-89 to 1-11-89 for 110 days as temporary

messenger and thereafter engaging him again from 15-8-91 to 8-12-94, 9-12-94 to 9-11-99 and not

regularizing his services as messenger and continuously engaging him as canteen boy from 10-11-99 is legal?

If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

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

Page 5/1 to 5/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed on post of messenger on daily wages from 19-8-88

to 11-11-89. Thereafter he was engaged on post of helper from 15-8-91. Thereafter he was continuously working as

messenger cum helper till 9-11-99. He completed more than 240 days service. He acquired status of workman under

Section 25 B of ID Act. His working as altered as canteen boy from 10-11-99 fixing his salary Rs.500 per month.

Though the workman was working with 2^nd party, he was continued on temporary basis. The change in his service from

messenger cum helper to canteen boy denying permanent appointment is illegal. Workman raised dispute. On failure

of conciliation, the dispute has been referred to this Tribunal. Workman has reiterated that he completed more than

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4081

240 days continuous service, he was entitled for regular pay scale. His service was altered to the post of canteen boy

illegally. On such ground, workman is praying status of permanent employee and consequential benefits.

3. 2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/9 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that Ist party

workman was engaged as canteen boy in the staff canteen of the Saikheda branch, Distt. Narsinghpur by

Implementation Committee. Ist party was not engaged by the management of Bank, it has no control on working of Ist

party. Workman was also temporarily engaged as messenger for 102 days in 1988, 110 days in 1999. Workman had

not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman was engaged on daily wages. His engagement is covered under

Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act and doesnot amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act. 2^nd party Bank further

submits that Bank has recruitment rules for appointment of subordinate staff on regular basis. Ist party workman was

not appointed following such recruitment rules. Rather the Ist party workman was engaged as canteen boy by the

Local Implementation Committee. Bank is not concerned with him. 2^nd party further refers to ratio held in case between

State of Karnataka versus Umadevi by Apex Court and reiterates that workman was engaged as casual worker and it

doesnot give him right for regularization. It is reiterated that dis-engagement of workman is covered under Section

2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Workman has not completed 240 days continuous service during any of the year. He is not

entitled to protection of ID Act. The claim of workman is not entitled.

4. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

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 Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

Saikheda

branch,

Distt.

Narsinghpur

despite

Shyamlal Shrivas working from 19-8-88 to 31-12-88

for 112 days, 3-1-89 to 1-11-89 for 110 days as

temporary messenger and thereafter engaging him

again from 15-8-91 to 8-12-94, 9-12-94 to 9-11-99

and not regularizing his services as messenger and

continuously engaging him as canteen boy from

10-11-99 is legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. The term of reference pertains to engagement of Ist party workman as messenger from 19-8-88 to 31-12-88 for

112 days, 3-1-89 to 1-11-89 for 110 days and thereafter continuously engaging him as messenger and not regularizing

workman but changing his work as canteen boy. The term of reference doesnot pertain to illegal termination of services

of workman rather it pertains to regularization of the services of workman as messenger. Ist party workman filed

affidavit of his evidence covering most of his contentions in statement of claim. That he was appointed on post of

messenger since 19-8-88 till 1-11-89 & 5-8-9 to 9-11-99 on post of helper cum messenger. He was paid Rs.40/- per day

and his payment was made after maintaining petty cash register. That he had worked with management on post of

helper cum messenger for more than 240 days. From 10-11-99, his work was recovered as canteen boy, he was paid

Rs.500 per month. The first appointment of workman was made by Branch Manager Shri Ghanshyam Das Kabra in

1989. The subsequent appointments were made by Branch Manager Shri Y.K.Trivedi, M.G.Sroti, T.P.Dixit. The

Appointing Authority was Branch Manager who is also Chairman of Local Implementation Committee running staff

canteen. Workman in his cross-examination, derives that he was engaged as canteen boy in staff canteen at Saikheda.

He also denies that he worked for 102 days in 1988, 110 days in 1989 as daily wage messenger. Workman reiterates

that he was regularly engaged. He did not work as a canteen boy. Presently he is working as canteen boy. He was

engaged by Local Implementation Committee. He received payment by cheque for working as canteen boy. He claims

ignorance whether Bank has engaged other persons as messenger. He claims ignorance about rules of recruitment of the

Bank. He claims ignorance about the selection Committee for regular appointment. The regular employee working

with him were appointed after selection by the Committee. That he had not received appointment letters.

7. Management’s witness Shri V. Kumar filed affidavit of his evidence. In Para-2 of his affidavit, management’s

witness has given 102 working days of Istparty in the year 1988, 110 days in 1989 on daily wages as temporary

messenger. Workman was never engaged as temporary messenger, his engagement was contractual on daily wages.

Workman was intermittently engaged as labour. Daily wages were separately paid to him. Workman is not entitled to

retrenchment compensation under section 25-F of ID Act. That the canteen is run by Local Implementation Committee,

Branch Manager is president and Union Representative is secretary of the Committee. Bank has no right to direct in

which manner canteen should function. Bank has no authority to initiate any disciplinary action against any canteen

employee. Bank has no right to monitor canteen staff. Recruitment in Bank is done by proper selection process

governed by the recruitment rules. That for the recruitment to the subordinate cadre, selection committee used to be

4082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

constituted. Management’s witness in his cross examination says he did not work in Saikheda branch. However said

Bank was under his control. In 1988-89, 5 employees were working in the Bank. Canteen was not under control of the

Bank. Canteen Committee was running it. Branch Manager was President of the canteen. Subsidy used to be paid to the

canteen. Management’s witness claims ignorance whether workman is continuously working from 1988 at Saikheda

branch. Management’s witness claims ignorance whether form 10-1-99, workman was shown as canteen boy and work

of messenger was taken from him.

8. As stated above, the term of reference is not clear about legality of termination of service of workman, term of

reference pertains to illegal change of his work from temporary messenger to that of canteen boy. Workman has not

produced any document in support of his claim neither he has examined any co-employee to support his contention

that he was continuously working as messenger cum labour from 15-8-91 to 8-12-94 and 3-12-94 to 9-11-99. However

the working days are mentioned in the order of reference itself. Management did not challenge legality of order of

reference.

9. Learned counsel for workman shri P.C.Chandak submits that working days are shown in order of reference

itself. It is not necessary to prove 240 days continuous working by workman. Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri R.C.

Shrivastava submits that burden lies on workman to prove that he worked continuously more than 240 days preceding

12 months of his termination. In support of his argument, learned counsel relies on ratio held in

Case between Surendra Nagar District Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported in 2005(8)SCC-750.

Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F, B of ID Act and requirement of 240 days continuous service onus to prove.

Evidence to be led. Hence burden of proof lies on workman. It is for workman to adduce evidence apart from

examining himself or filing an affidavit to prove the said factum. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or

wages for 24 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has worked with the

employer for 240 days or examination of a co-worker.

Attention was also pointed out to copy of award in R/57/04 Para 15 while deciding said reference, it was

observed that evidence of witnesses of Ist party shows that they were working as casual labours around 1985 to 1990.

Their evidence is not supported by any documents.

