4185 GI/2016

(4169)

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- 37]

ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 4—flrEcj 10] 2016] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 13—Hkkæ 19] 1938

No. 37]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 4—SEPTEMBER 10, 2016, SATURDAY/BHADRA 13— BHADRA 19, 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)

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1870-—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, xqtjkr jkT; ljdkj fo/k;h foHkkx] lfpoky;] xka/huxj

dh fnukad 22 ebZ] 2015 dh vf/lwpuk la- thds@14@2015@,iQlhvkj@102014@05@bZ }kjk nh xbZ lgefr ls ,rn~}kjk fons'kh vfHknk;

(fofu;eu) vf/fu;e] 2010 (2010 dk vf/fu;e la- 42) ds v/hu naMuh; lhchvkbZ] ,lhch] xka/huxj }kjk ntZ fd, dsaæh;

vUos"k.k C;wjks ds ekeys la- 0292012 ,l 0002 ds vUos"k.k ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj

{ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj leLr xqtjkr jkT; ij djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 228@71@2014&,ohMh&II]

,y- ih- 'kekZ] voj lfpo

4170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1870.—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

Gujarat,

Legal

Department,

Sachivalaya,

Gandhinagar

vide

Notification

No.

GK/14/2015/FCR/102014/05/E dated 22^nd May, 2015, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Gujarat for investigation of Central Bureau

Investigation Case No. 0292012S0002 registered by CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar, punishable under the Foreign

Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (Act No. 42 of 2010).

[F. No. 228/71/2014-AVD-II]

L. P. SHARMA, Under Secy.

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk-1871-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] os Lohd`r dj

fn, x, gSa %

vuqlwph

Øe

la[;k

Ykkblsal

la[;k

Lohd`r djus

dh frfFk

Ykkblsal/kkjh dk uke o

Ikrk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

“kh"kZd

Hkk ek

la[;k

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

एल-

9512350417

15.02.2016

मै0 बॉ बे वैलस,

मेन सदर बाज़ार,

िजला गुड़गव,

हरयाणा

वण एवं वण

िमधातु

आभूषण/िश प व तु" –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

एल-

9512350619

22.02.2016

मै0 बालाजी िसम#ट

टाइ स,

समचाना रोड,

गव व डाकघर हसनगढ़,

सांपला,

िजला रोहतक -

124404,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव ढिलत कं)*ट

+ लॉक

15658

2006

एल-

9512350518

24.02.2016

मै0 बी इ सी क- डयूटस

/ा0 िल0,

खसरा नं0 14/2,

बेगमपुर

खटोला,

िजला गुड़गव -

122001,

हरयाणा

िवधुत सं थापन के

िलए निलका 2फ4टग

भाग 2 धातु क- डयूटस

2फ4टग

14768

2003

एल-

9512351015

24.02.2016

मै0 राठी प पस /ा0

िल0,

खसरा नं0 25/7/1 बै को

टेशनरी भंडारण टाईप

िवधुतीय वाटर हीटर

2082

1993

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4171

फामा रोड,

एमआईई, भाग ए,

बहादुरगढ़,

िजला झ जर –

124507,

हरयाणा

एल-

9512351217

24.02.2016

मै0 एिशयन कलर कोटड

इ पात िल0,

8 लॉट नं0 7-12. 9ोथ

सै- टर,

सै: टर – 6,

बावल,

िजला रवाड़ी –

123005,

हरयाणा

सतत पूव-रोगािनत

ज तीकृत

इ पात क* चn~दर# एवं

कुंडिलयाँ

14246

2013

एल-

9512350720

25.02.2016

मै0 गहलावत

क- स=: शनस,

गव व डाकघर

समरगोपालपुर,

टटोली चौक से

समरगोपालपुर

रोड,

िजला रोहतक -

124008,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव ढिलत कं)*ट

+ लॉक

15658

2006

एल-

9512351116

25.02.2016

मै0 2द? या वैलस,

झ जर सीम#ट व: स,

गव झारली, तहसील

माटनहेल,

िजला झ जर – 124106

हरयाणा

वण एवं वण

िमधातु

आभूषण/िश प व तु"

–

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

एल-

9512350821

26.02.2016

मै0 रको- स पावर

इ: यूपम#V~स

/ा0 िल0,

8 लॉट नं0 38, सै: टर –

25,

फरीदाबाद – 121004,

हरयाणा

बाहय रंग तेल इ मेसड

िवतरण =ांसफामर

भाग 1 िमनरल तेल

िनिमि@त

1180

2014

एल-

9512350922

29.02.2016

मै0 ओिशयन है थ

गीBवग वाटर ,

नहर पार, गॉव भुदाना,

सै: टर – 86, ितगव

रोड,

पैकेजब- द पेय जल

(पैकेजब- द /ाकृितक

िमनरल जल के

अलावा)

14543

2004

4172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िजला फरीदाबाद –

121004,

हरयाणा

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%11]

t; iky flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O.1871.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of

which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licences No.

CM/L-

Grant Date

Name & Address of the Licensee

Title of the Standard

No.

Part

Sec

Year

L-9512350417

15.02.2016

M/s Bombay Jewellers

Main Sadar Bazar,

Distt. Gurgaon,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L-9512350619

22.02.2016

M/s Balaji Cement Tiles,

Samchana Road,

VPO Hassangarh,

Sampla,

Distt. Rohtak - 124404,

Haryana

Precast

Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

L-9512350518

24.02.2016

M/s B E C Conduits Pvt. Ltd.,

Khasra No.14/2, Begampur,

Khatola,

Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,

Haryana

Conduits Fittings for

Electrical Installations

Part 2: Metal Conduit

Fittings

14768

2003

L-9512351015

24.02.2016

M/s Rathi Pumps Pvt. Ltd.,

Khasra No.25/7/1

Belco Pharma Road,

M.I.E., Part A,

Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar – 124507,

Haryana

Stationary

Storage

Type Electric Water

Heaters

2082

1993

L-9512351217

24.02.2016

M/s Asian Colour Coated

Ispat Limited,

Plot No.7-12, Growth Centre,

Sector – 6,

Bawal,

Distt. Rewari – 123005,

Haryana

Continuously

Pre-

Painted

Galvanized

Steel Sheets and Coils

14246

2013

L-9512350720

25.02.2016

M/s Gahlawat Constructions,

VPO Samargopalpur,

Titoli Chowk Se Samargopalpur

Road,

Distt. Rohtak - 124008

Haryana

Precast

Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4173

L-9512351116

25.02.2016

M/s Divya Jewellers,

LGF, Khandsa Road,

Opp Rama Hospital,

Distt. Gurgaon,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L-9512350821

26.02.2016

M/s Recons Power Equipments

Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.38, Sector – 25,

Faridabad – 121004

Haryana

Outdoor

Type

Oil

Immersed Distribution

Transformers

1180

2014

L-9512350922

29.02.2016

M/s Ocean Health Giving Water,

Nehar Par, Village Bhudana,

Sector-86, Tigaon Road,

Distt. Faridabad-121004,

Haryana

Packaged

Drinking

Water

(Other

than

Packaged

Natural

mineral Water)

14543

2004

[No. CMD/13:11]

JAI PAL SINGH, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1872-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼5½ ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n’kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jn~n@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS %&

vuqlwph

dze

la[;k

Ykkblsal la[;k

lh,e/,y-

Ykkblsal/kkjh dk uke o Ikrk

Ykkblsal ds varxZr oLrq /izde

lEc Hkkjrh; ekud dk

’kh"kZd

jnn djus dh

frfFk

,y&2675772

मैसस LokfLrd ikbIl fy-

41 fd-eh- fnYyh jksgrd jksM]

ohihvks vlkSnk]

ftyk >Ttj]

gfj;k.kk

3975 : 1999

03-02-2016

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%13]

t; iky flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1872.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of

which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licences

No.

CM/L-

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Indian Standards covered by

the licence

cancelled/suspension

Date of

Cancellation

L-2675772

M/s Swastik Pipes Ltd.

41 Km., Delhi Rohtak Road,

VPO Asaudah,

Distt. : Jhajjar,

Haryana

IS 3975 : 1999

03.02.2016

[No. CMD/13:13]

JAI PAL SINGH, Section Officer

4174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 30 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk-1873-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds

mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] ;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=kky; ds Lok;Ùk'kklh dk;kZy; jkVªh; Mksi ijh{k.k iz;ksx'kkyk] ftlds 80%

ls vf/d deZpkjho` an us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹fe- la- bZ&11011@2@2008&fg-,-º

,l-,y- ehuk] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2016

S.O.1873.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies National Dope Testing Laboratory, New Delhi, an

Autonomous office of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, whereof more than 80% staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]

S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

कोयला मं ालय

नई दली, 8 िसत बर, 2016

dk-vk- 1874-—कोयला धारक े, (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम इसके

प चात् उ$ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क% धारा 9 क% उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी और भारत सरकार के कोयला मंालय

क% अिधसूचना सं)यांक का.आ.2274(अ.), तारीख 28 जून, 2016 जो भारत के राजप, असाधारण, भाग II, ख+ड 3 उप-

ख+ड (ii), तारीख 01 जुलाई, 2016 म -कािशत क% गई थी, उ$ अिधसूचना से संल1 अनुसूची म व3णत भूिम (िजसे इसम

इसके प चात उ$ भूिम कहा गया है) म और भूिम म या उस पर के सभी अिधकार7, उ$ अिधिनयम क% धारा 10 क% उप-

धारा (1) के अधीन, सभी िव लंगम7 से मु$ होकर, आ9यंितक :प से के;<ीय सरकार म िनिहत हो गए है;

और के;<ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है , क स>ल कोलफ%@स िलिमटेड, रांची (िजसे इसम इसके

प चात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधन7 और शतC का िज; ह के;<ीय सरकार इस िनिमD अिधरोिपत करना

उिचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलए रजामंद है ;

अतः अब, के;<ीय सरकार उ$ अिधिनयम क% धारा 11 क% उप-धारा (1) Eारा -द9 त शिF तय7 का -योग करते

Gए, यह िनदेश देती है, क इस -कार िनिहत उ$ भूिम म के पूवHF त सभी अिधकार के;<ीय सरकार म इस -कार िनिहत

बने रहने के बजाए, तारीख 01 जुलाई, 2016 से िनIिलिखत िनब;धन7 और शतC के अधीन रहते Gए सरकारी कंपनी म

िनिहत हो जाएंगे, अथात् :-

(1) सरकारी कंपनी, उ$ अिधिनयम के उपबध7 के अधीन यथा अवधाJरत -ितकर, Kयाज, नुकसािनय7 और वैसी ही

मद7 क% बाबत् कए गए सभी संदाय7 क% के;<ीय सरकार को -ितपू3त करेगी;

(2) सरकारी कंपनी Eारा शत (1) के अधीन, उ$ सरकारी कंपनी Eारा के;<ीय सरकारी कंपनी Eारा के;<ीय

सरकार को संदेय रकम7 का अवधारण करने के -योजन7 के िलए धारा 14 के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन

कया जाएगा तथा ऐसे कसी अिधकरण और उF त अिधकरण क% सहायता करने के िलए िनयु$ L यिF तय7 के

संबंध म उपगत सभी Mय, उ$ सरकारी कंपनी Eारा वहन कए जाएंगे और इसी -कार िनिहत उ$ भूिम म या

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4175

उस पर के अिधकार7 के िलए या उनके संबंध म अपील आद िविधक कायवािहय7 क% बाबत् उपगत, सभी

Mय, सरकारी कंपनी Eारा वहन कए जाएंगे;

(3) सरकारी कंपनी, के;<ीय सरकार या उसके पदधाJरय7 क% ऐसे कसी अ;य Mय के संबंध म ितपू3त करेगी जो

इस -कार िनिहत उ$ भूिम म या उस पर के पूवHF त अिधकार7 के बारे म, के;<ीय सरकार या उसके

पदधाJरय7 Eारा या उनके िवNO क;हP कायवािहय7 के संबंध म आव यक हो ;

(4) सरकारी कंपनी को के; <ीय सरकार के पूव अनुमोदन के िबना उF त भूिम और भूिम म या उसके ऊपर इस -कार

िनिहत अिधकार7 को कसी अ; य L यिF त को अंतJरत करने क% शिF त नहP होगी ; और

(5) सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश7 और शतC का पालन करेगी, जो के; <ीय सरकार Eारा, जब कभी आव यक हो,

उF त भूिम के िविशR ट े7 के िलए दए जाएं या अिधरोिपत कए जाएं ।

[ फा.सं. 43015/9/2015 –पीआरआईडK यू-I ]

सुजीत कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 8th September, 2016

S.O. 1874.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, number S.O. 2274 (E), dated the 28th June, 2016, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,

Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 1st July, 2016, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing

Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all

rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said

land) are vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10

of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi (hereinafter

referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central

Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby directs that the all rights in or over the said land so vested, shall, with effect from 1^st July,

2016, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the

following terms and conditions, namely:-

(1)

The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of

compensation, interest, damages, and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

(2)

A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts

payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under conditions (1) and all expenditure

incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to Assist the Tribunal shall be borne by

the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like

appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in the said land, so vested, shall also be borne by the

Government Company;

(3)

The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government its officials against any other expenditure

that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its

officials regarding the aforesaid rights in the said land so vested;

(4)

The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested, to

any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government; and

(5)

The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the

Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/9/2015-PRIW-I]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

4176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 8 िसत बर, 2016

dk-vk- 1875-—के;<ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक े (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957(1957 का 20) क%

धारा 4 क% उप-धारा (1) Eारा -दD शि$य7 का -योग करते Gए भारत सरकार के कोयला मंालय क% अिधसूचना

सं)याक का.आ. 591(अ), तारीख 22 फरवरी, 2016, जो भारत के राजप, असाधारण, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii),

तारीख 25 फरवरी, 2016 म -कािशत क% गई थी, म िनIिलिखत संशोधन करती है, अथात् :-

उ$ अिधसूचना म,अनुसूची के Tथान पर िनIिलिखत अनुसूची रखी जाएगी, अथात् :-

“अनुसूची

मगध िवTतार पJरयोजना

िजला- लातेहार, झारख+ड

( रेखांक सं)यांक आरईवी/10/2016, तारीख 26 जुलाई, 2016)

सभी अिधकार:

म सं.