Shri R.C.Shrivastava also relies on case between United White Metal Ltd, Mumbai versus State of

Maharashtra and others reported in 2014(143)FLR-505. Their Lordship held the order of appropriate Government

making a reference under Section 10 of the said Act is an administrative order and not a judicial or quasi judicial one

and the Court, therefore cannot canvass order of reference closely to see if there was any material before the

Government to support its conclusion as if it was a judicial or a quasi judicial order. An order made of reference made

by the appropriate Government being an administrative order, no lis is involved as such the order is made on the

subjective satisfaction of the Government.

Their Lordship further observed that construed it cannot be said that the dispute as raised has o nexus

whatsoever with the provisions contained in Section 2-A of said Act. Such an exercise shall have to be undertaken

because the terms of a reference are never to be construed pedantically. The order making reference has to be read

alongwith the pleadings of parties and other circumstances with a view to draw out from various points and about

which the parties are at variance leading to the dispute and to determine the real nature of the dispute.

Considering ratio in above cited case, the order of reference cannot be considered in treating that Ist party

workman did not continuously work as messenger cum helper. The pleadings of parties shows that this question is in

dispute. Workman has not examined any co-worker, any document are not produced, appointment letter is not

produced by him to corroborate the evidence.

10. Considering ratio held in 2005(8)SCC-750, workman has not discharged burden that he was continuously

working during above said period. Ist party workman has also not produced any documentary evidence about change of

his working as canteen boy, he not submitted any representation or raised any objection to his engagement as canteen

boy. The Local Implementation Committee of the Bank running the canteen is not impleaded as party. Therefore in

absence of such evidence, it is difficult to place reliance on evidence of workman that he was continuously working as

temporary messenger cum helper from 1991 to 1999. For above reasons, action of 2^nd party cannot be said illegal. The

term of reference and pleading in statement of claim are silent about violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Legality of

termination of Ist party workman from post of messenger cum helper therefore ratio relied by Ist party Advocate

Chandak in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi versus M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. Reported in 2014LAB.I.C.2643 cannot be

applied to case at hand. For the reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

11. Point No.2- While dealing with Point No.1, I have considered that term of reference donot clearly pertain to

legality of termination of workman for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, rather the term of reference pertains to

denial of regularization and illegal change of service conditions by engaging him as canteen boy. Workman has failed

to establish that he continuously worked more than 240 days preceding his change of work as canteenboy from

10-11-99. Evidence adduced by workman doesnot make out any kind of illegality, consequently workman is not

entitled to any relief.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4083

I may also refer to ratio cited by learned counsel for Ist party Shri P.C.Chandak in case between Prof.

Ramchandra G.Kapse versus Haribansh R. Singh reported in 1995-I-SCC-206, Para 14. The discussion in para 14

pertains to ratio held in case Badat and Company versus East India Trading Company pertains to Rule 3, 4 and 5 of

Order 8 of CPC form an integrated code dealing with the manner in which allegations of fact in the plaint should be

traversed and the legal consequences flowing from its non-compliance.

The observations has no bearing to the controversy between parties. For the reasons discussed above, workman is not

entitled to any relief. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

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

(1) The action of the management is not proved to be illegal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1838-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

eè; jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 3@07) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@140@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1838.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/07) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

management of West Central Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-41012/140/2005-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/3/07

Shri Anant Ramawat

S/o Late Shri Shobha Das,

Village Bachwani,

Near Ganesh Mandir,

Tehsil Bankhedi,

Distt. Hoshangabad (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

West Central Railway,

Jabalpur.

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of July, 2016

1. As per letter dated 7-12-2006 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-41012/140/2005-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

4084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of DRM, West Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services

of Shri Anant Ramawat S/o Late Shri Shobha Das, Ex-Ticket Collector w.e.f. 23-5-85 is justified? If not, what

relief he is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman statement of claim at Page 3/1

to 3/3. Case of workman is that he was employed as volunteer ticket collector posted at Katni station in Jabalpur

Division. He was engaged in Rail service from 5-6-84. He received identity card from 4-2-85. He worked till 22-5-85.

Thereafter he was discontinued from service without giving opportunity. He was not issued showcause notice along

with other volunteer ticket collectors. After his replacement, some co-workers have approached appropriate Court. The

said matter was prosecuted upto Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Apex Court passed judgment on 27-7-95 giving

instructions to all divisions for offered appointment on the terms and conditions and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. Except workman, other co-workers were reinstated. Workman was given assurance to absorb him. However he

could not get appointment as per Court order. Workman submitted representation on 12-9-97. Thereafter dispute was

raised. After Government refused to refer the dispute, Ist party filed Writ petition No. 13262/2006 as per order passed

by Hon’ble Court, dispute has been referred. Workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. 2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party denies that Ist party was its regular

employee. Ist workman was working as temporary employee on unsanctioned post of voluntary ticket collectors at

Katni regarding Ist party. It is denied that workman was working from 5-7-84 to 4-2-85, his services were never

terminated. All adverse allegations are denied as incorrect and false. 2^nd party further submits that Ist party workman

had submitted application for appointment, he was directed to produce original documents required for his

appointment, he failed to produce original documents therefore workman could not be appointed. 2^nd party further

submits that dispute is raised after 20 years is barred. Workman was never employed at Katni, no record is available.

Workman submitted forged I Card, it was never issued by office. On such ground, 2^nd party prays that reference be

answered in its favour.

4. 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 DRM, West

Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of

Shri Anant Ramawat S/o Late Shri Shobha Das, Ex-

Ticket Collector w.e.f. 23-5-85 is justified?

Termination of workman is not established.

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

5. Ist party workman is challenging his termination w.e.f. 23-5-85. His claim is opposed by 2^nd party filing Written

Statement. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence that he was working from 5-6-84 to 22-5-85. He worked

continuously. He worked honestly, his service record was unblemished, his services were terminated from 23-5-85

without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Assurance was given to him by authorities for

appointment. However he was not absorbed in service. he also prays for condonation of delay. In his cross-

examination, workman says however he was writing Kumar with his name, he committed mistake not writing Kumar

with his name. He not received appointment letter, his date of birth is 4-3-67, he passed 12^th standard on 5-6-84 pay

slip was not issued by him, therefore it was not produced. He was engaged on daily wages. He denied that he never

worked in Railway. Document Exhibit W-I Card only bears his name Anant. In writing Anant and Ramavat, their

appears overwriting. Period of working of Ist party is not shown in I Card Exhibit W-1. Evidence of workman is not

supported by any other witness or documents. Besides above, the dispute is raised after 22 years.

6. Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in

Case between Indian Iron and Steel Co.Ltd. versus Prahad Singh reported in 2001(1)SCC-424. Their

Lordship held Industrial Dispute raised after 13 long years of termination of service, no reasonable explanation given

for such delay. In such circumstances, Industrial Tribunal rightly refused to grant TA.

In case between Chief Engineer (Construction) versus Keshava Rao reported in 2004(11)SCC-229. Their

Lordship dealing with non-compliance of Sec 25-F held burden lies on workman unless initial burden of establishing

factum of continuous work for 240 days in a year is discharged by workman and the employer failed to produce

evidence in rebuttal, finding of non compliance cannot be recorded.

In present case, from evidence of workman working for more than 240 days cannot be proved. Evidence of

workman is not consistent with the pleadings in statement of claim. The judgment by Apex Court quoted in the

statement of claim is not produced which was basis for claim of workman. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 that termination of Ist party workman by 2^nd party is not established.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4085

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

(1)

The termination of workman by 2^nd party is not established.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1839-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 280@97) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@214@96&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1839.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 280/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-12012/214/96-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/280/97

The Local Secretary,

SBI Workman Union,

SBI Main Branch, Raipur.