ाम

थाना

सं या

िजला

े

(एकड़ म )

े

(हेटेयर म )

ट पिणयां

चटर

बालूमाथ

लातेहार

37.06

15.00

भाग

सेरेगढ़ा

बालूमाथ

लातेहार

79.07

32.00

भाग

बुक

बालूमाथ

लातेहार

7.41

3.00

भाग

चरा

बालूमाथ

लातेहार

3.81

1.54

भाग

कुल:

127.35

51.54

कुल े : 127.35 एकड़(लगभग) या 51.54 हेटेयर(लगभग)

मगध िव#तार परयोजना का सीमा-वणन:

क-ख-ग-घ

रेखा, िब* दु ‘क’ से आरंभ होती है और ाम बुक, सेरेगढ़ा, चटर से होते 0ए िब* दु ‘घ’ पर िमलती है।

घ-ड.-च-क

रेखा, ाम चटर, चरा, सेरेगढ़ा, बुक से गुजरते 0ए जाती है और आरंिभक िब* दु ‘क’ पर िमलती है । ”

[फा.सं. 43015/2/2016-पीआरआईडK यू-I]

सुजीत कुमार, अवर सिचव

ट प

ट पण.- ewy vf/klwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 591¼v½] rkjh[k 22 Qjojh] 2016 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] vlk/kkj.k] Hkkx II, [kaM 3]

mi&[kaM (ii), rkjh[k 25 Qjojh] 2016 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh A

New Delhi, the 8th September, 2016

S.O. 1875.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957(20 of 1957), the Central Government hereby makes the following

amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number S.O 591(E), dated the 22^nd

February, 2016 published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 25^th February, 2016,

namely:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4177

2. In the said notification, for the Schedule, the following Schedule shall be substituted, namely:-

“Schedule

Magadh Expansion Project

District-Latehar, Jharkhand

( Plan bearing number REV/10 /2016, dated the 26^th July, 2016)

All Rights:

Sl.

No.

Village

Thana

number

District

Area( in acres)

Area in

(hectares)

Remarks

Chetar

Balumath

Latehar

37.06

15.00

Part

Seregara

Balumath

Latehar

79.07

32.00

Part

Bukru

Balumath

Latehar

7.41

3.00

Part

Charra

Balumath

Latehar

3.81

1.54

Part

Total:

127.35

51.54

Total area : 127.35 acres(approximately) or 51.54 hectares (approximately)

Boundary Description of Magadh Expansion Project:

A-B-C-D

Line Starts from point ‘A’ and passes through village Bukru, Seregara, Chetar and meets at

point ‘D’.

D-E-F-A

Line passes through village chetar,Charra, Seregara, Bukru and meets at starting point ‘A’.

”

[F. No. 43015/2/2016-PRIW-I]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

Note.- The principal notification S.O. 591(E), dated the 22nd February, 2016 published in the Gazette of India,

Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 25th February, 2016.

आदेश

नई दली, 8 िसत बर, 2016

dk-vk-1876-—कोयला धारक े (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम इसके

प चात् उF त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क% धारा 9 क% उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजप, असाधारण, भाग II,

खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 21 माच, 2016 म -कािशत भारत सरकार के कोयला मंालय क% अिधसूचना का. आ.

सं) यांक 1170(अ), तारीख 18 माच, 2016 के -काशन पर उF त अिधसूचना से संलV न अनुसूची म वWणत भूिम और ऐसी

भूिम, (िजसे इसम इसके प चात् उF त भूिम कहा गया है), म के सभी अिधकार, उF त अिधिनयम क% धारा 10 क% उपधारा

(1) के अधीन, सभी िव लंगम7 से मुF त होकर, आ9 यंितक :प म के; <ीय सरकार म िनिहत हो गए थे ;

और, के; <ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, क वेT टन कोलफ% @स िलिमटेड, नागपुर (िजसे इसम इसके

प चात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधन7 और शतC का, जो के; <ीय सरकार इस िनिम9 त अिधरोिपत करना

उिचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलए रजामंद है ।

अत: अब, के; <ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक े (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 क% धारा 11 क% उपधारा

(1) Eारा -द9 त शिF तय7 का -योग करते Gए, यह िनदेश देती है क इस -कार उF त भूिम म या उस पर के खनन अिधकार

तारीख 21 माच, 2016 से िन निलिखत िनबंधन7 और शतC के अधीन रहते Gए, सरकारी कंपनी म िनिहत हो जाएंगे,

अथात् :-

4178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सरकारी कंपनी, उF त अिधिनयम के उपबंध7 के अधीन यथा अवधाJरत -ितकर, K याज, नुकसािनय7 और वैसी ही

मद7 क% बाबत् कए गए संदाय7 क% के; <ीय सरकार को -ितपू3त करेगी;

शत (1) के अधीन सरकारी क पनी Eारा के; <ीय सरकार को संदेय रकम7 का अवधारण करने के -योजन7 के िलए

उF त अिधिनयम क% धारा 14 के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन कया जाएगा और कसी ऐसे अिधकरण और

अिधकरण क% सहायता के िलए िनयुF त L यिF तय7 के संबंध म उपगत सभी L यय, सरकारी कंपनी Eारा वहन कए

जाYगे और इस -कार िनिहत उF त भूिम म या उस पर के खनन अिधकार7 के िलए या उनके संबंध म अपील7

आद जैसी सभी िविधक कायवािहय7 क% बाबद् उपगत, सभी L यय भी, सरकारी कंपनी Eारा वहन कए जाYगे ।

सरकारी कंपनी, के; <ीय सरकार या उसके पदधाJरय7 क%, ऐसे कसी अ; य L यय के संबंध म ितपू3त करेगी, जो

इस -कार िनिहत उF त भूिम म या उस पर के अिधकार7 के बार म, के; <ीय सरकार या उसके पदधाJरय7 Eारा या

उनके िव:O क; हP कायवािहय7 के संबंध म आव यक हो ।

सरकारी कंपनी को के; <ीय सरकार के पूव अनुमोदन के िबना उF त भूिम और भूिम म या उसके उपर इस -कार

िनिहत अिधकार7 को कसी अ; य L यिF त को अंतJरत करने क% शिF त नहP होगी ; और

सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश7 और शतC का पालन करेगी, जो के; <ीय सरकार Eारा, जब कभी आव यक हो, उF त

भूिम के खनन अिधकार के िविशR ट े7 के िलए दए जाएं या अिधरोिपत कए जाएं ।

[फा.सं. 43015/15/2015 –पीआरआईडK यू-I ]

सुजीत कुमार, अवर सिचव

ORDER

New Delhi, the 8th September, 2016

S.O. 1876.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number S. O.

1170(E), dated the 18th March, 2016, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),

dated the 21st March, 2016, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the mining rights in or over the land

described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in

the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act ;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur (hereinafter

referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government

thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby directs that the mining rights in or over the said

land so vested shall with effect from the 21^st March, 2016, shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the following

terms and conditions, namely :-

The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of

compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the amounts

payable to the Central Government, by the Government Company under conditions (1) and all expenditure

incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by

the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like

appeals, etc. for or in connection with the mining rights, in or over the said lands, so vesting, shall also be

borne by the Government Company;

The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government

or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;

The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the lands to any other persons without the prior

approval of the Central Government ; and

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4179

The Government Company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the

Central Government for mining rights of particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/15/2015-PRIW-I]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1877-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

Mkyfe;k eSXuslkbV dkiksZjs'ku 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;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 83] 85@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&43011@37@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]

la- ,y&43011@36@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 1877.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83, 85/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Dalmia Magnesite Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 29.08.2016.

[No. L-43011/37/2012-IR (M),

No. L-43011/36/2012-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 30^th June, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 83 & 85 of 2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Dalmia Magnesite

Corporation and their workman)

BETWEEN :

ID 83/2012

The General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Magnesite National Labour Union

Vazhapadi K. Ramamoorthy Illam

52, Dr. Subbarayan Road

Salem-626001

AND

4180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Dalmia Magnesite Corporation

Karupur Post

Salem-636012

ID 85 of 2012

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Magnesite Desiya Thozhilalar Sangam

52, Dr. Subbarayan Road

Salem-636001

AND

The General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Dalmia Magnesite Corporation

Karupur-Post,

Salem-636012

No.

I.D.

No.

Reference No.

& Date

Name of the I Party

S/Sri

Name of the

II Party

Appearance

for Workman

Appearance

for Respondent

83/2012

L-43011/37/2012-IR

(M) dated

09.11.2012

The General Secretary,

Magnesite National

Labour Union,

Vazhapadi K.

Ramamurthy Illam, 52,

Dr. Subbarayan Road,

Salem-636001

The General

Manager, Dalmia

Magnesite

Corporation,

Karupur Post,

Salem-636012

M/s K.M.

Ramesh

Sri T. Poornam

85/2012

L-43011/36/2012-IR

(M) dated

09.11.2012

The General Secretary,

Magnesite Desiya

Thozhilalar Sangam,

52, Subbarayan Road

Salem-636001

The General

Manager, Dalmia

Magnesite

Corporation,

Karupur Post,

Salem-636012

M/s K.M.

Ramesh

Sri T. Poornam

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment referred the IDs mentioned above to the Industrial

Tribunal, Chennai for adjudication. The IDs were numbered as ID 83/2012 and 85/2012 respectively. In both IDs the

parties have entered appearance through the counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively.

2. The schedule mentioned in the orders of reference in the above IDs are as under:

ID 83/2012

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem, in not arriving at a wage

settlement with the representatives of the Trade Union is legal and justified? If not to what relief the Union and its

members are entitled to?”

ID 85/2012

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem regarding deduction of a 8

days wages and non-payment of one day’s salary without following the provisions and conducting proper enquiry is

legal and justified? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4181

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment referred the IDs mentioned above to the Industrial

Tribunal, Chennai for adjudication. The IDs were numbered as ID 83/2012 and 85/2012 respectively. In both IDs the

parties have entered appearance through the counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively.

The schedule mentioned in the orders of reference in the above IDs are as under:

The averments in the Common Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in the above IDs are as below:

The petitioner is a registered union. 105 workmen out of the 312 workmen of the Respondent Corporation are

members of the Petitioner Union. The settlement dated 14.02.2007 which was binding on the petitioner and the

Respondent expired on 31.12.2009. Negotiations were started between the Unions and the Respondent. Consequently, a

settlement was entered into on 16.10.2010 as an interim measure by paying Rs. 15,000/- to all the employees as

advance before Pongal of 2011. The Management agreed to settle wage charter within a month. However, the

Management did not adhere with the settlement of 16.10.2010. On repeated request the Management agreed to pay

certain amount as wages. Another settlement was entered into on 11.01.2012 by which the Management agreed to

finalize the Charter of Demands by 31.03.2012. Since the Management did not finalize the Charter of Demands, some

of the representatives of the Union suddenly went to talk to the Officers of the Respondent on 04.04.2012 so as to

finalize the issues. Since permission was not granted to them to meet the Officers the employees waited at the gate. The

Union leaders reached the place in the evening of the day. The Management charged the employees that they have

gheraoed the Officers on 04.04.2012. They issued notice on 05.04.2012 asking the employees to submit their

explanation. They did not give any explanation as they were under the impression that the Management has issued the

notice to avoid prosecution under Section-29 of the ID Act. There was no gherao or strike on 04.04.2012 as alleged by

the Management. The Management issued circular on 02.05.2012 stating that 8 days wage would be deducted from all

the employees except those who have not attended the work on 04.04.2012 and women employees. Before

taking such a decision the Management has not issued charge sheet or conducted any enquiry. The employees

approached the High Court of Madras by Writ Petition and obtained stay of the order of the Management to cut wages

for 8 days. In the meanwhile conciliation proceedings have been going on. It ended in failure and the Government has

referred the dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal. There is no basis for the refusal of the Management in not

increasing the wages. An order may be passed holding that the action of the Management ordering 8 days wage cut and

non-payment of one day wage is illegal and also directing the Management to allow the demands of the Union dated

02.08.2010 w.e.f. the date of expiry of the last settlement.

The petitioner has filed additional Claim Statement contending as below:

The Respondent Corporation is engaged in Magnesite mining. There are two other establishments by name Burn

Standard Company owned by the Central Government and Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. owned by Tamil Nadu

Government engaged in mining in Salem District. These companies are exporting Magnesite to different countries and

are earning enormous profits. About 10,000 workers including permanent, temporary and contract workers are

working in all the three companies together. Upto 1990 all the three companies mentioned above were entering into

wage settlements in common. Pay-scales were common and identical for all the three companies. On 14.05.1995 the

Respondent entered into a separate wage settlement. However, the terms of the settlement were more or less the same

as that of the common wage settlement arrived at by the other two companies. In 1998 also, though separate settlements

were entered into by these companies, the terms of the settlement regarding pay-scales were one and the same. In 2007

the Respondent has entered into a wage settlement which was to be in force till December, 2009. This last settlement

entered into by the Respondent expired on 31.12.2009. The Trade Unions issued notices terminating the settlement.

Initially the petitioner submitted a Charter of Demands. Later another Common Charter of Demands was submitted by

the three Trade Unions. After several negotiations and strike notice the Respondent entered into a settlement on

16.10.2010 with the three Unions and agreed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as interim relief to the workmen. As per the settlement

the Management was to conclude the wage settlement within a month. During subsequent talks the Management

offered wage increase of Rs. 2,283/-. However, wage settlement could not be entered into because of the negative

attitude of the Management. Another interim settlement was entered into on 11.01.2012 agreeing to pay Rs. 13,000/- as

interim relief and also agreeing to arrive at a final settlement before 31.03.2012. Since the Management did not finalize

the settlement the entire workmen assembled before the General Manager’s room to enquire about the wage settlement

on 04.04.2012. They did not resort to any strike. But the Management decided to cut the wages of 8 days from the

employees. Since the Management was not willing to arrive at an amicable settlement the petitioner pursued the

Industrial Dispute already pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). On failure of talks, the

Government has referred the dispute to this Tribunal. Though The Unions had raised 39 demands in the initial Charter

of Demands the petitioner has now restricted its demands and is pressing only 15 demands which are given in the

Claim Statement. When this dispute is pending before this Tribunal the Respondent secretly arrived at a wage

4182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

settlement under Section-18(1) of the ID Act with Magnesite Workers Progressive Union on 08.01.2013. The

Respondent did not call the Petitioner Union or the Union affiliated to CITU for talks before arriving at such a

settlement. Apart from that the Respondent had forced the workmen who are members of the Petitioner Union to sign

letters prepared by them agreeing to receive the benefits of the settlement. In view of pressure and force the workmen

who are members of the Petitioner Union had signed as dictated by the Management. The Petitioner Union protested

against this by letter dated 18.02.2013. The members of the Union have not accepted the settlement dated 08.01.2013

on their free volition. Their signatures were obtained under threat, coercion and intimidation. The petitioner has not lost

its representative character only because its members have accepted the benefits of the settlement dated 08.01.2013.

The Respondent is running in profit and is having sufficient funds to meet the demands of the Petitioner Union. The

Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the earlier Claim Statement.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The remedy of the workmen regarding deduction of 8 days wages and non-payment of one day salary is to be

adjudicated under the Payment of Wages Act. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the matter in the light of

Sections 15 to 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. Regarding Wage Settlement, the same has been settled under Section-

18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act with one majority union viz. Magnesite Workers Progressive Union. 288 workers

coming to 92% of the workers have received the increase in wage and allowance for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Since majority of workers have accepted the offer the dispute is over and the claim is to be dismissed. The Respondent

is operating their mines in 1110 acres of land in Chettichavadi Village. The factory of the respondent is situated at

Vellakkalpatti Village. The factory and mines are located at different places and the distance in between is from 1.5 to

5 kilometres. The Magnasite and Dunite Ore quarried in the mines will be processed in the factory and the products are

manufactured . The workmen were working in general shift in the factory and general shift in the mines and in three

shifts in the mines and factory also. The workmen are members of three recognized unions by name Magnesite

Workers Progressive Union, Magnesite National Labour Union i.e. the Petitioner Union and Salem District Magnesite

Labour Union. About 45% of the workers are members of the Magnesite Workers Progressive Union and about 35%

are members of the Petitioner Union. As per the settlement dated 16.10-.2010 the Respondent had agreed to pay

Rs. 15,000/- to all permanent workmen on or before 13.01.2011. The final settlement was to be concluded within one

month from the date of payment of interim relief. The Unions have agreed that the workmen will increase productivity

in the mines before the wage settlement is finalized. However, the workmen in the Mines willfully reduced production

in spite of notice by the Respondent on several occasions. Consequently, productivity never increased and the

settlement could not be finalized. The Respondent had complied with all its obligations under the settlement dated

16.10.2010. Thereafter another settlement was entered into on 11.01.2012 under Section-18(1) of the ID Act. The

Respondent had paid Rs. 13,000/- to the workmen as agreed to by the settlement. However, because of inter-union

rivalry and exorbitant demand of the workmen a final settlement could not be arrived at. On 04.04.2012 the mine

workers submitted their attendance cards and suddenly indulged in strike without any notice. They sat in front of the

factory gate and indulged in gherao. They prevented ingress and egress of the vehicles of the Respondent and also

vehicles of the employees. The staff members and Officers could not go out even after office hours, as a result of the

strike. They had to remain in the factory for about two hours. They were permitted to leave the factory only by 0700

PM. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chennai was informed of the gherao on the same day. The Respondent

proposed to deduct 8 days wages from the workmen who struck work. It was not the first time the workmen resorted to

strike without notice.

In the additional Counter Statement filed in answer to the additional Claim statement, the Respondent has

contended as below:

Common Wage Settlement including the other two companies of Salem District was arrived at only for the period

from 01.04.1980 to 30.11.1993. Prior to this or after this there has been no common wage settlement. The alleged

dispute has already been settled under Section-18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Due to the fact that 102 members

out of 105 members of the Petitioner Union have accepted and enjoyed the benefits of the settlement, the petitioner has

no representative capacity to pursue the case. The case in the Claim Statement that the Respondent is getting large

profit is not correct. The two companies referred to by the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are Government

Companies and cannot be compared with the Respondent Company. The products and markets of the three companies

are not the same. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The claims are liable to be dismissed.

The parties to both disputes being the same and common claim and counter statements having been filed the two

IDs were tried jointly. Evidence was recorded in ID 83 of 2012.

The evidence consists of oral evidence of WW1 to WW15 and MW1 to MW5 and documents marked as Ext.W1

to Ext.W63 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M53.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4183

10.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the petitioner has lost its representative character and is not entitled to pursue the dispute in view

of the subsequent settlement entered into?

(ii)

Whether the dispute regarding wage cut is not maintainable before this Tribunal?

(iii) Whether the workmen are entitled to any wage increase as claimed by the petitioner? If so, to what extent?

(iv) Whether the Respondent is justified in cutting the wages of the workmen?

Point No. 1

11.

The wage settlement that was entered into by the Respondent with Unions including the Petitioner Union had

expired on 31.12.2009. The Unions had submitted a Common Charter of Demands to the Respondent. During the

negotiations, an interim settlement was entered into on 16.10.2010 with the three Unions, by which the Respondent had

agreed to pay some interim relief to the workmen. Though it was also agreed that the final settlement would be entered

into within a month, this had not materialized. Subsequently, another settlement was entered into on 11.01.2012, again

providing for some interim payment and also agreeing to finalize the settlement by 31.03.2012. Still a wage settlement

had not materialized and the Unions had pursued the dispute raised by them before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Chennai. Consequent to the failure of the conciliation efforts, a failure report was submitted to the

Government and the Government has referred the matter to this Tribunal. While the matter is pending before this

Tribunal the Respondent had entered into a settlement with one of the Unions viz. Magnesite Labour Progressive Union

on 08.01.2013. Subsequently, the Respondent had also executed agreements with most of the members of the Petitioner

Union by which they agreed to receive the benefits as per the settlement. One contention that has been advanced on

behalf of the Respondent is that the petitioner has no locus-standi to proceed with the disputes in view of the fact that

the majority union has entered into a settlement and this settlement has been accepted by almost all members of the

Petitioner Union and therefore it has lost its representative character and is not entitled to represent the members on

whose behalf the disputes are raised.

12.

The contention raised by the Respondent is resisted by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the subsequent

withdrawal of support by the members of the Union or execution of a settlement by some other Union will not take

away its representative capacity. Its capacity is to be decided as on the date of reference and not on the basis of

subsequent events.

13.

The counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain judicial pronouncements in his attempt to justify his

argument that the Union is still competent to proceed with the disputes. Reference was made to the decision of the

Madras High Court in WORKING JOURNALS OF HINDU MADRAS VS. MANAGEMENT OF HINDU MADRAS

AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1961 MADRAS 370. The Madras High Court held in this that the jurisdiction of the

Labour Court to proceed with the matter wholly depended on whether the Industrial Dispute referred to it for

adjudication existed or was apprehended on the date of reference and not on any subsequent date. In the decision in

BOMBAY UNION OF JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS VS. THE HINDU BOMBAY AND ANOTHER reported in

AIR 1963 SC 318, the Apex Court has held that subsequent withdrawal of support will not take away the jurisdiction of

an industrial tribunal. The principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in the decision in M/s WESTERN INDIA

WATCH CO. LTD. VS. WESTERN INDIA WATCH CO. WORKERS UNION reported in AIR 1970 SC 1205. Here

it was held that the validity of reference of an Industrial Dispute is to be judged on the facts as on the date of reference.

So it is clear that the validity of the dispute is to be decided as on the date of reference. The fact that one of the Unions

had entered into a settlement subsequently with the Management will not affect the validity of the dispute and the

Tribunal continues to have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

14.

There is also a contention for the Respondent that the members of the Petitioner Union themselves have accepted

the settlement and received the benefits of the settlement and therefore the Petitioner has lost its representative capacity

and is not entitled to pursue the dispute. The case of the petitioner is that its members did not accept the settlement on

their own volition but they were forced to accept it by threat, coercion, intimidation, etc. Whether the members were

forced to accept the settlement is a question yet to be decided. Even without going into that aspect the contention can be

dealt with. The Apex Court has held in M/s TATA CHEMICALS LTD. VS. WORKMEN EMPLOYED UNDER M/S

TATA CHEMICALS LTD. reported in AIR 1978 SC 828 that acceptance of the benefits flowing from the agreement

even by the workmen who were not signatories to the settlement is of no avail and cannot operate as estoppel against

the Union or its members. Of course it is pointed out by the counsel for the Respondent that in the above case the

workmen are not parties to the settlement, but only accepted the benefits of the agreement. In the present case the

majority have signed individual agreements with the Respondent. However, they have informed by Ext.M42 that they

are servicing the benefits under protest. In any case the dispute is to be decided as on the date of reference. So, even if

the members of the Union had signed the settlement it is not of any consequence and the validity of the dispute is not

affected. The point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

4184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Point No. 2

16.

The schedule of reference in ID 85/2012 is regarding the action of the Respondent in deducting 8 days wages and

non-payment of 1 day salary without following the provisions and without conducting proper enquiry.

17.

The case of the Respondent is that on 04.04.2012 the workmen of the General Shift and First Shift suddenly

struck work and gathered in front of the factory premises from morning till evening, indulged in gherao and prevented

movement of the staff and vehicles from and to the factory premises. They issued notice to the concerned workmen,

displaying notice in the notice board asking to show cause why wages of 8 days of the workers of the General Shift and

the First Shift who had absented themselves after submitting their attendance cards on 04.04.2012 shall not be

deducted. Then still another notice was displayed. The final decision to deduct the wages also was displayed. The

dispute in ID 85/2012 is regarding this deduction of wages by the Respondent.

18.

The Respondent has contended in the Counter Statement that the petitioner is not entitled to raise this dispute

before this Tribunal. According to the Respondent, this Tribunal is not having jurisdiction to decide the matter in view

of the provisions contained in Sections 15 to 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. The Payment of Wages Act is regarding

payment of wages to persons including those employed in factories. Sections 15 to 17 state how matters coming under

the Payment of Wages Act are to be dealt with. However, the contention raised by the Respondent could not be

accepted in view of Sub-Section-6 of Section-1 of the Act. The Sub-Section states that the Act will apply to wages

payable to an employed person in respect of a wage period if such wages for that wage period do not exceed Rs. 6,500/-

per month or such other higher sum, which on the basis of the figures of consumer expenditure survey published by

National Sample Survey Organization, the Central Government may after every 5 years by notification in the official

gazette specify. By subsequent notifications the amount has been enhanced periodically. It is pointed out by the counsel

for the petitioner that the last enhancement was in the year 2010 and this was to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- . By the time

the dispute was raised, all the workmen involved in the dispute were drawing wages higher to the ceiling fixed as per

Section-1(2) of Payment of Wages Act. So Payment of Wages Act is not applicable to the issue in question. Industrial

Disputes Act which is the general enactment to deal with the disputes in between workmen and the employer will be

applicable to the dispute. The dispute is to be decided under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act only. So this

Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the issue. The point is found in favour of the petitioner.

Point No. 4

19.

Having found that this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the issue the question now to be considered is

whether the Respondent had acted rightly in cutting 8 days wages of the concerned workmen.

20.

According to the Respondent on 04.04.2012 the Mine Workers who came to work in the morning after

submitting their respective attendance cards to the Attendance Clerk, suddenly indulged in strike without any notice.

So also the factory workers, after submitting their Attendance Cards left the workplace without permission and

indulged in strike without any prior notice. The workers sat in front of the factory gate inside the factory premises and

indulged in gherao. The Mine Workers who had arrived at the factory gate by then also squatted in front of the gate.

They prevented ingress and egress of the vehicles as well as that of the employees. The staff members and Officers of

the Respondent could not go out even after office hours at 0500 PM and had to remain inside the factory for almost 2

hours. It was only by about 0700 PM the staff and Officers were permitted to leave the factory. Because of this action

of the workers the Respondent had to request the local Police to avoid law and order problem. They had come to the

spot by about 1130 AM on the day.

21.

MW1, the Dy. General Manager, MW2 the Superintendent of Mines, MW3, the Assistant General Manager

(Engineering), MW4, the Manager (Maintenance) and also MW5, the Deputy General Manager (accounts) have

deposed about the incident of strike and gherao that had allegedly occurred on 04.04.2012. All these witnesses have

reiterated the case in the Counter Statement regarding the incident. It is further stated that it was not the first time the

workers were indulging in strike without notice and gherao and the Management was fully justified in cutting the

wages of the workmen involved for 8 days in accordance with the Standing Orders and under the Payment of Wages

Act.

22.

What is the evidence given on the side of the petitioner regarding the incident? WW1 who is the Joint Secretary

of the Petitioner Union has stated in his Proof Affidavit that the Management has construed the assembly of the

workmen before the General Manager’s room as strike and issued notice dated 05.04.2012 as to why 8 days wages

should not be cut from the salary payable to the workers for the month of April 2012. He has further stated that what

happened on 04.04.2012 is that some of the representatives of the Unions have been to the Office of the Respondent to

meet the General Manager to enquire about the fate of the Charter of Demands that was already submitted. But the

General Manager had refused to meet the representatives of the workmen. As seen from the Affidavit there was no

gherao or any form of agitation on 04.04.2012. The workmen had spontaneously gone to the office to meet the General

Manager as there was no decision on the Charter of Demands for more than a year. The case in the Claim Statement

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4185

also is to this effect. However, as seen from the Claim Statement not only the representatives of the Union but also the

employees went to talk to the Officers. During his cross-examination, WW1 has stated that they had requested the Mine

Superintendent to meet the General Manager but permission was not granted in writing but only orally. He does not

know at what time the Mine Workers went to the factory to meet the General Manager. However, he admitted during

cross-examination that none of them returned for work on that date. All of them remained in the factory itself. He also

admitted that the Police personnel came to the factory on the said date. He then stated that since they were not granted

permission to meet the General Manager, they had waited outside. He admitted during the later stage of cross-

examination that all the workmen who came to work on 04.04.2012 were present outside the factory gate throughout

the day. Thus it is clear even from the evidence of WW1 that after the workers of the mines as well as the factory

gathered at the premises of the factory, they did not go back for their work.

22.

WW11 is the General Secretary of the Union. This witness also has stated that the workmen did not resort to any

work much less lightening strike on 04.04.2012. According to him, workmen and some of the representative of the

Union went to the Office of the Respondent to meet the General Manager. However, the General Manager refused to

meet them. The leaders of the unions came to the spot only in the evening of 04.04.2012. He did not state in his Proof

Affidavit at which time the workers had gone to meet the General Manager. However, he has stated during his cross-

examination that the workmen from the Mines and Factories had informed him on 04.04.2012 by 1000 AM itself that

they are going to meet the General Manager. He further stated that all the workmen from the Mines and the Factory had

gone to visit the Manager. He also stated that the Police had reached the place in the morning itself. He further stated

that himself and other Union Leaders had met the General Manager by 0330 PM and had discussion with him for 2

hours and it was only thereafter they came and spoke to the workmen and they had dispersed by about 0600 PM. Thus

it is clear from the evidence of this witness that the workers had left their work spot in the morning itself and had

gathered in front of the factory premises and did not go back for work on the day.

23.

The petitioner had examined several witnesses in their attempt to establish that the Management had entered into

a settlement individually with the workers using force, undue influence, etc. However, none of these witnesses were

made to state anything about what has occurred on 04.04.2012.

24.

Apart from the evidence of WW1 and WW11 documents produced on the side of the Respondent also would

show that the concerned workmen had left their place of work on 04.04.2012. It is not necessary to consider the

question whether there was a strike or gherao on the part of the workmen. The Management has decided to deduct

wages of the workmen on the ground that they have absented from work after submitting attendance and this was done

in concert by them. So whether there was absence from work in concert alone need be considered. The documents

produced would justify such a conclusion.

25.