…Workman/Union

Versus

Assistant General Manager,

SBI, Main Branch, Raipur (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of July 2016

1. As per letter dated 1-10-97 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-12012/214/96-IR(B). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Raipur in imposing a penalty of

withdrawal of Head Cashier allowance, being paid to Shri B.S.Chepdu, Head Clerk permanently w.e.f. 2-2-95

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

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

behalf of workman at Page 4/1 to 4/4. The case of workman is that workman was working as Head Clerk at Main

branch Raipur. His service record was satisfactory. As per order dated 30-1-95, the punishment of stoppage of special

allowance was imposed. Chargesheet issued to workman dated 21-9-93 w.r.t. the alleged incident is illegal. The

chargesheet is issued to workman consolidating more incidents. Chargesheet was issued without conducting

preliminary enquiry, enquiry conducted against workman is illegal. Workman was not provided copies of documents

pertaining to the charges. Intimation of enquiry not given to him. Chargesheet was issued beyond the period intimation

of appointing Enquiry was not given to the workman. The findings of Enquiry Officer are not supported by evidence.

Therefore order of punishment is illegal. Enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Witness

Shri R.N.Swarnakar was recorded in Enquiry Proceeding without showing the vouchers to the workman. The charges

alleged against workman for violation of Para 521.4 of Sastry Award was inconsistent. Workman did not commit any

misconduct fo4r which he had to face disciplinary enquiry. It is reiterated that the punishment of stoppage of special

4086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

allowance to workman is illegal. The punishment imposed against him amounts to his reversion is illegal. On such

ground, Ist party prays for setting aside order of punishment.

3. 2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/5 opposing claim of workman 2^nd party submits that

chargesheet was issued to workman Chepdu Head Clerk on 21-9-93 for serious allegations the misconduct alleged in

the chargesheet under Para-521.4(j)©(e) of Sastry Award. Reply submitted by workman was not found satisfactory by

Disciplinary Authority. Enquiry was conducted after appointing Enquiry Officer D.R.Agrawal. Shri P.R.Chancelkar

was appointed as Presenting Officer. Enquiry was started on 28-12-93. Workman was given opportunity for his

defence. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19-9-94 holding that charge No.1 was partially proved and Charge

No.2 to 4 were proved. For proved misconduct, punishment of withdrawal of special allowance available to Head Clerk

was imposed after issuing showcause and giving opportunity to workman for hearing. 2^nd party prays that reference be

answered in its favour.

4. As per order dated 4-8-2015, enquiry conducted against workman is found illegal.

5. Considering pleadings on record and findings on enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and

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

(i)

Whether the misconduct alleged against workman

is proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

Charge No.2,3 are proved.

(ii)

Whether the punishment of withdrawal of special

allowance imposed against workman is proper

and legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Point No.1 Enquiry against workman is found legal as per order dated 4-8-15. Therefore question whether

misconduct alleged against workman are proved needs to be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings

chargesheet issued to workman is Exhibit M-1. Enquiry Officer has also narrated charges against workman at Page

14/13. Charge No.1 pertains to misconduct under Para 521-4(J) OF Sastry Award of lending money. CSE lending

Rs.300 to Mukesh Sharma at interest 10 % per month. Charge No.2 CSE taking out Rs.900 from pocket of Mukesh

Sharma clerk of SBI Raipur on 28-3-93 committed misconduct under Para 521 (4j) of Sastry Award. Charge No.3

CSE wrongly coding telegrams which would have caused loss to the Bank and inconvenience to the customers.

Misconduct covered under Para 521 4(j) of Sastry Award. Charge No.4 is CSE not replying letter dated 19-3-93 of

Assistant General Manager, thereby committing misconduct of insubordination in Para 521(4)(e) of Sastry Award.

7. In his Enquiry Report, the evidence of witnesses is briefly narrated. Enquiry Officer recorded his findings on

charge No.1, Ist party not proved. 2^nd charge considered by Enquiry Officer that he lend amount of Rs.1700 to Mukesh

Sharma. Infact was his defence and not the charge against Ist party workman. Zerox copy of Enquiry Proceeding is

produced. Complainant Mukesh Sharma was examined as witness No.5. In his evidence, Mukesh Sharma has narrated

incident that on 25-2-93, he was ill, he was on leave. He had come for withdrawal of the amount on that day . He

withdrawn amount from the Bank. He told CSE Chepdu that he would pay amount afterwards. Thereafter CSE came

behind him asking for the amount. He had taken amount by hand from his pocket Shri Mukesh Sharma in his further

statement says that CSE was doing business of lending amount charging 10 % interest per month. That he had taken

amount from CSE. Amount of Rs.300 was due against him. Statement of Mukesh Sharma doesnot disclose names of

any other persons to whom CSE had lend amount charging interest 10 % per month. The statements of Shri R.P.Verma

MW-2 is on the point that he confirmed his statement Exhibit P-8 and also narrated that CSE Chepdu had taken notes

from pocket of Mukesh Sharma. The statement of witness No.3 Ramdayal Yadav is only on the point that his statement

P-9 was recorded as per his say. Statement of Shri Ramdayal Yadav is on the point that CSE had taken notes from

pocket of Shri Mukesh Sharma. Both witnesses R.K.Verma and Ramdayal Yadav did not tell the exact amount taken

by Chepdu or any quarrel had taken place at the time.

8. Learned counsel for workman Shri A.K.Shashi during course of argument pointed out the discrepancies in the

evidence, witnesses were standing at close distance, they could not listen the conversation. The evidence of MW-5

Mukesh Sharma, MW2 RP Verma, MW-3 Ramdayal Yadav is consistent on the point that workman taken notes from

pocket of Mukesh Sharma. Evidence of Mukesh Sharma is on the day of incident, he withdrawn Rs.900 from Bank,

Shri Chepdu taken entire amount from his pocket. He complained about the incident Exhibit P- at Page 14/49. Evidence

of MW-2,3 & 5 is corroborated that CSE Chepdu had taken amount from pocket of trouser of Shri Mukesh Sharma.

Said complaint is also silent w.r.t. CSE lending amount to other employees charging interest 10 % per month. From

evidence of MW-2,3,5, it is established that CSE had taken out amount from pocket of workman Shri Mukesh Sharma

sufficiently proved Charge No.2. Evidence of those witnesses cannot prove Charge No.1.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4087

9. W.r.t. Charge No.3 management’s witness Shri R.N.Swarnakar in his statement has given statement about

wrongly coded TP vouchers. In Exhibit P-13 dated 16-3-93 correct amount was Rs.1,66,000 coded amount was

16,60,000/-. In p-14 dated 17-3-93 correct amount was Rs.450000/- coded amount was 45,00,000/- In P-15 dated

17-3-93 correct amount was 906000/-, coded amount was 9,66,000/-. In p-16 dated 4-5-93 correct amount was 36,900,

coded amount was 3,06,900/-. The details of amount in P-17,18,19 is given by him. He has also narrated in his

statement that work of TT was of Head Clerk. The coding work takes 4-5 minutes. The evidence of all those witnesses

in cross examination from material points have not been shattered.

10. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri A.K.Shashi submits that Ist party workman was not earlier issued any

memorandum or notice about the work of coding telegram. After complaint of Shri Mukesh Sharma, he was roped in

charges. CSE had shown his inability to cope up with the work claiming that he was overburden. Learned counsel

emphasized that Charge No.3 could not be said misconduct. The details of MW-6 cannot be considered coded amount

varies with the correct amount. It those messages received by customer, Bank and customers might have suffered loss.

11. Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri Vijay Tripathi submits that evidence cannot be re-appreciated. In support of

his argument, learned counsel relies on ratio held in case of

Government of India and another versus A.Rajapandian reported in 1995(I) Supreme Court Cases 216. Their

Lordship held where the Tribunal had not found any fault with the proceedings conducted by the Inquiring Authority

held it had no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and set aside the order of dismissal on the ground of

insufficiency of evidence to prove the charges. It is further held in such a case the Supreme Court would not examine

the merits of appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal and Inquiry Authority.

In case of workman of Balmadies Estates versus Balmadies Estates and others reported in 2008(4)SCC-517.

Their Lordship held assessment of evidence in a domestic enquiry is not required to be made by applying the same as a

civil court would do when a lis is brought before it. Evidence Act 1872 is not applicable to the proceeding in a

domestic enquiry though principles of fairness are to apply.

In case between West Bokaro Colliery versus Ram Pravesh Singh reported in 2008(3)SCC-729. Their

Lordship held where two views are possible on evidence, Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in interfering with the

findings arrived at in domestic enquiry. Standard of proof in domestic enquiry is preponderance of probabilities and

not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In case between State Bank of India versus Tarun Kumar Banerjee and others reported in 2000(8)SCC-12.

Their Lordship held evidence of two officers of the same bank who were eye witnesses to the incident, conclusively

proving the cashier to be guilty. The delinquent neither adducing any evidence nor anything worthwhile elicited in the

cross examination except that one of the said two witnesses belonged to a rival union.

12. Shri A.K.Shashi for Ist party workman relies on ratio held in

Case of Roop SinghNegi versus Punjab National Bank and others reported in 2009(2)SCC-570. Their

Lordship held mere production of document is not enough. The contents of evidence is proved by examining the

witnesses.

Shri A.K.Shashi also relies on judgment in Writ Petition No. 7622/2005 by High Court of MP Jabalpur. In

Para-8 , his Lordship observed it is undisputed and established from perusal of record that none of these persons whose

statements were recorded during fact finding enquiry have been summoned or examined as witnesses by the authorities

in the departmental proceedings nor have they been summoned as witnesses to affirm the statement made by them in

the Fact Finding Inquiry.

In present case, Shri R.P.Nema, Ramdayal Yadav examined in Enquiry Proceedings. They have confirmed

their statements P-8,P-9. They have also narrated that CSE has taken out amount from pocket of Shri Mukesh Sharma.

Evidence of CSE taking amount from pocket of Mukesh Sharma is not shattered. Re-appreciation of evidence is not

permissible while exercising powers of judicial review. On reasons discussed above, charge No.2,3 against workman

are proved. W.r.t. charge No.4 CSE had not replied to the letter dated 19-3-93 it is difficult to hold that failure to give

reply could be said act of insubordination. If reply is not received, the authority concerned would have taken

appropriate action but the same could not be an act of misconduct when already enquiry was conducted against

workman. For reasons discussed above, I hold that Charge No.2 & 3 are proved against workman. Accordingly I record

my finding in Point No.1.

13. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 Charge No.2 & 3 are proved against workman, punishment of

withdrawal of special allowance of CSE is imposed. The proved charges pertains to taking amount from pocket of Shri

Mukesh Sharma, charge No. 3 wrongly decoding – the Bank could have suffered financial loss. Punishment of

withdrawal of special allowance to workman cannot be said excessive, unreasonable, no interference would be justified

in the order of punishment. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

4088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

(1)

The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2)

workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1840-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 83@12) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@10@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-12011/10/2012-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/83/12

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp Engineering College, Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,

Regional Business Office, Guna (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22^nd day of June 2016

1. As per letter dated 19-7-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-12011/10/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Guna in terminating

the services ofShri Deepak Singh Kirar w.e.f. 29-11-2010 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled?”

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

Union. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged as peon on daily wages by Branch Manager , Parwah branch

from April 1992. He was paid Rs.5/- per day. He was working from opening of Bank till its closing. He was orally

engaged by Bank, wages were increased from Rs.5 to 10,15,20,50,75,100 per day. Wages were paid at end of the week.

He was working days in a week. He was continuously working in the Bank for 18 years. Each year he completed

240days continuous service. his services were terminated without notice from 29-11-2010, termination of his service is

in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. On above ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4089

3. 2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that State Bank has several

branches including Parwah branch in District Guna. Ist party was supplying water in the branch. Its wages were paid to

him immediately. He was not engaged in the Bankon casual basis as claimed by workman in his statement of claim. Ist

party cannot be said in employment of the Bank. Ist party did not worked continuously more than 240 days in any

calendar year. Violation of Section 25-F is denied. It is denied that Ist party was engaged by Branch Manager on daily

wages from April 92. The enhancement of wages alleged by workman have been denied. It is denied that Ist party was

required to work 8 hours in a day. Documents produced by Ist party shows he used to supply wager in the Banks. He

was not paid wages. As per order dated 14-6-97 produced by Ist party, he was providing generator in the Bank on rent.

Ist party is not covered under Section 25 B of ID Act. It is denied that Ist party is terminated in violation of Section 25-

F of ID Act. 2^nd party submits that the reference be answered in its favour.

4. 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 State Bank

of India, Regional Business Office, Guna in terminating

the services of Shri Deepak Singh Kirar w.e.f.

29-11-2010 is legal and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

5. Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence. However representative of Union submitted that Ist party

would not appear for his cross-examination therefore his evidence could not be considered. As per order sheet dated

20-5-2014, documents produced by workman are admitted by 2^nd party Exhibit W-1to W-4.

6. 2^nd party filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Umashankar Gupta supporting contentions of 2^nd party in Written

Statement that workman was supplying water, he was not engaged by Branch Manager on casual basis. Ist party has not

completed 240 days working. He was not in employment of the Bank. In his cross, management’s witness says during

1992 to 2010, he was not posted in Parwah branch, he doesnot know Ist party. He knows Mamta Jain. He not visited

branch before filing affidavit of evidence. His affidavit is prepared on basis of official record. Any documents are not

produced along with his affidavit. Management’s witness admitted documents referred to him which are marked

Exhibit w-1 to W-3. The area of the branch is 20x40 feet. Any selection process is not followed by engaging workman.

Permission of authority was not taken. Ist party was paid wages on petty cash on daily wages. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation, termination notice was not issued to him.

7. Exhibit W-1 payment of amount as per available vouchers from 2008 to 2010. The working days of Ist party

comes to 319 days during preceding 12 months of his termination from 29-11-2010. Similar working days are found

in document Exhibit W-4. As per Exhibit W-2, Ist party was paid minimum bonus Rs.100 for the year 1993, 1994,

1997-98 & 1999. Ist party was paid bonus of rs.4448/- on 13-12-93. Exhibit W-3 is copy of cheque. From above

documents, it is clear that Ist party worked more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his termination he was paid

bonus. From above evidence, Ist party is covered under Section 25 B of ID Act. Though he worked more than 240

days, his services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Therefore

termination of his services is illegal for violation of Section 25-F. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1

in Negative.

8. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No. termination of services of Ist party is illegal for violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act. The documents produced on record Exhibit W-1 , W-4 shows Ist party was working in the

Bank during 2008 to 2010. No documents about his working during the earlier period are produced though workman

claims that he was working from the year 1992 for a period of 18 years. Considering period of working, in my

considered view, compensation Rs.75000/- would be appropriate. Considering nature of his engagement on daily

wages, reinstatement is not justified. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

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

(1)

The action of the management is not proper and legal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 75,000/- to the workman.

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

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

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

4090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1841-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e,l,ih

flD;ksjVh izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 32@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@34@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. A.P. Securities Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

24.08.2016.

[No. L-12012/34/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 32/2012

Between :

Sri K. Ramesh Babu,

C/o Sirivella Narasimha Rao,

D.No.29-3-17,

Near Ramamandiram,

Venkateswara Rao Street,

Eluru Road,

Vijayawada – 2. (A.P.)

…Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director,

M/s. A.P. Securities Pvt. Ltd.,

APS House, 10, DDA Commercial Complex,

Nangal Raya, New Delhi – 110046.

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Party in person

For the Respondent : M/s. Koka Satyanarayana Rao and R.K. Mehra Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/34/2012-IR(B-II) dated 10.7.2012

referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. A.P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd., and their workman under

section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4091

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of the M/s. A.P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd., a contractor of Vijaya Bank,

Vijayawada in terminating the services of Sri K. Ramesh Babu, Security Guard w.e.f. 15.5.2011 without

adhearing the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 32/2012 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

The Petitioner workman has filed his claim statement and Respondent also filed their respective counter

statement.

The case stands posted for recording of Petitioner’s evidence.

In spite of availing several opportunities to adduce evidence, the Petitioner workman remained absent and

there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner, which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has

already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner workman has got no claim to raise.

Thus, ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 18^th day of

March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1842-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad

vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 96@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-

08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@65@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1842.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-12012/65/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

4092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. 96/2014

Registered on 2.2.2015

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Pawan Sabharwal,

C/o Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, Gen.Secy, Pb. INTUC,

211-L, Brari, PO Partap Nagar,

Nangal Dam, Distt. Rupnagar.

…Applicant

Versus

1. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, 470 Lajpat Nagar Market,

Jalandhar(Pb.).

…Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. R.K. Parmar

For the Management

Sh. Vinod Verma

AWARD

Passed on:-17.02.2016

Vide Order No.L-12012/65/2014-IR(B-II), dated 2.1.2015 the Central Government in exercise of the powers

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

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

“Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh. Sanjeev

Kumar w.e.f. 4.4.2013 is just and legal? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to from which date?”

In response to the notice, the workman submitted statement of claim, pleading that he was engaged by the

management as Safai Karamchari on daily wages w.e.f. 17.4.2011 and he continuously worked till 3.4.2013. He was

not engaged w.e.f. 4.4.2013. That his services were terminated without giving him any retrenchment compensation or

serving any notice. That termination of his services is illegal.

Respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that workman was working on casual basis for cleaning

the office and was working intermittently for one hour daily. He did not complete 240 days of service in any calendar

year. That workman lastly worked on 27.6.2012 and he was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation or any

notice.

Today the case was fixed for evidence of the workman. His representative made a statement for not pressing

the present reference which has been recorded separately.

Since the workman did not lead any evidence in support of his case and even his authorized representative did

not press the present reference, therefore, the present reference is decided against the workman and it is held that the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1843-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 44@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-08-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@77@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4093

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2016

S.O. 1843.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Allahabad Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.08.2016.

[No. L-12011/77/2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 31^st day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 44/2009

Between:

The General Secretary,

Allahabad Bank Employees’ Union,

Shalimar Apartments,

Yousufguda Road,

Hyderabad – 500038.

…Petitioner

AND

The Dy. General Manager,

Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office,

1^st Floor, Himayatnagar, Main Road,

Hyderabad.

The Asst. Manager and Disciplinary Authority,

Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office,

1^st Floor, Himayatnagar, Main Road,

Hyderabad.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. Kadari Rama Reddy & Y. Ranjit Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent :

Sri K. Lakshminarayana, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12011/77/2009-IR(B-II) dated 11.11.2009

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Allahabad Bank, Guntur Branch by reducing one Stage of

Increment to Shri P.V. Janardhana Rao is justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 44/2009 and

issued notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the Tribunal and engaged their

respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.

The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner Union submits that Sri P.V. Janardhana Rao a member of the Petitioner union, joined the

service of the Respondent bank, at Dharmaram Branch, Warangal District on 29.9.1978 as Peon cum Farrash. He was

promoted as a Clerk cum Cashier from 5.2.1986 and transferred to Secunderabad Branch. The workman was later

transferred to Tadepalli branch in the year 1988. On 4.5.1993 he was transferred to Guntur branch and was working

4094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

there since then. While working at Guntur branch on 8.6.2007, the workman applied for sanction of Leave Fare

Concession and also encashment of 30 days Privilege Leave. In the application for sanction of leave fare concession,

the workman had applied for himself, his wife and two of his brother’s children who had been living with him, and to

whom the workman intended to legally adopt. After filing of such application no communication was received from

the management by the workman regarding sanction of leave fare concession/leave encashment applied for or

otherwise. The Workman waited for two months and on 6.8.2007 again submitted a fresh application for availing leave

fare concession and leave encashment. The workman stated that due to family circumstances, the adoption of his

brother’s children did not materialise for which the workman in his application dated 6.8.2007 applied for the leave

fare concession only for himself and for his wife. There was no response from the side of the management to the later

application as to its sanction or otherwise. The workman further stated that later on, by A show-cause notice dated

21.8.2007, the Respondent bank alleged that the workman has made a false claim of leave fare concession and leave

encashment in respect of the persons who are not his dependents and that the workman has attempted to derive

pecuniary advantage at the cost of the bank and further that the action of the workman was highly objectionable and,

therefore he was liable for gross misconduct. He replied to the show cause, on 30.8.2007, wherein he had stated that, he

had sought for adoption of two of his younger brother’s children. However, due to family circumstances the adoption

could not fructify. Therefore, on 6.8.2007 he submitted a letter withdrawing the names of two children of his brother

and further the leave fare concession applied for was also not sanctioned and he had not committed any misconduct

warranting any disciplinary action. Subsequently, on 24.10.2007 a charge sheet was issued against the workman. On

1.11.2007, the workman submitted his reply denying the allegations levelled against him, but the management was not

satisfied on the explanation submitted by the workman, thereafter the Disciplinary Authority ordered for a

Departmental enquiry and it was held on 15.12.2007 and 11.1.2008. The workman faced the enquiry. Subsequently

the enquiry was commenced and the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority proceeded

to impose the punishment of reduction of one stage of increment in the present scale of Pay with immediate effect.