Ext.M11 is a notice issued by the Management on 05.04.2012 to all the workers stating that on 04.04.2012 they

had indulged in sudden strike without any notice from 0900 AM. The Respondent, by the notice, has proposed to

deduct 8 days wages of the workers from the wages of April, 2012 as per the Certified Standing Orders and Payment of

Wages Act. The workers were asked to show cause before 09.04.2012 why the proposed deduction should not be made.

Ext.M12 is the reply given to Ext.M11 by Labour Progressive Front, another Union. What is stated in this is that the

Management had not held any talks regarding the demands made by the workers and due to the mental agony the

workers had come to the factory to see the Assistant General Manager in person. It is further stated that even though the

workers who had assembled asked the Manager directly, there was no decision on wage increase. In Ext.M12, there is

no denial of the case in Ext.M11 that the workers had left their work spot at 10.00 AM and started to sit at the factory

gate in the morning itself. Ext.M13 is the notice issued in continuation of Ext.M11. It states that no reply was received

to Ext.M11 notice from the workers before 09.04.2012, which was the stipulated date and Ext.M12 was received after

the date. The notice states that the Respondent has construed that there was no explanation to offer by the concerned

workers and the Management has decided to deduct the wages. In Ext,M14 dated 30.04.2012 the Management has

given the names of persons whose wages for 8 days were to be deducted. Ext.M15 is the reply given by the Petitioner

Union to the Management regarding the incident. What is stated in this is that since the Management did not call them

for talks, when workers came for job on 04.04.2012, they suddenly came to the General Manager after informing the

Mining Officers and the Factory Officers, but, they were not permitted to meet the General Manager and so the workers

remained at the gate and talks were held only after the Union Leaders came on that day evening. Thus, Ext.M15, which

is given after 26 days of the incident also shows that there is no denial of the case of the Management that the workers

left the work place in the morning itself and remained at the factory premises until the evening. Thus, there is no doubt

that the workers of the First Shift and the General Shift did not work on that day.

25.

The very fact that the workers of the Mines as well as the factory had gathered at the factory premises would

show that it was a concerted action on their part. It has come out in evidence that the Mines and the Factory are situated

at different places. The Mine workers will be working elsewhere in the Mines and the factory workers will be in the

factory. If they had come together, necessarily it should be an act of concert. Even otherwise the evidence is indicative

4186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the fact that they had a previous discussion in the absence of which all of them would not have reached the factory

premises together which reveals a concert on their part.

26.

Section-7 of the Payment of Wages Act refers to matters for which deductions can be made from the wages.

Sub-Section 2(b) provides that deduction for absence from duty from the wages of an employed person shall be made

only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. According to the Management deduction was proposed as per the

Standing Orders and the Payment of Wages Act. The relevant clause of the Standing Orders as quoted in the written

argument of the Respondent is that if two or more persons acting in concert and without giving a fortnight’s notice to

the Management absent themselves from work or being present in the work spot refused to work without reasonable

cause deduction of 8 days wages as defined under the Payment of Wages Act shall be made from the wages of the

workmen. This clause in the /standing orders is drawn from the proviso to Section-9(2) of the Payment of Wages Act,

but with some slight difference. As per the proviso if 10 or more employed persons acting in concert absent themselves

without due notice (that is to say without giving the notice which is required under the terms of their contract of

employment) and without reasonable cause, deduction of wages from any such person may include such amount not

exceeding his wages for 8 days as may by any such terms be due to the employer in lieu of due notice. The explanation

to the proviso states that an employed person shall be deemed to be absent from the place where he is required to work,

if although present in such place he refuses in pursuance of a stay-in-strike or for any other cause which is not

reasonable in the circumstances to carry out his work. Thus, in the Act what is stated is that deduction of wage can be

for a period upto 8 days. It does not insist that there should be a deduction of 8 days itself.

27.

No doubt, the workers were aggrieved and were anxious on account of absence of a final settlement regarding the

Charter of Demands that was submitted by them to the Management. However, it was no reason for all the workers, all

from the General Shift as well as from the First Shift, in the factory as well as in the Mines to leave the work spot and

give up work for the entire day. This is certainly acting in concert. They are to be deemed to have been absent from

their place of work even though they were present at the factory premises.

28.

The Management has decided to cut 8 days wages from the concerned workers. No doubt, they need not be paid

for the day as they did not work for the day. As per the Act, there is discretion for the Management to cut wages for 8

days. However, when the particular circumstances are taken into account, when the fact that the workers were very

much aggrieved because a final settlement regarding the wage revision has not come into effect even after three years

of the expiry of the wage settlement, the Management should not have been so stringent in invoking the provisions of

the Payment of Wages Act and the relevant clause of the Standing Orders. In the particular situation I find that cut of

wages for 2 days will be sufficient. The point is found accordingly.

Point No. 3

29.

The main demand of the petitioner is revision of the wages. The last wage settlement between the respondent and

the Unions had expired by the end of 2009. Consequently all the Unions including the Petitioner Union submitted a

common Charter of Demands for revision of wages and also for other benefits. Since the Respondent has failed to enter

into a settlement regarding wage revision the petitioner has pursued the dispute .In the claim statement the petitioner

has restricted its demands to 15.

30.

Before considering the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of wage revision as claimed, it is

necessary to go into the past history of the establishment regarding the manner in which wage settlements were entered

into. In Salem area there seems to be several industries related to mining of magnesite. Apart from the Respondent

establishment Burn Standard Company owned by the Central Government and Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. owned by

Tamil Nadu State Government are the major ones. According to the petitioner there are about 10,000 workmen in all

the three companies together. Previously these three companies used to enter into a common wage settlement with

the Unions. Ext.W1 is such a common settlement of 1987 and Ext.W2 is the settlement of 1990. After 1990 this

practice seems to have come to an end. Ext.W3 is the common settlement involving Burn Standard Company and

Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. in 1995. A separate settlement was entered into by the Respondent and its Unions in this

year. It is admitted by MW1 that the practice of entering into common settlement continued up to 1995 and thereafter

separate settlements were being entered into. Even after they started to enter into separate settlements the terms of such

settlements continued to be the same upto 2001, even as admitted by MW1.

31.

Exts.W5 to W12 are separate settlements entered into by the three companies including the Respondent. Even

though initially the terms were the same in spite of separate settlements, subsequently the terms also differed and the

amount of increase in wages also differed. While the workmen of other two companies were getting higher wages this

was not the case with the workmen of the Respondent. Their wages seem to have dwindled when compared with the

wages that were obtained by the workmen of the other two establishments.

32.

Even before expiry of the last wage settlement between the Respondent and the Unions on 31.12.2009 discussion

seems to have been started based on the Charter of Demands submitted by the Petitioner Union on 18.11.2009. There

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4187

was no progress in the discussion and thereafter the three Trade Unions in the Respondent establishment viz.

Magnesite National Labour Union (the petitioner), Labour Progressive Federation and CITU joined together and

submitted a fresh Charter of Demands. This Charter of Demands is available along with Ext.W13-the strike notice

given by the Unions. Though discussion had taken place for entering into a final settlement such a settlement could not

be arrived at. So the Respondent entered into an interim settlement with the Unions on 16.10.2010. This settlement is

marked as Ext.W15. As per Ext.W15 the Respondent agreed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to all permanent workmen on its rolls

as interim relief before 16.10.2010 and this was to be adjusted against the benefits that will be available to the workmen

on final settlement. By Clause-4 of the settlement the Unions gave an assurance to the Respondent that their members

will extend whole-hearted support to increase production. In the absence of final settlement, another interim settlement

was entered into between the parties and this is marked as Ext.W18. By this settlement dated 11.01.2012 the

Respondent agreed to pay additional interim relief of Rs. 13,000/- to all the permanent workmen on its rolls. It

was also agreed that a final settlement will be arrived at before 31.03.2012. It is not in dispute that the Respondent had

paid the interim relief agreed upon as per two settlements to the workmen. However, a final wage settlement was not

arrived at even before 31.03.2012, the date given in Ext.W18. In Ext.W18 also there is a clause that the workmen will

improve productivity and the Respondent on its part has agreed to provide necessary facilities to the workmen. Since a

common settlement did not materialize the Respondent entered into a settlement with one of the Unions on 08.01.2013.

This is marked as Ext.M31. There is no reference to this settlement in the Claim Statement initially filed by the

petitioner. Much after that, after the matter has been referred to this Tribunal, the Respondent entered into settlement

with individual workmen separately by which they agreed to accept a lump sum in final settlement of their demands.

Ext.W32 is a specimen of said settlement entered into by one of the workmen with the Respondent. Ext.M34 is a list of

the workers who are said to have received lump sum as per the settlement in full and final settlement of arrears of

wages and allowances for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. WW1 who is the Joint Secretary of the Petitioner Union has

admitted during his cross-examination that 102 of the 105 members of the Union had signed the settlement, though he

would say that it is the result of coercion, undue influence, etc.

33.

The counsel for the Respondent had referred to the decision in HERBERTSONS VS. THE WORKMEN OF

HERBERTSONS LTD. reported in AIR 1977 SC 322 in support of his argument that Ext.M31 the settlement already

entered into by another Union and accepted by the members of the Petitioner Union is a fair and proper one. Here the

Apex Court has held that it is not possible to consider the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and

acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely

outweighs all the other advantages gained, the Court will be slow to hold a settlement as unfair and unjust. A settlement

has to be accepted or rejected as a whole, it was held. The counsel for the Respondent has also referred to the decision

in M/s TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. VS. THEIR WORKMEN reported in AIR 1981 SC

2163 in this respect. Here it was held that if the settlement had been arrived at between the Company and by the vast

majority of the concerned workers with their eyes open and was also accepted by them in its totality it must be

presumed to be just and fair and not liable to be ignored merely because a small number of workers were not parties to

it or refused to accept it or because the Tribunal was of the opinion that the workers deserved higher emolument than

they themselves thought they did. A settlement cannot be weighed in a golden scale and the question whether it is just

and fair has to be answered on the basis of principles different from those which come into play when the Industrial

Dispute is under adjudication ,it was held.. In the light of the above it can be considered whether a settlement as a

package is beneficial to the workmen and is a fair and proper one. So also the question whether the workmen have

accepted it on account of coercion, persuasion, etc. is also a matter to be considered in this background so as to decide

whether the settlement which according to the Respondent was accepted by them is fair and proper and is what they

thought is fair to them.

34.

As already stated, the case of the petitioner is that its members were made to accept the settlement by threat,

coercion, intimidation, etc. I have already found that the dispute exists in spite of the settlement and this Tribunal is

within its power to examine the validity of the claim of the Petitioner independent of the settlement. In spite of that it is

not improper to consider the case of the petitioner that the workmen who are its members were coerced by the

Management to make them accept the settlement.

34.

WW2 to WW10 and WW14 are workmen of the Respondent establishment who are members of the Petitioner

Union examined to prove the case that they are made to accept the settlement by using methods like threat, coercion,

etc. It is to be seen what is the evidence given by these witnesses. WW2 who is now working as Mechanic-cum-

Operator in the Earth Moving Department has stated that MW1, Paul Gurusamy and MW4, Noel who is the

Maintenance Manager had called him and told him that if he did not affix his signature in the letter prepared by the

Management agreeing to abide by the terms of the settlement entered into with the other Union, he will be kept in the

same post of Mechanic-cum-Driver till his retirement, but if he agreed to the terms of the settlement his position will be

altered as Mechanic-cum-Operator. He stated that it was not on his free mind and volition he has accepted the terms of

the settlement but the same was imposed on him. He stated during his cross-examination that MW4 was present when

4188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

he was forced to sign the settlement on 24.01.2013 but no one else was present. As seen from the cross-examination the

witness seems to have been given a promotion on 01.04.2013, two months after he signed the settlement.

35.

WW3 who is working in the Engineering Department has also given evidence more or less on the same lines as

that of WW2. He has stated that the Management has secretly arrived at a settlement with the LPF Union and did not

call the Petitioner Union for bilateral talks before entering into such a settlement. According to him he was given a

quarters in the year 2010. MW1 and his superior, Periaswamy is said to have called him and told him that if he did not

put his signature in the document prepared by the Management agreeing to abide by the terms of the settlement he will

be evicted from the Quarters and disciplinary action would be initiated against him. According o him, he would not

have been able to sustain himself if he was sent away from the quarters and that is why he has signed the letter put

before him by the Management.

36.

The other witnesses also have given evidence more or less on the same terms regarding the circumstances in

which they had to sign the agreement agreeing to accept the terms of the settlement. WW4, a workman in the mines of

the Respondent had stated that the Management had threatened that if he does not sign the letter he would not be

extended with salary advance or cash loan, which he was availing frequently. There is the evidence of WW5 working

as Mechanic that MW1 and MW4 had told him that unless he agrees to sign the settlement he will be retained in Grade-

III and will not be considered for further promotion. The witness seems to have been subsequently promoted. He has of

course stated during his cross-examination that promotion was given to him on the basis of his performance and skill.

At the same time he has added that it was given to him only after he signed the settlement. According to him the

individual employees have signed agreements agreeing to accept the settlement only out of compulsion. WW6 who is a

Lab Sample Boy Mechanic has stated that he was told by the then General Manager, Veeraraghavan that he would be

retained as workman till his retirement if he is not agreeing to the terms of the settlement. As seen from the cross-

examination of this witness, though he started to work as Sample Boy in 2010 itself he was given promotion to this

category only in 2014 after he signed the settlement.

37.

WW7 who is a workman in Mines Production Unit has stated that he was made to sign the agreement on the

threat that he would be transferred to Yard Section from the Mines Production Section in which he was working.

According to him, the work in the Yard Section was hazardous and the threat was sufficient to make him sign the

agreement. WW8 another workman in the Mines Production Unit also has stated that he has signed the agreement

consequent to a threat of the same nature. There is also the evidence of WW9, another workman of Mines Production

Unit that he was also told that the consequences of not signing the letter would be a transfer to the Factory Yard. This

is the evidence given by WW10, another workman in the Mines Production also. According to WW14 he was also

subjected to such threats. However, he was able to withstand them and he did not sign the agreement.

38.

According to the Respondent the case of the Petitioner that the workmen were threatened and were made to sign

the agreements is a concocted case. The counsel for the Respondent pointed out in support of his argument that most of

the workmen have got the same kind of story regarding the execution of the threat. According to him this itself makes

the entire case regarding threat, coercion, etc. unbelievable and unacceptable. However, it is a fact that many of the

witnesses were given favours after they signed the settlement. The factum of promotion consequent to the signing of

the letter spoken to by some of the witnesses is not disputed by the Respondent. Even though those workers have

become eligible for promotion even earlier, the favour was conferred on them only after they signed the letter. Ext.W60

and Ext.W61 are orders in favour of two workmen viz. S/Sri Ravichandran and Sekar granting two special increments

to them after agreement of acceptance were signed by them.

39.

Ext.M42 is a letter given by the workers to the Respondent on 18.02.2013 expressing their willingness to receive

the amount as per the settlement. The translation of the document made available states that they are receiving the

amount consequent to the acceptance of the settlement under protest and without prejudice to the case pending. They

have stated in this that receiving signatures individually from the workers regarding the settlement is illegal. The

signatories to Ext.M42 include those who signed agreement on the same day. This itself is an indication of the fact that

it was not whole-heartedly the workmen had accepted the settlement. They were aware of the pendency of the case and

wanted the Union to continue the case. The workers who are in dire circumstances naturally might have accepted

whatever amount that came to them to meet the immediate necessities. So the element of coercion and undue influence

on the part of the Respondent in making the workmen sign the agreement of acceptance is probable and possible.

There is also the fact that the Respondent has resorted to seeking individual settlement with the workmen while the

Union of which they were members was hotly contesting the case before this Tribunal. In the normal course, the talks

should have been with the Union and not with the workman separately, individually. This very attitude of the

Respondent spells some undue influence on the Part of the Respondent. As per Schedule-5 of the ID Act granting wage

increase to the workmen at crucial periods of Trade Union organization with a view to undermining the efforts of the

Union is an unfair labour practice. The act of the Respondent in insisting in entering into settlements individually with

the workman is something similar to this and is to be deprecated.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4189

40.

The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that Ext.M31 settlement executed during the pendency of

the dispute is not a fair one at all. According to the petitioner the settlement should have been one taking into account

the wage prevalent in the industry as well as in the region. It was in the attempt to establish this that the petitioner has

produced the previous common settlements involving the Respondent, Burn Standard Company (later on taken over by

SAIL Refractories and named as such) and Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. Even as admitted by MW1 the settlement was

common and the workers of all the three factories including the Respondent were given the same benefits on every

wage revision until 1995. Even thereafter though separate settlements were entered into, the benefits given were similar

in nature. It was only later the Respondent departed from the practice of entering into the common settlement or giving

common benefits to its workmen. The very fact that similar wage rise was given to all the workmen earlier would show

that the nature of work done by the workmen in all three factories were one and the same. Again, the three factories

were in the same region doing the work of mining magnesite ore and other allied ores.

41.

In the attempt to establish that while fixing the wages, the wages prevalent in the region as well in the industry is

to be taken into account, the counsel has referred to the dictums given by the Apex Court in this respect. Reference was

made to the decision in DUNLOP RUBBER COMPANY LTD. VS. WORKMEN AND OTHERS reported in AIR

1960 SC 207. Here it was held that while considering the service conditions the Tribunal cannot abstain from seeing the

fair conditions of service that prevail in the industry and the region. Reference was also made to the decision in VIJAY

COTTON MILLS LTD. VS. THE WORKMEN AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1960 SC 692. Here also fixing of

wages based on the wage prevalent in the industry and the region was upheld by the Apex Court. In yet another

decision in KAMANI METALS AND ALLOYS LTD. VS. THE WORKMEN reported in AIR 1967 SC 1175 it was

held that it is always desirable that fixation of wages is in tune with what is prevalent in the industry or the region. The

Apex Court has at the same time cautioned that comparable units may be compared but not units which are dissimilar.

It was observed that while disparity in wages in industrial establishments similarly placed leads to discontent,

attempting to level up the wages without making sufficient allowances for differences leads to hardships.

42.

In spite of the workmen of the Respondent having been getting same wages and same benefits as that of the

workmen of Burn Standard Company (Sail Refractories) and that of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd earlier, there is vast

disparity in the wages and other benefits now obtained by the workmen of the Respondent when compared with that of

the other two. Ext.W10 is the copy of the settlement arrived at by the Respondent with the Petitioner and other Unions

on 14.02.2007. In this the revised wage-scale (on daily wage basis) is from Rs. 59 to Rs. 66.50. The monthly increase is

from Rs. 364/- to Rs. 434/- for different grades. Ext.W11 is the settlement executed by the management of Tamil

Nadu Magnesite Ltd. with their Unions in the same year, in June 2007. The establishment has shifted to monthly wage

scale by the time. An increase in between Rs. 400/- to Rs. 465/- is given to various grades in basic wage alone.

Ext.W17 is the copy of settlement arrived at by the same establishment in August 2011. The scale of Grade-V which is

the lowest grade itself starts from Rs. 2,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,300/- for Grade-I it is Rs. 5,200/- with Grade

Pay of Rs. 1,900/- and for the Special Grade it is Rs. 5,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/-.

43.

The huge disparity in wages is reflected more from the wage slips of the different establishments. WW12 is an

employee of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. Ext.W37 is the wage slip of this workman. As seen from this he has joined the

establishment in 1988. He is now working as attender and has drawn Rs. 19,238.62/- in January 2015. WW13 is an

employee of the Sail Refractory Co. Ltd. He has joined the establishment in the year 1993 as an Unskilled Worker. He

was made Semi-Skilled in 1995, Skilled Grade-II in 1996, Skilled Grade-II in 2002 and Skilled Grade-I in 2008. He is

now in Super-Skilled Special Grade. Ext.W39 is the wage slip in respect of this witness. In February 2015 he had

drawn Rs. 27,949.00 as salary. What is the position of a workman of the Respondent establishment when compared to

the above? Exts.45 to Ext.W51 are the wage slips of WW14, an employee of the Respondent establishment for the

period from 2009 to 2015. This witness had joined the Respondent establishment as an Apprentice in the year 1991 and

was absorbed as permanent workman in the mines after two years. The wage he has drawn in January 2015 as seen

from Ext.W51 is Rs. 13,115.39. In the year 2009 it was Rs. 7,899.00. Thus after 25 years of serving the establishment

what he is now getting is just a little above Rs. 13,000/-.

44.

It is not disputed by the Respondent that there is disparity in the wages of the workmen of its institution and the

other two establishments which were going along with it earlier. The Respondent has been trying to justify this

difference giving various reasons. The first and foremost reason given by the Respondent is that there is huge decrease

in the production of the Respondent as the workmen had been resorting to a non-cooperative attitude.

With the help of Ext.M3, the report of the National Productivity Council it is pointed out on behalf of the Respondent

that each workman per shift are bound to produce at least 0.9 metric tons of Magnesite Ore. Ext.M3 shows that the

National Productivity Council conducted a study and found that the workmen are wasting a lot of time, that out of 480

minutes available in a man shift, 185 minutes are not utilized for work. Based on the study they have suggested that the

production norm based on effective utilization of loss of time will be 0.99 metric ton. According to the Respondent

earlier the workmen were reaching almost this quantity in production. But subsequently, the quantity has come down

and at present it has thoroughly decreased and has come down to just 0.25 metric tons. The counsel has pointed out

4190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that by Ext.W15 and Ext.W18 the two interim settlements the Petitioner Union has agreed to increase production

before final settlement of the wage revision. The petitioner has been harping on the fact that in Ext.W18 there is a

further clause that the Management is to provide facility to increase the production. According to them such facility has

not been provided and this was why there was no increase. It is alleged by the petitioner that all the facilities are

provided to the retired workmen who were re-employed and also to the contract workmen while the regular workmen

were denied of this. This is in answer to the case of the Respondent that the retired workmen who are re-employed and

the contract workmen are producing more than the regular workmen. It is pointed out that the retired hands are those

who have reached the age of 58 and yet they are producing more than the regular workmen. One thing that is to be

noted is that the petitioner is not disputing the case of the Respondent that the present production level is only 0.25

metric tons while earlier it was much more. An attempt has been made by the petitioner to meet this case of the

Respondent through the evidence given by the workmen of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Corporation and Sail Refractories

Ltd. WW12 and WW15 who are the workmen of the Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. have stated that the production norm

in their factory is 250 kgs. per manpower. According to WW13, the workman of Sail Refractories Co. Ltd. the

production norm for the said Company is 300 kgs. per manpower. However, no documents are available to show what

is the production norm fixed for the above establishments. It is very much clear from the evidence on behalf of the

petitioner as well as the evidence given by MW1 on behalf of the Respondent that production in the Respondent

establishment has considerably gone down by years. The excuse given by the petitioner that facility was not provided

by the Respondent does not seem to be very valid. What is the facility required for increasing the production? There is

no case for the petitioner that the facilities that were available earlier were taken away by the Respondent. But

production has come down. Certainly there is necessity of increasing production in the establishment in the attempt to

justify the claim for higher wages. An establishment cannot subsist without the cooperation of the workmen. The

establishment is not only of the Management but also of the workmen in the sense that it is what gives them the means

for their subsistence. They are duty bound to work to the utmost and see that the production norm is reached. Even

assuming that 0.99 metric tons which is fixed by the National Productivity Council is not reached they should achieve

at least what is given in Ext.W62, the appointment order issued to a new incumbent in 2011. As per this, incentive is

fixed for productivity of 0.6 metric ton and more incentive for more productivity. This document was produced by the

petitioner to show that even according to the Respondent 0.99 metric ton is not the norm of productivity. If the details

give by the Respondent are taken into account there would not be any difficulty for the workmen to achieve at least

what is given in Ext.W62. The Respondent has been even earlier warning the workmen for decrease in productivity.

Ext.M38 is the memo served on WW1 for drop in production. Ext.W39 is a caution notice issued to the same witness.

Ext.M35-the Temporary Appointment Order issued to WW1 shows that the quantity of ore to be produced is fixed as

0.9 metric tons. So it is beyond doubt there is decrease in productivity and the workmen are to be make effort to

increase the production in which case only the establishment could exist.

45.

Still another argument that is advanced on behalf of the Respondent is that there is difference in the goods

produced by the other two Companies and the Respondent. MW1 has spoken about this. It is clear is that the other two

establishments are much larger with more productivity and they are government establishments. The petitioner has not

made any effort to bring out what is the wage structure of the other private establishments in the area. Parity is sought

only with the above two establishments. As stated by the Apex Court in KAMANY METALS’ case the decision

referred to earlier, when considering fixing of wage region and industry-wise the differences if any, also have to be

taken into account. The fact remains that in 2011 itself the Respondent had departed from the practice of having a

common settlement and having common wage structure. Probably this was because of the difference that somewhat

existed in between the establishments. Even as seen from the wage slips and salary slips used for comparison there is

much difference in the salary paid to the workmen of Sail Refractory Ltd. and Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. So it is

clear that it is not the nature of work alone, that is the basis for fixing the wage structure. Sail Refractory is producing

huge quantities and is getting huge profit also. The Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. is standing behind in these aspects. The

Respondent establishment is behind Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd.

46.

However, the above facts stated in favour of the Respondent are not reasons to deny wage increase to the

workmen of the establishment in toto. As already stated a workman who had been sweating for more than 25 years is

even now getting Rs. 13,000/- as wages. It was Rs. 9,000/- in 2009. This will be too insufficient to provide for a family

when the present cost of living is taken into account. With this much amount he will not be able to meet the minimum

requirements. After all, as already stated, the establishment is that of the workmen also and not of the Management

alone. Unless the workmen are provided sufficiently, there is no meaning in the existence of an establishment. It is not

a mere entity for making profit for the Management alone. It is to see that the wage given by it is sufficient for the

workmen at least to have a comfortable existence though not a luxurious one. It is not enough that it is a bare existence.

The wage now provided by the Respondent in any case will not meet this norm. In this sense it could be seen that the

settlement arrived at by the Respondent with the workmen is not a fair and proper one. There is necessity to have

increase in the wages.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4191

47.

The petitioner and other unions had submitted a common Charter of Demands raising 35 demands, as seen from

Ext.W13. However, in the Claim Statement filed before this Tribunal the Petitioner Union has restricted the demands to

15 in number. The demands are that the existing monthly wages of the workmen should be raised by Rs. 5,000/- and

the increase should be merged with Basic Pay, the present DA of 2814 should be taken as base and the existing

payment of Rs. 2/- per point should be raised to Rs. 4/- per point and 50% of such increase should be merged with the

Basic Pay, Rs. 1000/- shall be paid towards HRA, LTA and Medical Allowance shall be paid on par with that of staff

members, on completion of 10 years of service, service weightage shall be given for those eligible workmen, for every

completed 5 years of service, on completion of 10 years of service workmen shall be given the next higher grade and

on the completion of every 5 years thereafter next higher grade with increase in salary shall be given, all workmen shall

be given designation as Semi-skilled, all workmen shall be paid 5% of Basic Pay with annual increment, the existing

daily wage pattern shall be changed to monthly wage pattern, 15 days sick leave and 15 days casual leave shall be

given and half day leave facility shall be given for casual leave also, education allowance of Rs. 2,000/- for children

studying from 10^th to 12 standard, Rs. 3,000/- for children studying for ITI and Diploma courses and in College and Rs.

5,000/- for those studying engineering, medicine and law, heat allowance, night shift allowance, washing allowance,

dust allowance and welfare allowance shall be doubled and funeral expenses payable shall be raised from Rs. 5,000/- to

Rs. 7,500/-.

48.

Ext.M31 is the settlement entered into by the Respondent with LPF Union considering the demands, However,

what is the increase given as per Ext.M31? The increase per day on the basic wages is Rs. 17.31 for Grade-I workman

and Rs. 20.58 for Grade-V workman, the amount payable to those in the three grades in between being something in

between. The total increase given to the employees of Grade-I is Rs. 861.38 per month including Basic Pay, House

Rent Allowance and Washing Allowance. Service weightage given is one increment for 15 years service at the rate of

Rs. 74.10 per month, two increments at the rate of Rs. 148.20 per month for 25 years service and three increments at

the rate of Rs. 222.30 per month for 30 years of service. There is some slight increase for those working in Grade-II to

Grade-V. Then there is increase in the allowances like night shift allowance, leave travel allowance, heat allowance,

etc. In spite of this increase the wage , WW14, a workman having service of 26 years in 2015 is Rs. 13,000/-. As per

Ext.W45 he has received just Rs. 7,899/- in January 2009. In January 2010 this is Rs. 8,694/-, as seen from Ext.W46.

The exact amount that might have been payable to him after Ext.M31 must be something more than this However, the

increase would not go beyond Rs. 1,100/- as seen from Ext.M31. On the other hand, the workman of the other two

establishments who were earlier on par with the workman of the Respondent establishment are getting much more

amount than the increase given by Ext.M31. I am not trying to compare the wages of the workmen of the Respondent

establishment with the wages of the workmen of Sail Refractories Ltd. for the reason that they are given far more

benefits than that of workmen of the Respondent and even that of the workmen of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd.