Thereafter, the workman on 16.8.2008 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the order of the

Enquiry Officer and vide letter dated 26.12.2008 the Appellate Authority granted a personal hearing to the workman on

29.12.2008. The Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.1.2009, i.e., 3 months after expiry

of the mandatory period of 60 days. Therefore, the workman was compelled to move the union and lastly, raised an

industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer(Central), Vijayawada questioning the validity and legality of the

punishment imposed on the workman Sri P.V. Janardhana Rao. As the conciliation ended in failure, the conciliation

officer forwarded it to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi, who was pleased to

refer the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. The workman submitted that principles of natural justice were not

followed while conducting the enquiry and as such, it is prayed to hold the enquiry conducted by the Respondent bank

as illegal and invalid.

It is pertinent to note here that while the case was posted to examine the validity of the domestic enquiry

conducted by the management, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman did not prefer to raise the

point as regards the validity of the enquiry and submitted to pass necessary order on the basis of the materials available

in the record. in view of the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner the domestic enquiry

conducted by the management is held as legal and valid.

Respondents filed their counter with the averments in brief as follows:

The Respondent bank admitting the present Posting of the workman stated that on 8.6.2007 the workman

filed an application for leave fare concession. As per the bank’s rules and regulations, the employee is entitled to claim

leave fare concession for himself and his family members. In the application for leave fare concession, the employee

claimed leave fare concession for himself, his wife, son and daughter. The Bank’s record does not show the employee

was having any children. Thereafter, the bank started an investigation into a possible false claim for making undue

financial benefit out of LFC facility/ encashment. The employee getting smell of the impending action, tried to save

himself by submitting another antedated application quickly on 6.8.2007 withdrawing the names of his son and

daughter as claimed earlier in his application, offering some frivolous, meek and untenable explanation stating that

there was no documentary evidence to show adoption and therefore, he was withdrawing their names etc.. The

Respondent bank issued a show cause notice calling for his explanation for attempting to defraud the bank and derive

undue pecuniary benefit in the guise of LFC. The Respondent bank was not satisfied with the explanation given by

the workman, and served the workman with a charge sheet dated 24.10.2007. A detailed enquiry was conducted, in

which the workman was offered full opportunity to defend himself. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry

Officer submitted his report. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer the misconduct of the workman was

proved and he was imposed with the punishment of reduction of increment on the basic pay by one stage vide

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4095

proceeding dated 30.6.2008 of the Disciplinary Authority. The Respondents have further submitted that banks are

public institutions and public confide their faith in the Banks when they deposit their money in the bank. Therefore, the

banks work as the custodians of Public money. Hence, the employees working in such public institutions are

supposed to work with highest integrity and honesty. There is no scope for any leniency when such trust of the public

is sought to be betrayed. The Respondents also submitted that handling public money is a very sensitive matter. The

employee is seeking to gain undue pecuniary benefit of claiming LFC for persons who are not his family members,

and thereafter trying to explain it away by weaving stories of adoption etc., certainly not acceptable to the bank. If the

workman was not dishonest, he would have divulged the full information at the time of making his LFC application

itself but not after he was caught. He could not have claimed those persons as his daughter and son even before the

adoption rituals were completed. Inspite of all this, the bank has given only lenient punishment though such acts

attract deterrent punishment. The Respondent also submitted that the bank has given full opportunity while imposing

the punishment to the workman. Only after his guilty was proved in the enquiry, the bank imposed the above said

penalty. Lastly, the Respondents submitted that the bank has imposed a lenient penalty only and before imposing the

penalty the bank has given full opportunity to the employee to present his case and only after his guilty was proved in

the enquiry, the Respondent bank has imposed such light punishment for it and as such no wrong has been committed

by the Respondents and the claim statement filed by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed and as such, the reference

be rejected.

I have already heard the Learned Counsels for both sides in this matter.

Now, it is to be considered,

Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank, Guntur Branch by reducing one stage of increment

to Shri P.V. Janardhana Rao is justified?

II.

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

7. Point No.I:

It is the admitted case of the Petitioner that the workman while working as a clerk cum cashier at

Guntur branch of the management bank on 8.6.2007, applied for sanction of leave fare concession and for encashment

of 30 days privileged leave. In the application for sanction of leave fare concession, the workman applied for himself,

his wife and two of his brother’s children who had been living with him. But, when no communication was received

from the side of management about sanction of leave fare concession and encashment of 30 days privileged leave,

after two months the workman again submitted a fresh application for availing leave fare concession and for

encashment of 30 days privileged leave, stating that due to family circumstances the adoption of his brother’s children

did not materialize for which he applied for leave fare concession and for encashment of 30 days privileged leave for

himself and for his wife. It is further admitted that prior to filling of this application the workman has never intimated

the bank that he is having two children.

The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman submitted that while the workman was working at

Guntur branch as Clerk cum Cashier on 8.6.2007, he has applied for sanction of leave fare concession and for

encashment of 30 days privileged leave. In that application he had applied leave for himself, for his wife and two of his

brother’s children who had been living with him and to whom he had intended to legally adopt. After filing of such

application when no communication was received by the workman from the side of the Respondent management

regarding sanction of leave fare concession and encashment of 30 days privileged leave, he waited for two months, and

on 6.8.2007 again he submitted a fresh application for availing leave fare concession and for encashment of 30 days

privileged leave, for himself and for his wife only stating therein that due to family circumstances the adoption of his

brother’s children did not materialize, for which he is unable to produce any document. But, inspite of that, there was

no response from the side of the management regarding sanction of leave fare concession and encashment of 30 days

privileged leave for himself and his wife. But subsequently without giving any information to the workman a show

cause notice was served on him on dated 21.8.2007 calling him for explanation, alleging that the workman had made a

false claim of leave fare concession and encashment of 30 days privileged leave in respect of the persons who were not

his dependents and the workman had attempted to derive pecuniary advantage/benefit at the cost of the bank, and

further the action of the workman was highly objectionable, therefore he was liable for gross misconduct. On

30.8.2007 the workman replied to the show cause notice wherein he had stated that he had sought adoption of two of

his younger brother’s children, but due to family circumstances the adoption could not fructify and for this he

submitted a fresh application withdrawing the names of the two children of his brother and he had not committed any

misconduct warranting any disciplinary action. But, without considering the reply of the workman, the Respondent

management issued charge sheet dated 24.10.2007 to which the workman submitted his reply denying the allegations

4096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

levelled against him. The management/Respondent was not satisfied on the explanation submitted by the workman and

conducted an enquiry, wherein the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charges and suggested for

punishment. Lastly the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose punishment of reduction of one stage of increment

in the present scale of pay with immediate effect. On 16.8.2008 the workman filed an appeal before the Appellate

Authority challenging the order of the Enquiry Officer. But the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the

workman. He further submitted that the punishment imposed on the workman is a grave one. The workman has not

availed the benefit of leave fare concession and encashment of 30 days privileged leave, but has only mentioned the

names of the two children of his brother, and subsequently withdrew his application without causing any financial loss

to the management therefore, the workman was not liable for any misconduct. In such circumstances the management

should have closed the chapter when the workman withdrew his previous application. But the management without

considering the real position has dragged the Petitioner to such a litigation who is suffering in mental agony for a long

period.