However, even a comparison with the salary payable to the workmen of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. would show that

there is considerable disparity in between two. Ext.W17 is the settlement entered into by the Management of Tamil

Nadu Magnesite Ltd. with their Unions in respect of the period from 01.12.2010. The revised wage for Grade-V (this is

the lowest grade in the said establishment) is Rs. 4,800-10,000 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 1,300/-. For Grade-I which is

equal to Grade-V of the respondent establishment the scale is Rs. 5,200-20,200 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900/-. There is

a special grade also for the said establishment and the pay for this grade is higher. I do not say that the pay of the

workmen of the Respondent establishment should be equal to that of the workmen of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. Their

pay seems to have been fixed on par with that of the staff members and it was agreed to be revised based on the Pay

Commission report. At the same time, the workmen of an establishment who is doing the same kind of work should

have at least wages which is reasonable even if not on par with that of other establishment. Certain reasons given on

behalf of the Respondent for not giving wages on par with that of even Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. have to be accepted

for the reason that the Respondent is a private establishment, having not so much productivity as that of the other and

not having even quantity of production as that of the other. In fact the lower productivity which is to be attributed to the

workmen also is a reason for not granting so much increase. In spite of all these, as already stated, the workmen of the

Respondent establishment are to have wages with which they should be able to have a comfortable living.

49.

For granting increase, rather than considering each of the items specified in the Claim Statement, it would be

proper if some percentage of increase is from what is given as per Ext.M31 is given. An increase of Rs. 10% more from

that prevails as per Ext.W10 in Basic Wage, HRA and Washing Allowance will be reasonable in the circumstances.

Thus, apart from the increase given in Ext.M31 in this respect, an increase at the rate of 10% from what is provided as

per Ext.W10 should be added so that there will be reasonable increase in Basic Wage, HRA and Washing Allowance.

Rather than one increment after 15 years service as service weightage this increment shall be given after completion of

10 years. Thereafter, on completion of every 5 years one more increment shall be payable. Night Shift Allowance,

Leave Travel Allowance and Heat Allowance, Operational Allowance and Parade Allowance shall be the same as

given in Ext.M31. Education Allowance shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per year for children studying in ITI,

Diploma and Degree courses in recognized institutions and Rs. 2,000/- for any professional degree courses. Other

benefits granted as per Ext.W31 and all other existing benefits will prevail.

4192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the basis of the above discussion, awards are passed as below:

ID 83/2012

•

In addition to the increase given by Ext.M31, the workmen are entitled to increase at the rate of 10% of what is

provided by Ext.W10 in Basic Wage, HRA and Washing Allowance.

•

Service weightage shall be given at the rate of one increment to all workmen on completion of 10 years and one

increment thereafter on completion of every 5 years, (at the rate shown in Ext.M31).

•

Education Allowance shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- for children studying in ITI, Diploma and Degree in

recognized institutions and at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- for children studying in any Professional (4 years) Degree

Courses every year.

•

All other benefits granted as per Ext.M31 shall prevail. So also all other existing benefits also will prevail.

•

The workmen are bound to increase the productivity.

•

The benefits as per the Award shall be paid to the workmen within two months of the publication of the Award.

•

The amount already received by the workmen on the basis of Ext.M31 and other individual settlements shall be

adjusted towards the total amount due to the workmen.

ID 85/2012

•

The wage cut for 8 days implemented by the Respondent is reduced to wage cut for 2 days.

The references are 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

30^th June, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

WW1, Sri A. Thirumalai

WW2, Sri P. Vellaiyappan

WW3, Sri V. Baskar

WW4, Sri K. Sitheeswaran

WW5, Sri A.S. Ravichandran

WW6, Sri R. Elumalai

WW7, Sri C. Govindaraji

WW8, Sri T. Jeyavel

WW9, Sri A. Soundarajan

WW10, Sri E. Maharaja

WW11, Sri V.K. Nallamuthu

WW12, Sri M. Annamalai

WW13, Sri K. Saravanan

WW14, Sri S. Alagappan

WW15, Sri A. Mahalingam

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

MW1, Sri A. Paul Gurusamy

MW2, Sri P.G. Kalidass

MW3, Sri P. Periasami

MW4, Sri C. Noel

MW5, Sri M. Palanisamy

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4193

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

17.08.1987

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947.

Ext.W2

19.10.1990

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947.

Ext.W3

13.05.1995

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 123(3) of the ID Act, 1947.

Ext.W4

14.05.1995

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947 with the Respondent

Management .

Ext.W5

28.03.1998

Copy of Memorandum of Understanding arrived at by the Management of Tamil

Nadu Magnesite Ltd., with its workmen.

Ext.W6

28.03.1998

Copy of Memorandum of Understanding arrived at by the Respondent

Management with its workmen.

Ext.W7

31.03.1998

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Management of

Burn Standard Company Ltd. and Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. with their workmen.

Ext.W8

28.04.2004

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Respondent

Management with their unions .

Ext.W9

06.02.2007

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Respondent

Management with Petitioner and other Unions.

Ext.W10

14.02.2007

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Respondent

Management with Petitioner and other Unions

Ext.W11

06.06.2007

Copy of Settlement at u/s 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Management of Tamil

Nadu Magnesite Limited with their Unions.

Ext.W12

14.06.2007

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of ID Act, 1947 by the Management of

Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited with their Unions .

Ext.W13

02.08.2010

Copy of Notice of Strike given by the Petitioner and other Unions with annexure

containing charter of demands .

Ext.W14

01.09.2010

Copy of Notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central-I), Chennai

Ext.W15

16.10.2010

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Respondent

Management with the Petitioner and other Union.

Ext.W16

11.07.2011

Copy of Notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central-I), Chennai

Ext.W17

22.08.2011

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the ID Act by the Management of Tamil

Nadu Magnesite Limited with their Unions.

Ext.W18

11.01.2012

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Respondent

Management and the Petitioner and other Unions.

Ext.W19

05.04.2012

Copy of Show Cause Notice issued by the Respondent Management .

Ext.W20

23.04.2012

Copy of notice issued by the Petitioner .

Ext.W21

30.04.2012

Copy of notice issued by the Petitioner .

Ext.W22

30.04.2012

Copy of Joint Letter issued by the Petitioner and other Unions to the Respondent.

Ext.W23

02.05.2012

Copy of notice issued by the Respondent.

Ext.W24

05.05.2012

Copy of notice issued by the Petitioner and other unions to the Respondent .

Ext.W25

09.05.2012

Copy of Interim Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

Ext.W26

30.06.2012

Copy of notice issued by the Respondent.

Ext.W27

02.07.2012

Copy of Joint Letter given by the Petitioner and other Unions to the Respondent

Management .

4194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.W28

06.07.2012

Copy of notice issued by the Respondent.

Ext.W29

13.08.2012

Copy of Joint Letter sent by the Petitioner and CITU Union to the Respondent

Management.

Ext.W30

29.09.2012

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Management of

Sail Refractory Company Ltd. with its workmen.

Ext.W31

10.11.2012

Copy of circular issued by the Respondent.

Ext.W32

19.01.2013

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Respondent

Management with one of the workman by name T. Manickam.

Ext.W33

18.02.2013

Copy of letter from the workers to the Respondent Management.

Ext.W34

07.11.2013

Copy of the order issued by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of

India.

Ext.W35

02.08.2010

Copy of notice of strike given by Petitioner Union and other Unions with annexure

containing charter of demands.

Ext.W36

01.09.2010

Copy of notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central-I), Chennai.

Ext.W37

January 2015

Copy of Wage slip of M. Annamalai.

Ext.W38

March 2014

Copy of Wage slip of K. Saravanan.

Ext.W39

Feb. 2015

Copy of Wage Slip of K. Saravanan .

Ext.W40

17.05.2013

Copy of Second Annual Report 2012-2013 of Sail Refractory Company Ltd.

Ext.W41

14.10.2006

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Management of

Burn Standard Co. Ltd. with their Unions re: bonus for the year 2005-2006.

Ext.W42

29.10.2007

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947.

Ext.W43

July 2013

Copy of Wage Slip of G. Arumugam.

Ext.W44

08.10.2009

Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under Section-18(1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 between the Management of M/s Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Salem

Unit and Office Bearers of other Union over the demand of Bonus, Annual

Production Incentive, Ex-Gratia, recoverable Advance for the Accounting Year

2008-2009.

Ext.W45

Jan. 2009

Copy of Wage Slip of S. Alagappan.

Ext.W46

Jan. 2010

Copy of Wage Slip of S. Alagappan.

Ext.W47

Jan. 2011

Copy of Wage Slip of S. Alagappan.

Ext.W48

Jan. 2012

Copy of Wage Slip of S. Alagappan.

Ext.W49

Jan. 2013

Copy of Wage Slip of S. Alagappan.

Ext.W50

Jan. 2014

Copy of Wage Slip of S. Alagappan.

Ext.W51

Jan. 2015

Copy of Wage Slip of S. Alagappan.

Ext.W52

March 2015

Copy of Wage Slip of Mahalingam.

Ext.W53

18.09.2009

Copy of Balance Sheet of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. as on 31.03.2006.

Ext.W54

12.08.2010

Copy of Balance Sheet of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. as on 31.03.2000.

Ext.W55

31.08.2011

Copy of Balance Sheet of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. as on 31.03.2011 .

Ext.W56

06.09.2013

Copy of Balance Sheet of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd., as on 31.03.2013.

Ext.W57

26.10.2007

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Management of

Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited with their unions re: bonus for the year 2006-2007.

Ext.W58

12.10.2009

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 by the Management of

Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited with their Unions re: bonus for the year 2008-2009.

Ext.W59

02.08.2010

Copy of Strike Notice issued by the Petitioner and other Unions.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4195

Ext.W60

16.04.2014

Copy of Office Order issued to Sri A.S. Ravichandran, Junior Mechanic granting

two special increments.

Ext.W61

16.04.2014

Copy of Office Order issued to Sri M. Sekar, Junior Mechanic granting two special

increments.

Ext.W62

04.04.2011

Copy of temporary appointment order issued by the Respondent Management.

Ext.W63

28.10.2015

Copy of Settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947 between the

Management of Sail Refractory Co. Ltd., Salem and seven trade unions.

On the Management’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

08.09.2009

Police complaint given by the Superintendent of Mines of the Respondent.

Ext.M2

11.09.2009

Letter of regret and assurance of non-recurrence from the workers regarding

03.09.2009 gherao.

Ext.M3

Sept., 2009

Latest study by National Productivity Council on Productivity Norms – Extract.

Ext.M4

16.10.2010

18(1) Settlement entered into by the Respondent with LPF and INTUC Unions.

Ext.M5

10.01.2012

Clippings from the Tamil Newspaper “Kalaikathir”.

Ext.M6

11.01.2012

18(1) Settlement entered into by the Respondent with LPF, INTUC and CITU

Unions.

Ext.M7

04.04.2012

Letter issued by the Respondent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Ext.M8

05.04.2012

Clippings from the Tamil News paper daily “Dinakaran”.

Ext.M9

05.04.2012

Complaint lodged by the Staff and Executive members of the Respondent with the

Inspector of Police, Omalur.

Ext.M10

05.04.2012

Receipt issued by the Omalur Police Station acknowledging the receipt of the

complaint given.

Ext.M11

05.04.2012

Show Cause Notice issued by the Respondent.

Ext.M12

10.04.2012

Letter issued by the Magnesite Workers Progressive Union (LPF).

Ext.M13

23.04.2012

Notice issued by the Respondent .

Ext.M14

30.04.2012

Notice issued by the Respondent .

Ext.M15

30.04.2012

Joint Letter issued by the Magnesite National Labour Union (INTUC) and the

Salem District Magnesite Labour Union (CITU).

Ext.M16

02.05.2012

Notice issued by the Respondent .

Ext.M17

05.05.2012

Joint Letter issued by the Magnesite National Labour Union (INTUC) and the

Salem District Magnesite Labour Union (CITU).

Ext.M18

09.05.2012

Letter issued by the Respondent.

Ext.M19

09.05.2012

Copy of order of the High Court .

Ext.M20

11.05.2012

Letter from Sri V.K. Nallamuthu and Sri T. Udhayakumar advising the

management to make payment immediately.

Ext.M21

12.05.2012

Sri S. Vaidyanathan, Advocate letter advising the management to release payment.

Ext.M22

15.05.2012

The management notice regarding payment of the deducted amount.

Ext.M23

09.06.2012

Sri S. Vaidyanathan, Advocate’s letter.

Ext.M24

14.06.2012

Sri T. Poornam, Advocate’s reply to Sri S. Vaidyanathan, Advocate.

Ext.M25

30.06.2012

The Management notice informing its intention to deduct the amount repaid from

June 2012 wages.

Ext.M26

02.07.2012

Letter from Sri V.K. Nallamuthu and Sri T. Udhayakumar advising the

management not to deduct 8 days wages.

4196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M27

06.07.2012

The Management’s notice informing its intention not to deduct the amount from

June 2012 wages.

Ext.M28

Certified Standing Orders.

Ext.M29

Pamphlet issued by Magnesite Workers Progressive Union (LPF) on 16.06.2012.

Ext.M30

Pamphlet issued by Magnesite National Labour Union INTUC) & Salem District

Magnesite Union on 22.06.2012.

Ext.M31

08.01.2013

18 (1) Settlement dated 08.01.2013 entered into by the Respondent with Magnesite

Workers Progressive Union.

Ext.M32

10.03.2012

Price list of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited, Salem.

Ext.M33

22.11.2012

Price list of SAIL Refractories Company Ltd., Salem.

Ext.M34

05.11.2013

List of workers who have received the lumpsum amount in full and final settlement

of arrears of wages and allowances for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and who

have not received the same as on 05.11.2013.

Ext.W35

01.01.1991

Copy of temporary appointment order issued to A. Thirumalai.

Ext.W36

01.01.1992

Copy of probation order issued to A. Thirumalai.

Ext.W37

11.04.1997

Copy of Memo given to Sri Alagappan, the petitioner witness for building stack

with voids wherein his obligation to built 0.90 T/ms was specified.

Ext.W38

23.09.2009

Copy of Advisory Memo issued to A. Thirumalai.

Ext.W39

13.08.2010

Copy of caution notice issued to A. Thirumalai.

Ext.W40

01.06.2011

Copy of offer of the management .

Ext.W41

10.11.2012

Copy of circular.

Ext.W42

18.02.2013

Copy of letter from workers saying their willingness to receive the amount but

under control.

Ext.M43

21.02.2013

Copy of a specimen copy of agreement entered with one of the workers.

Ext.M44

25.08.2014

Copy of letter regarding submission of Memorandum of Settlements to ALC (C),

Chennai with a copy of acknowledgement.

Ext.M45

25.07.2015

Statement showing productivity achieved .

Ext.M47

Sept. 2011

Profit and Loss Account for the year ended 31.03.2011.

Ext.M48

21.09.2012

Profit and Loss Account for the year ended 31.03.2012.

Ext.M49

27.05.2013

Profit and Loss Account for the year ended 31.03.2013.

Ext.M50

28.10.2015

Financial impact as per revised demand of Magnesite National Labour Union.

Ext.M51

21.10.2015

Graph showing productivity by Departmental Workers.

Ext.M52

30.10.2015

copy of the Joint Memo dated 30.10.2015 signed before RLC (C), Chennai.

Ext.M53

02.11.2015

Lumpsum amount paysheet pertaining to the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1878-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 19@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11011@5@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4197

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 1878.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Airports Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

29.08.2016.

[No. L-11011/5/2014-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHENNAI

Monday, the 25th July, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 19/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Airports Authority of India

and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Airports Kamgar Union

Qtr No. B-140, Pocket-A

INA Colony,

New Delhi-110023

AND

The General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

M/s. Airports Authority of India

Southern Region

Chennai-600027

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

Sri C.K.M. Appaji, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-11011/5/2014-IR (M) dated

16.02.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of AAI, Chennai in connection with allowing the leaders of Airport

Authority Employees Union during the process of Transfer Committee and DPC is justifiable or not? If not, to

what relief the representative of the Petitioner Union is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 19/2015 and issued notices to both

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

respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement are as below:

There are three major Trade Unions operating in the Respondent establishment viz. Airport Authority

Employees Union (AAEU), Airport Authority of India Workers Union (AAIWU) and the Petitioner Union by name

Indian Airports Kamgar Union (IAKU). There is rivalry between the Petitioner Union and AAEU because of Trade

Union activities. The Management has been violating the laid down rules and its policies to victimize the leaders of the

Petitioner Union at the instance of the leaders of AAEU. The last election to elect the bargaining agent was held on

29.01.2013. The Petitioner Union secured 48.24% of the votes and AAEU obtained 49.77%. Even though, AAEU did

not secure simple majority, the Respondent Management had recognized the said Union. A Writ Petition filed against

4198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

this is pending before the Delhi High Court. On recognizing AAEU Union the Respondent in collusion with the said

Union has been doing things to harass and victimize the Office Bearers of the Petitioner Union. Many of the employees

belonging to the Petitioner Union have been illegally transferred. Promotions due to many of the members were denied

also. There is no valid transfer policy or promotion policy for the Respondent Management. Though, the Respondent is

to frame rules and regulations as per Sections-18(7), 42 and 43 of the AAI Act, this was not done. The Respondent has

formulated a transfer policy and recruitment and promotion rules without prior approval of the Central Government and

without gazette notification as required under the AAI Act. These have no sanction of law and are invalid. Transfers

and promotions are exclusive functions of the management of an organization, the Respondent has been associating the

Regional Secretary of the AAEU in Southern Region in the Annual Transfer Committee which makes

recommendations for annual transfers of employees. The Regional Secretary who has been so co-opted as a member of

the Annual Transfer Committee has been taking undue advantage of the position and has been favouring the members

of AAEU Union and victimizing the members of the Petitioner Union by unjustified transfers. Many of the seniors in a

Centre who are members of AAEU have been retained while the members of the Petitioner Union were illegally

transferred. As per the transfer policy, transfer has to be made on the basis of the seniority of the worker at the station

in the respective region. However, Maruthi Kumar, Venkataraman and Sarath Chinha were recommended for transfer

against this policy. As per the transfer policy, employees left with less than 5 years for retirement are exempted from

transfer. However, the transfer committee had recommended transfer of Ravi Kumar who has been Vice-President of

the Petitioner Union, though he was having less than 5 years of service before retirement. Venkataramana who was

transferred was a protected workman for the year 2012-2013 by order dated 09.12.2013. Though the employees had

requested the Management to cancel the illegal transfer orders it was not done. The victimization of the Office Bearers

and acting members of the Petitioner Union is with the intention to dilute the Petitioner Union and strengthen AAEU.

The Respondent is having the Office Bearers of AAEU in their Departmental Promotion Committee also. Members of

the Petitioner Union are denied promotion at the instance of the representative of AAEU who forms part of the

promotion committee. AAI Act does not permit participation of the Union in the administration. The Act of the

Respondent in associating the representatives of AAEU with the transfer and Departmental Promotion Committees is

arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. An award may be passed holding that the action of the Respondent in allowing the

leaders of the AAEU to be part of the Transfer Committee and Departmental Promotion Committee is illegal, arbitrary

and contrary to law and consequently directing the Respondent to withdraw the illegal transfers and also prohibiting it

from effecting such transfers in future.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The allegation that the Management is acting hand in glove with AAEU on various issues is not correct. The

Respondent was not partial towards the Petitioner Union at any point of time. The Petitioner is one of the strongest

Unions in the Respondent establishment and had contested various Union elections and had been declared as

recognized union. On those occasions the Management had given due regard to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had lost

the election held on 29.11.2013. The AAEU who secured highest number of votes in the election was declared as the

recognized Union subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in

between the Petitioner Union and other Unions. It is incorrect to state that the Respondent is harassing and victimizing

the Office Bearers and Members of the Petitioner Union in collusion with the AAEU, which is the recognized Union. It

is also incorrect to state that the Office Bearers and Members of the Petitioner Union have been illegally transferred.

The Departmental Promotional Committee is constituted only with the members recommended by Corporate

Headquarters. Promotions are granted as per recruitment and promotion guidelines issued by the Corporate

Headquarters. Union leader or representative of the Unions were not allowed to participate in the Departmental

Promotional Committees. As far as transfers are concerned, representative of the recognized Union was allowed to co-

opt / associate in the transfer committee based on letter from the Corporate Headquarter as it involved the interest of the

staff. The Regional Secretary of IAKU was also co-opted as a member of the transfer committee when they were

recognized. However, as per the Headquarter’s letter dated 23.05.2014 no union is involved in the Transfer

Recommendation Committee from 2014. The promotions and transfers in the Respondent establishment are made

strictly as per the laid down policies issued from time to time. It is incorrect to state that the Respondent transferred

members of the Petitioner Union in association with the Regional Secretary of AAEU. The employees named in the

Claim Statement posted at Hyderabad Airport were transferred based on their station seniority. Ravi Kumar who is due

for transfer was granted exemption on the ground of children education, based on the transfer policy. The facility of

transfer to home region or nearest station when in superannuation period will not apply to employees whose transfer

has been deferred on their own request for their personal reasons. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement denying the allegations in the Counter

Statement and reiterating the case in the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and Ext.W1 to Ext.W27 and Ext.M1 to

Ext.M12.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4199

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in allowing the representatives of AAEU during the process of

Transfer committee and Departmental Promotion Committee is justified?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the Petitioner Union is entitled?

The Points

Election to find out the bargaining agent in the Respondent establishment was held on 29.01.2013. AAEU

which secured 49.77% of the votes was declared the recognized union of the Respondent establishment. The Petitioner

Union which has obtained 48.24% votes had to remain outside the position of bargaining agent. A Writ Petition filed

before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court challenging the decision of the Respondent, recognizing AAEU as the bargaining

agent is said to be pending.

In the Claim Statement the petitioner has stated that the Respondent in association with the recognized union

had been victimizing the Office Bearers and Active Members of the Petitioner Union and had been favouring the

members of the recognized union. It is alleged by the Petitioner Union that the Respondent does not have validly

framed rules and regulations regarding the transfer policy and also promotion policy. It is alleged by the petitioner that

the Respondent has started the practice of co-opting the Regional Secretary of the AAEU, Southern Region, which is

the recognized Union as a member of the Transfer Committee and the Regional Secretary has been using this

opportunity to do favours to his own men and effect transfer of men of the Petitioner Union in an unreasonable manner.

According to the Petitioner Union administration of the establishment is the task of the Management only and the

recognized union could not be allowed to associate with it.

10.

One limb of the Schedule of reference is against allowing the representative of the recognized union to be a part

of the transfer committee. The Respondent has not denied the case of the Petitioner Union that the Regional secretary

of AAEU has been participating in the Annual Transfer Committee. According to the Respondent this was the practice

prevailing and the representative of the Petitioner Union also had been part of the Transfer Committee while it had

been the recognized Union. However, this is denied by the Petitioner. The Respondent has stated in the Counter

Statement that the practice of co-opting a member of the recognized Union to the Transfer Committee has been put to

an end as per the instruction from the Headquarters vide letter dated 23.05.2014. The case of the Respondent is that

after this there is no Union representative in the Transfer Committee. The Respondent has filed affidavit at the late

stage of trial stating that after the above instruction the Union is not permitted to participate in the Transfer Committee.

11.

So far as Departmental Promotion Committee is concerned also the Petitioner has got a case that representative

of the recognized Union is part of this also. However, this case is denied by the Respondent. WW1, the General

Secretary of the Petitioner Union has given evidence to the effect that the recognized Union was interfering in the

promotions also. The apprehension of the petitioner that there will be such interference in the future is natural. So it is

only proper that relief is granted to the petitioner against the recognized Union participating in the Transfer and

Promotion Committees.

12.

In the Claim Statement the petitioner has requested that the Respondent should be directed to withdraw the

illegal transfers and prohibit such transfers in future. This claim of the petitioner is to be rejected even for the reason

that this is not the subject-matter of Schedule of reference. The petitioner does not seem to have requested to cancel the

illegal transfers when the dispute was raised and that must be why it does not find a place in the Schedule of reference.

13.

Even otherwise the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed, it being so vague and general in nature. The

relief portion only states that the illegal transfers are to be withdrawn. It does not state which illegal transfers are to be

withdrawn. Merely because the representative of the recognized union was in the transfer committee all the transfers

effected by those committees could not be termed as illegal. Each and every case should be examined to find out if any

of the transfers were illegal. None of the transferees have approached this Tribunal stating that they were illegally

transferred.

14.

The petitioner has referred to a few persons in the Claim Statement alleging that they were illegally transferred.

However, it could be seen from the evidence that they were transferred for valid reasons. MW1, Assistant General

Manager, Human Resources examined on behalf of the Respondent has justified the transfers in his evidence. He has

stated in the evidence that Ravi Kumar referred to in the Claim Statement was granted exemption on the ground of

children’s education and it was after the period of exemption was over transfer was effected. WW1, the General

Secretary of the Petitioner Union has admitted during his cross-examination that Ravi Kumar was exempted from

transfer due to education of his child in 2010 and it was thereafter he was transferred in 2011. That being the case he

will not be eligible for exemption allowed to those to be retired within 5 years. Apart from this, as seen from the

evidence of MW1, Ravi Kumar was transferred back to Hyderabad Airport itself at his option subsequently. Regarding

Venkataramana, another transferee it is stated by MW1 that his request for retention at Vijayawada Airport was

4200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

considered and transfer was withheld for a period of six months and subsequently he was retained there itself after a

new recruitee joined Tiruchi. The Respondent has justified the transfer of Sharat Chinha stating that he was due to

transfer and nothing is brought out against this. There is a case for the petitioner that Venkataramana was a protected

workman for the year 2012-2013. However, the alleged transfer is for the period prior to that. There is no case for the

petitioner that he was a protected workman prior to 09.10.2013 on which date order was made to the effect that he is a

protected workman for the year 2012-2013. It is also claimed by the Petitioner that Gopal Reddy who was a Branch

Secretary of the Petitioner Union was transferred from Hyderabad to Hubli in spite of his being a protected workman.

However, this also is found false by the admission of WW1 as well as the related document. WW1 has admitted during

his cross-examination that none of the persons who were transferred will not come under the protected category.

Ext.W25 is the order dated 31.12.2013 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner declaring certain persons including

Gopal Reddy as protected workmen. Apparently, the transfer of Gopal Reddy was prior to this order. WW1 has

admitted that Gopal Reddy was exempted from transfer upto 2012 because of the education of his child and it was only

thereafter he was transferred. So also Satish Kumar, another workman referred to in the Claim Statement had got

exemption from transfer upto 31.03.2014 on medical grounds and it was only thereafter he was transferred. As stated,

none of the above persons who are said to have been are aggrieved by the transfer, had come before this Tribunal to

state that they are actually aggrieved. As could be seen from the documents produced by the petitioner they were

making representations on one or other grounds to exempt them from transfer. The representations seem to have been

considered and they were retained for a period. The evidence is not sufficient to establish that the transfers are the

result of victimization due to the presence of the representatives of the recognized Union in the transfer committee. As

stated, in any case, this is not a subject of the Schedule of reference.

15.

There is also a claim for the petitioner that the Respondent should be prohibited from effecting transfers

illegally in the future. The transfers are said to have been illegal only on account of presence of the representative of the

recognized Union in the transfer committee. Once this practice is stopped there is no such possibility in the future. In

any case transfers are expected to be legal and it is a matter for individual consideration whether a particular transfer is

illegal or improper. Such a blanket relief is not contemplated in the circumstances.

16.

In view of my discussion above, the petitioner is entitled to relief in the matter of reference. Accordingly, an

award is passed as below:

The Respondent is restrained from including the representatives of the recognized Union in the committees

constituted for transfer and promotion.

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 25^th July, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

WW1, Sri G. A. Rudrappa

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

MW1, Sri C. Thambi Thurai

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

31.03.1997

Letter of the Respondent enclosing the Office Order regarding terms and conditions

of service

Ext.W2

03.04.1997

Letter from Government of India to the Respondent to take action to prepare the

terms and conditions of service

Ext.W3

25.11.1999

Letter of the Respondent enclosing Transfer Policy

Ext.W4

25.10.2004

Letter of the Respondent amending/clarifying the transfer policy

Ext.W5

26.10.2004

Letter of the Respondent amending/clarifying the transfer policy

Ext.W6

2010

Combined transfer policy of the Respondent

Ext.W7

18.05.2010

Note Sheet of transfer committee recommending transfers

Ext.W8

19.05.2010

Order of transfer based on the transfer committee

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4201

Ext.W9

26.05.2010

Request made by one of the employee for change of place of transfer

Ext.W10

27.05.2010

Representation made by one of the employee to review the order of transfer

Ext.W11

14.06.2010

Representation made by one of the employee to cancel the order of transfer on

medical grounds of his mother

Ext.W12

15.06.2010

Representation given by one of the employee for retaining at Begumpet, Hyderabad

Ext.W13

24.06.2010

Representation given by one of the employee for retention at Hyderabad

Ext.W14

06.09.2010

Representation made by one of the employee for retention at Begumpet, Hyderabad

Ext.W15

22.06.2011

Note Sheet of transfer committee recommending transfers alongwith seniority list

Ext.W16

23.06.2011

Order of transfer based on the transfer committee

Ext.W17

25.05.2012

Note Sheet of transfer committee recommending transfers alongwith seniority list

Ext.W18

30.05.2012

Order of transfer based on the transfer policy

Ext.W19

15.02.2013

Order of the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi in C.M. No. 1759/2013 in W.P. (C)

No. 754/2013

Ext.W20

13.03.2013

Order of the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi in C.M. No. 1759/2013 in W.P. (C)

No. 754/2013

Ext.W21

03.05.2013

Transfer Order by the Respondent

Ext.W22

14.05.2013

Representation made by one of the employee for retention at Hyderabad

Ext.W23

19.06.2013

Order of transfer issued by the Respondent

Ext.W24

07.10.2013

Order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central declaring the

protected workman

Ext.W25

31.12.2013

Order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central declaring the

protected workman

Ext.W26

22.09.2014

Order of transfer issued by the Respondent

Ext.W27

27.05.2015

Order of transfer issued by the Respondent

On the Respondent’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

16.02.2016

Letter of Authorization

Ext.M2

11.02.1992

Letter of Executive Director

Ext.M3

12.07.1994

Letter of the Director Personnel

Ext.M4

30.03.1995

Recognition of Union

Ext.M5

26.05.1997

Note Sheet

Ext.M6

08.02.2013

Grant of recognition to the Union

Ext.M7

25.02.2013

Grant of recognition to the Union

Ext.M8

12.08.1999

Corporate Head Quarters Letter

Ext.M9

27.11.2002

Corporate Head Quarters Letter

Ext.M10

23.05.2014

Policy for creation of Transfer Committee

Ext.M11

25.11.1999

Transfer Policy of AAI

Ext.M12

22.05.2015

Inter Office Note

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1879-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bf.M;u js;j vFkZ fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

4202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,jukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29011@26@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 1879.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 29.08.2016.