On the other hand the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the management submitted that the workman

is an employee of a bank which is a public institution and public have got their confidence and faith in the bank,

where they used to deposit their money. The banks are the custodian of public money and un less, the public have

reposed their confidence on the bank they will not deposit their money at the bank. The employees working in such a

public institution are supposed to be clean and to work with highest integrity and honesty. He further submitted that in

fact the workman had filed an application for leave fare concession and encashment of 30 days privileged leave for

himself and for his family members and in that application he had claimed leave fare concession for himself, his wife,

son and daughter, but the Bank record does not show that the workman was having any children. Thereafter the

management started an investigation into the false claim for making undue financial benefits out of LFC facility and

encashment of Privileged Leave. The workman getting smell of such an enquiry and impending action, tried to save

himself by submitting another application withdrawing the names of his son and daughter as claimed by him earlier in

his first application by offering such a frivolous, meak, untenable explanation stating therein that there was no

documentary evidence to show the adoption and for this he was withdrawing the names of his children. The

Respondent bank was not satisfied with the information supplied by the workman and issued notice to show cause,

but when the Respondent bank was not satisfied with the explanation of the workman to the show cause notice, charge

sheet was issued to him, and lastly an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry found

the workman guilty of the charges, and after perusing the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority

imposed the punishment of reduction of one increment in the present scale of pay of the workman with immediate

effect. The punishment imposed on the workman is just and proper. The workman was found guilty and is liable for

punishment for his gross misconduct.

10.

On consideration of the submissions made by the Learned Counsels for both the sides and on perusal of the

materials available on record it is made clear that as the workman has submitted an application for leave fare

concession and encashment of 30 days Privileged Leave for himself, for his wife and two children and the bank record

did not disclose that the workman was having any children, for this, the Respondents suspected the workman.

Subsequently the workman had withdrawn that application, wherein the workman had mentioned that those two

children are of his younger brother’s and he intended to adopt them, but he was unable to produce any documentary

evidence to it and also subsequently he preferred to withdraw the application which clearly indicates that the workman

had no malafide intention to gain undue pecuniary benefit of claming leave fare concession for the persons who are

not his family members. When the workman has not availed the benefit of leave fare concession and has disclosed the

fact clearly stating that both the children are his younger brother’s children, to whom he had intended to adopt; it can

not be stated that the workman is liable for gross misconduct. Moreover, the workman has not committed any

misconduct of similar nature prior to it in the past. In such circumstances, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority by reducing one stage of increment is not at all reasonable putting such a financial loss to the workman.

Even if the workman has made a false information causing no harm to the management and his previous antecedent

was not such, the Disciplinary Authority should have imposed a lesser punishment like “warning” instead of imposing

punishment of stoppage of one stage of increment.

11.

In view of the discussion made above it can safely be held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the

workman is guilty of misconduct is not acceptable and further it is to be held that the punishment imposed by stoppage

of one increment is grossly disproportional to the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the Respondent/

management in reducing one Stage of increment is held neither legal nor justified.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4097

12.

Point No. II:

As per the findings given in Point No .I, the punishment of reducing one stage of increment

is not acceptable. The fact that even if the workman has given a false information in his earlier application subsequently

he had rectified it and has not availed any financial benefit out of it causing loss to the management. The workman

being an employee of the bank which is a public institution, if commits any mistake like giving false information, he

should be imposed a lesser punishment. No doubt for the mistake the workman is liable to be awarded with proper

punishment, but not causing any financial loss to him. as already discussed above while deciding Point No.I, as

awarding punishment of stoppage of one increment for the mistake committed by the workman is not reasonable.

Therefore, only punishment like warning is to be awarded to the workman for his guilt, i.e., for furnishing false

information about his family members.

Result:

In view of the fore gone discussion, the order dated 30.6.2008 imposing punishment of reducing one stage of

increment with immediate effect, is hereby set aside. Instead of awarding reduction of one stage of increment, the

workman is liable for a lesser punishment like warning and the workman is entitled to get back all the monetary loss

sustained by him due to the punishment imposed on him by stopping one stage of increment. The reference is

answered as follows:-

The action of the management of Allahabad Bank, Guntur Branch by reducing one Stage of Increment to

Shri P.V. Janardhana Rao is neither legal nor justified and is hereby set aside, and the Petitioner is entitled to a lesser

punishment of ‘Warning’ only. The Petitioner is also entitled to get all the benefits for the loss sustained by him due

to reduction of one stage of increment.

Ordered accordingly.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 31^st

day of March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

4098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1844-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 256@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30025@3@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2016

S.O. 1844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 256/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 29.08.2016.

[No. L-30025/3/2016-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 256/2013

Registered on 15.06.2013

Sh. Vinod Kumar, S/o Sh. Narayan Singh,

Village Railway Colony, Bohli, Teh. & Distt. Panipat

…Petitioner

Versus

1. The Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Baholi Refinery, Panipat.

2. The Manager, Rites India Ltd., L-187, Ram Lal Chowk,

Panipat, Near Singla Hospital.

3. The Manager, Peeway Care, 28-New Beri Road,

Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

4. M/s. K. Lal & Sons, Suppliers, Contractor & Engineer,

Office 10-Bhatia Colony, Asandh Road, Panipat

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Karan Singh, AR of the workman

For the Management

Sh. Paul S. Saini, Adv. for Resp. No.1

Sh. P.K. Longia, Adv. for Resp. No. 2 to 4

AWARD

Passed on : 12.07.2016

Sh. Karan Singh, Secretary of the Worker Union, raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Karnal. No settlement took place and on the expiry of 45 days, the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Karnal, issued a certificate dated 25.04.2013 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

called the Act)for agitating the matter before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for

adjudication.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4099

Thereafter, the workman filed statement of claim in this Court, pleading that he was appointed on 08.04.2002

and was withdrawing a salary of Rs.5,940/- per month. He continuously worked till 30.10.2012. That he was retrenched

on 01.11.2012 without service of any notice and payment of any retrenchment compensation. Thus, his termination is

illegal and he be reinstated in service.

Respondent No.1 in his written statement pleaded, that there is no relationship of employer and employee

between the parties. That respondent No.1 is a public sector undertaking and has its rules and regulations for giving

appointment that the main jobs are managed by the regular employees of the Corporation whereas incidental jobs like

gardening, house-keeping, grass cutting, binding of challan etc. are being carried through the contractors, who are paid

for a particular job, by engaging its own labour. That corporation has nothing to do with the labourers engaged by the

contractor. It is admitted that the workman was engaged by respondent No.2 and 3 who are the contractors. Since there

was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and respondent No.1, the termination of the

workman by the Corporation do not arise.

Respondent No.3 filed his separate reply pleading that annual maintenance contract of railway siding, Panipat

refinery, was given to respondent No.2 from 1999 onwards and it engaged respondent No.3 as sub-contractor and the

contract was renewed from year to year. The contract was to expire on 31.03.2012 which was extended till 31.10.2012.

In view of the termination of the contract from 31.03.2012, a notice dated 26.09.2012 was issued to the

workman informing the termination of his engagement from 31.10.2012. That it was ready to pay the benefits under

Section 25F of the Act but the workman wanted employment under the new contract. That termination of his services is

not illegal.

On the same lines, respondent No.2, who was the main contractor of respondent No.1, filed the written reply.

Respondent No.4 filed separate written reply stating that it was awarded contract for the maintenance of railway

contract and it pasted a notice on the notice board of the Refinery, asking the previous workmen to join and only 7

workmen reported for duty.

Parties were given opportunity to lead the evidence.

In support of his case, Sh. Vinod Kumar, workman, appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit

supporting his case as set out in the statement of claim.