[No. L-29011/26/2008-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. K. Sasidharan , B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 23^rd day of June, 2016/02^nd Ashadha, 1938)

ID 25/2010

Unions/Workman

1. Shri B Baiju

General Secretary

IRE Mining Civil Workers Congress(INTUC)

Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal

Post Karunagappally

2. Shri G P Sanil

General Secretary

IRE Mining Area Constructions& General Workers

Union (AITUC), Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal

Post Karunagappally

3. Shri K Sarish

General Secretary

IRE Mining Workers Union

Block IV Mining

Vellanthuruthu, Cheriazheekkal PO

Karunagappally, Kollam -690573

4. Shri Subhajan V

Convener

IRE Civil Forum Workers Union(BMS)

Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal

Post Karunagappally

5. Shri K Vijayalal

Secretary

Karunagappally Taluk General Workers Union (UTUC),

Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal

Post Karunagappally

6. Shri Rajesh

General Secretary

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4203

IRE Mining and Loading Workers Union

Block IV Mining

Vellanthuruthu, Cheriazheekkal PO

Kollam -690573 Karunagappally

7. Shri Solomon Netto

Secretary, IRE Civil Workers Union(CITU)

Vellanthuruthu

Cheriazheekkal

Post Karunagappally

8. Shri Brijith. B. A. Thekke Thuppasseril

Vellanthuruth, Cheriazheekkal PO

Karunagappally, Kollam – 690573.

By Adv. Shri Ashok B. Shenoy (for Union

Nos.1 to 7 and Workman at Sl. No.8)

Managements

1. The Head

Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,

Chavara PO

Distt. Kollam (Kerala) – 691583

By M/s.Menon & Pai

2. The President

M/s.IRE Mining Area Civil Contract Workers

Welfare Forum

C/o IRE Ltd., Chavara

Kollam, Chavara (Kerala) – 691583

3. The Secretary

M/s.RE Mining Area Civil Contract Workers Welfare Forum

C/o IRE Ltd., Chavara, Kollam

Chavara (Kerala) – 691583

By Advs. Shri Paulson C Varghese &

Shri Baby Joseph (for 2^nd & 3^rd managements)

This case coming up for final hearing on 20.05.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 23.06.2016

passed the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Central Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication as per

Order No.L-29011/26/2008-IR(M) dated 13.08.2010. Subsequently as per the judgment in WP(C) No.31399/2010(Y)

dated 08.11.2010, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam directed the Union of India to rectify the mistakes in

the reference order and issue amended notification. Subsequently Corrigendum dated 11/19.05.2011 was issued in

accordance with the directions in the judgment in the Writ Petition. Accordingly the dispute referred for adjudication

is:

“Whether the demand of the five Trade Unions functioning in the establishment for regularization of 170

mineral loading workers (List attached) in the mines of Indian Rare Earths Ltd. is legal and justified? If so,

what relief the workers concerned are entitled to and from which date?”

Subsequently as per Corrigendum dated 25.06.2013 the Ministry of Labour & Employment made some

modification in the Corrigendum dated 11/19.05.2011.

In this reference there are three parties in the array of the management and 8 parties in the array of

unions/workman.

The General Secretary of union No.3 filed claim statement contending as follows:

The 170 workmen involved in this reference are employed under the first management – Indian Rare Earths

Ltd. as mineral loading workers in “Mycaud” category in the mines in Block-IV of Chavara deposit, which is forming

part of Vellanthuruthu Ward of Alappad Grama Panchayat and Ponmana ward of Panmana Grama Panchayat. The first

4204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management employed 170 workmen for the loading of raw sand mined and collected from the mines aforesaid into the

lorries for transportation to the plant of the first management situated at Chavara for processing.

The workmen involved in this reference are employed by the first management ever since 1999 in accordance

with the terms of the agreement entered into between the first management and the trade unions wherein the workmen

involved are members. Agreement was so entered into with the intervention of the Government officials. The first

management provided employment to the workmen involved in this reference on the specific understanding that they

will be given preference for employment in the vacancies that may arise under the first management. Ever since the

date of employment in the year 1999 the workmen involved are continuously and regularly employed under the

management. While continuing such employment many of the workers were either retired or transferred or shifted to

the plant of the first management at Chavara. The work involved is of perennial nature and it is essential and

absolutely necessary for the sustenance of the activities and operations of the first management. The workmen are

continuously and uninterruptedly employed under the first management for more than 12 years. The first management

has not so far regularized the workmen involved in this reference. The first management deprived the workmen

all the wages legally due to them and the benefits payable under various labour enactments.

The first management created the second management forum/organization to make it appear that the workman

involved are contract workers under the second management and thereby to deprive them all the legitimate dues and

benefits payable to them under various labour enactments.

The second management forum/organization is a sham and non-existent organization created by the first

management with the sole intention to defraud the workmen and to deny the benefit legally due to them under one

pretext or other. The workmen involved in this reference are employed by the first management, the salary due to them

is paid by the first management, the control, supervision and management of the workmen involved are done by the

first management. As per the terms and conditions in the agreement entered into between the unions on the one hand

and the first management on the other, the latter is bound to regularize the workmen as their permanent employees.

The action of the first management in not regularizing the workmen amounts to unfair labour practice, which is

prohibited under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The workmen involved have no other source of livelihood except the income derived from the employment

under the first management. Therefore union No.3 has requested to uphold their demands and claims; to regularize the

employment of 170 workmen under the first management and to declare that they are entitled to all benefits payable to

permanent workmen, with effect from the date of filing the charter of demand and grant all other benefits payable to

permanent workmen.

Union Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 filed a statement adopting the contentions in the claim statement filed by union

No.3. Party No.8 also filed statement adopting the contentions in the claim statement filed by the 3^rd union.

10.

The contentions in the written statement filed by the first management in brief are as follows:

The first management has denied all the averments in the claim statement filed by union No.3 except those

that are specifically admitted. The persons involved in this reference are members of Indian Rare Earths Mining Area

Civil Contract Workers Welfare Forum, which is a charitable society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary

Scientific and Charitable Societies (Registration) Act, 1955. They are not workmen under the first management. There

is no master and servant relationship between the first management on the one hand and the 170 workmen involved in

this reference on the other. The workmen involved in this reference will not come under the purview of Section 2(s) of

the Industrial Disputes Act and the claim put forward by them will not constitute a dispute as defined under Section

2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

11.

Being the members of the Forum, the workmen involved are governed by the byelaws of the Forum. The

trade unions and the workmen arrayed in this reference have no right to raise an industrial dispute and claim

regularization under the first management. The workmen involved are brought by the terms and conditions in the

periodical settlements entered into between the Forum, management and the unions.

12.

The first management is a Government of India undertaking, under the administrative control of the

Department of Atomic Energy. The first management has no right to make any appointments in violation of the

provisions of the Constitution of India and the administrative guidelines issued by the Union of India from time to time.

The permanent appointments under the first management are made against the vacancy, notified under the provisions of

the Employment Exchange (compulsory notification of vacancies and as well as by advertisement in the media as per

the requirements). Apart from this the first management is bound to follow the reservation policy of the Union of

India. Since the workmen involved in this reference were never employed by the first management, they cannot seek

regularization in service under the first management. The first management has requested to consider the validity of

the reference as a preliminary point.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4205

13.

The first management is engaged in the mining and separation of minerals from the beach sand available in the

coastal areas between Neendakara and Kayamkulam. The first management commenced the production in the year

1970. As part of production activities the first management is doing mining work at Vellanthuruthu Ward and

Ponmana Ward. While so the people residing in that area raised several demands including employment under the first

management. They began to obstruct the operations carried out by the first management which lead to law and order

problem causing inconvenience to the first management. In the year 1992 the revenue authorities intervened in the

matter and after detailed discussions and considering the representations of the local people an understanding was

arrived at on 26.08.1993. As per that understanding it was decided to prepare a list of 50 persons from the locality for

engaging them in construction works under the first management. It was further agreed that those persons will be given

preference in the future vacancies under the first management. In pursuance of which the Welfare Forum was

constituted in the year 1997, which is governed by the provisions of its byelaws. The Welfare Forum is managed by

the governing body consisting of the representatives of IREL management and representatives of the trade unions. The

service conditions of the members of Welfare Forum are regulated in accordance with the stipulations in the long term

settlements between the Forum management and the unions who raised this dispute. The settlements were made on

05.04.2008, 03.11.2010 and 12.11.2010. Initially there were 55 members in the Forum nominated by CITU, INTUC,

AITUC and UTUC unions. Later the strength of the members was increased to 69.

14.

During the year 1999-2000 a new mining site was opened at Ponmana. While so the local residents raised

objections and demanded employment. As a result the revenue authorities decided and necessitated to enroll 180

persons from Ponmana also as members of the Forum. The unions have accepted and approved the creation of Welfare

Forum and during conciliation they agreed that no one will raise any claim for employment under the first management

company.

15.

At present the first management is having more than the strength of the manpower required for its operations.

They are not in a position to provide employment to the dependents of the employees on compassionate grounds. The

workmen involved in this reference were nominated by various trade unions and political parties. The contention of the

union that the second management is a sham and nonexistent organization created with intent to defraud the

workmen and deny them their benefit in accordance with the various labour enactments, is absolutely false. The first

management has not committed any unfair labour practice under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The

members of the Forum – the workmen involved are getting wages from the second management. Their service

conditions are governed by the settlements entered into between the Forums and unions periodically. Therefore the

first management has requested to uphold their contentions and disallow the claim of the workman.

16.

Management Nos.2 and 3 filed written statement contending as follows:-

They have denied all the averments in the claim statement filed by the third union except those that are

specifically admitted. The parties on whose behalf the Industrial Dispute is espoused are members of the 2^nd & 3^rd

management, which is a charitable society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable

Societies(Registration) Act, 1955. They are governed by the byelaws of the Forum and bound by its terms and

conditions. The trade unions at whose instance the dispute is raised have no right to claim regularization of the

workmen under the first management. The persons involved in this reference are bound to follow the terms and

conditions in the periodical settlements entered into between the Forum and the unions.

17.

The management is a Government of India undertaking under the administrative control of the Department of

Atomic Energy. It is having two units in Kerala, one at Chavara in Kollam District and the other at Udyogamandal in

Ernakulam District. The first management started production in the year 1970.As part of the production work the first

management is doing mining work at Vellanthuruthu Ward of Alappad Panchayath and Ponmana Ward of Panmana

Panchayath. While so local people raised several demands including employment under the first management. The

first management was not in a position to consider the demand for employment from the local people as there was

sufficient manpower to do the company’s work. The local people began to obstruct the operations of the first

management which led to law and order situation causing hardship and inconvenience to the first management. In the

year 1993 the revenue authorities intervened and after detailed discussion with the representatives of local people an

understanding was arrived at on 26.08.1993. As per the understanding a list of 50 persons from the locality was to be

prepared and they have to be engaged for the construction works under the first management. It was further agreed that

those persons will be given preference in future vacancies under the first management. In pursuance of the above, the

Welfare Forum was formed in the year 1997, under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific

Charitable Societies(Registration) Act, 1955. The Welfare Forum is managed by a governing body consisting of the

representatives of IREL management and the representatives of the trade unions. This arrangement was made for the

welfare and well being of workers who are engaged for civil miscellaneous works. At the time of formation of the

Forum there were 55 members nominated by the CITU, INTUC, AITUC and UTUC unions. In fact the first

management never required the services of these 55 persons. The unions who participated in the discussion convinced

and accepted creation of welfare forum and agreed not to raise any claim for employment under the first management

4206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

company. The intention of the parties who attended the discussions before the District Collector on 26.08.1993 was to

resolve the issue and to avoid any law and order problems.

18.

Subsequently a similar situation arose and at the intervention of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam 14

more persons were enrolled as member of the Forum. During the year 1999-2000, a new mining site was opened at

Ponmana. At that time there was claim by the local people for employment which turned out to agitations and it caused

difficulty for the management to proceed with the mining activities smoothly. At that time the revenue authorities

intervened and it was necessitated to enroll 170 persons from Ponmana area as members of the Forum.

19.

The contention of the union that the persons involved in this reference are employed by the first management

in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 26.08.1993, is incorrect. It is incorrect to say that these persons

were selected by the first management. The workmen involved in this reference were never employed under the first

management. The contention of the union that the Forum is a sham and nominal one, is false and incorrect. The

Forum is governed by its byelaws and Rules & Regulations. The unions are not entitled to any of the relief as per the

claim statement.

20.

An identical issue has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal and an award is passed in ID 158/2006

rejecting the claim for regularization by the unions. Therefore, management Nos.2 and 3 have requested to uphold

their contentions and disallow the claim put forward by the unions.

21.

After filing written statement by management Nos.1 to 3, union No.3 filed replication reiterating the

contentions in the claim statement. Union No.3 has stated that as per the Award in ID 158/2006 this Tribunal found

that the workmen involved therein are workmen under the first management. Further this Tribunal directed the first

management to consider whether they can be regularized by invoking the observations in the decision of the Apex

Court in Umadevi’s case.

22.

After affording sufficient opportunity to the parties to take steps and produce documents, the matter was

posted for evidence. On behalf of the union WW1 was examined and Exts.W1 to W17 are the documents marked. On

behalf of the management MW1 and MW2 were examined. Exts.M1 to M11 are the documents marked on their

behalf. Heard both sides.

23.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the 170 employees involved in this reference are Employees under the 2^nd

and 3^rd management Forum?

(ii)

Whether the 170 workmen involved in this reference are employed by the first

management?

(iii)

Whether the workmen involved in this reference are entitled for regularization of

their service in the mines of the first management?

(iv)

What relief the workmen are entitled and from which date?”

24.

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):- As per the Corrigendum dated 11/19.05.2011 