On the other hand, respondent No.1 has examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar, who filed his affidavit along with the

documents, reiterating the stand taken by respondent No.1.

Sh. G.K. Sharma was examined on behalf of respondent No.3 and thereafter, counsel for respondent No.2 to 4

closed the evidence.

I have heard Sh. Karan Singh for the workman, Sh. Paul S. Saini for Respondent No.1 and Sh. P.K. Longia for

respondent No.2 to 4 and perused the file carefully.

It is not disputed that respondent No.1 had given contract for the annual maintenance of railway siding, Panipat

Refinery from 1999 onwards to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 engaged the service of respondent No.3 as sub-

contractor. It is not denied that workman was engaged for the period in question by respondent No.3, though, the terms

of his engagement are not placed on file probably for the reason that no such terms were reduced into writing. There is

nothing on the file that workman was ever engaged by respondent No.1.

It is also admitted case that the annual maintenance contract of respondent No.2 was not extended after

31.10.2012 and the same was given to respondent No.4. Again it has come in the evidence of Sh. G.K. Sharma that a

notice was given to each and every workmen on 26.09.2012(Exb.M5) informing them that the engagement would come

to an end from 31.10.2012, as the contract for maintenance of railway track would come to an end.

It was argued by Sh. P.K. Longia that since the contract between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 came to

an end on 31.10.2012 and as such, there was no work with respondent No.3 who consequently terminated the service of

all the workers after giving them notice dated 26.09.2012 and the termination of their services is legal and well.

As stated above, the workman continuously worked with respondent No.3 from 8.4.2002 to 30.10.2012. It is

neither pleaded nor proved that there was any contract between respondent No.3 and the workman that the services of

the workman would come to an end automatically on the termination of the contract between respondent No.2, 3 and

respondent No.1.

4100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘Retrenchment’ is defined under Section 2(00) which read as follow:-

[(00) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

[bb] termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under

a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]”

The termination of the workman do not fall in clause (a), b, (bb) and (c) of the said Section of the Act and

therefore, the termination of the services of the workman tantamount to ‘retrenchment’.

Section 25F provide the conditions for ‘retrenchment’ of the workman and it read as follow:-

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-No workman employed in any industry who has

been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that

employer untill-

(a) The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period

of the notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days’ average pay [for every completed year of continuous service]or any part thereof in excess of

six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Thus, the workman was to be given one month notice in writing prior to the ‘retrenchment’, and he is to be paid,

at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year or any part

thereof in excess of six months. Respondent No.3 has given a notice to the workman dated 26.09.2012(Exb.M5). It is

neither pleaded nor proved that he was paid any retrenchment compensation. Rather it is pleaded by respondent No.3

that it was ready to pay the benefits as applicable under Section 25 of the Act, but the workman wanted employment

under the new contract. Thus respondent No.3 admits that no retrenchment compensation was paid on 31.10.2012 when

the services of the workman were retrenched and on this ground, the termination of his services is illegal.

Since the contract for the maintenance of railway track between respondent No.1 on the one hand and

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand came to an end, the workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated in service

and more particularly under respondent No.4 with whom he never worked. He is to be paid only retrenchment

compensation. He has stated in his cross-examination that he has received Rs.49,000/- later on. It is not clear whether

the said amount was paid on account of his other dues and it also includes retrenchment compensation. Therefore,

retrenchment compensation is payable to the workman who worked for more than 10 years and therefore, he is entitled

to compensation of 15 days pay for 10 years without going into minute calculations and considering the circumstances,

that workman has been agitating the matter since his termination, lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- is held to be

payable to him as compensation which he is entitled to recover from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severely as

respondent No.1 was the principle employer and the respondent No. 2 was the main contractor and the workman was

actually engaged by respondent No.3.

In result, the matter is decided in favour of the workman, holding that he is entitled to recover Rs.50,000/- from

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severely. If respondent No.1 pay the amount, it shall be at liberty to recover the

amount from respondent Nos. 2 to 3.

The respondents are further directed to pay the amount within 3 months of the publication of the award failing

which the workman shall be entitled to recover the interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of

award till realization.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 3] 2016@Hkkæ 12] 1938

4101

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1845-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 257@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30025@3@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2016

S.O. 1845.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 257/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 29.08.2016.

[No. L-30025/3/2016-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 257/2013

Registered on 15.06.2013

Sh. Sunill Kumar, S/o Sh. Om Parkash,

Village Begumpur, Teh. Gharounda, Distt. Karnal

…Petitioner

Versus

1. The Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Baholi Refinery, Panipat.

2. The Manager, Rites India Ltd., L-187, Ram Lal Chowk,

Panipat, Near Singla Hospital.

3. The Manager, Peeway Care, 28-New Beri Road,

Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

4. M/s. K. Lal & Sons, Suppliers, Contractor & Engineer,

Office 10-Bhatia Colony, Asandh Road, Panipat

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Karan Singh, AR of the workman

For the Management

Sh. Paul S. Saini, Adv. for Resp. No.1

Sh. P.K. Longia, Adv. for Resp. No. 2 to 4

AWARD

Passed on : 12.07.2016

Sh. Karan Singh, Secretary of the Worker Union, raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Karnal. No settlement took place and on the expiry of 45 days, the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Karnal, issued a certificate dated 25.04.2013 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

4102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 3, 2016/BHADRA 12, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

called the Act)for agitating the matter before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for

adjudication.

Thereafter, the workman filed statement of claim in this Court, pleading that he was appointed on 15.07.1999

and was withdrawing a salary of Rs.5,158/- per month. He continuously worked till 30.10.2012. That he was retrenched

on 01.11.2012 without service of any notice and payment of any retrenchment compensation. Thus, his termination is

illegal and he be reinstated in service.

Respondent No.1 in his written statement pleaded, that there is no relationship of employer and employee

between the parties. That respondent No.1 is a public sector undertaking and has its rules and regulations for giving

appointment that the main jobs are managed by the regular employees of the Corporation whereas incidental jobs like

gardening, house-keeping, grass cutting, binding of challan etc. are being carried through the contractors, who are paid

for a particular job, by engaging its own labour. That corporation has nothing to do with the labourers engaged by the

contractor. It is admitted that the workman was engaged by respondent No.2 and 3 who are the contractors. Since there

was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and respondent No.1, the termination of the

workman by the Corporation do not arise.

Respondent No.3 filed his separate reply pleading that annual maintenance contract of railway siding, Panipat

refinery, was given to respondent No.2 from 1999 onwards and it engaged respondent No.3 as sub-contractor and the

contract was renewed from year to year. The contract was to expire on 31.03.2012 which was extended till 31.10.2012.

In view of the termination of the contract from 31.03.2012, a notice dated 26.09.2012 was issued to the

workman informing the termination of his engagement from 31.10.2012. That it was ready to pay the benefits under

Section 25F of the Act but the workman wanted employment under the new contract. That termination of his services is

not illegal.

On the same lines, respondent No.2, who was the main contractor of respondent No.1, filed the written reply.

Respondent No.4 filed separate written reply stating that it was awarded contract for the maintenance of railway

contract and it pasted a notice on the notice board of the Refinery, asking the previous workmen to join and only 7

workmen reported for duty.

Parties were given opportunity to lead the evidence.

In support of his case, Sh. Sunill Kumar, workman, appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit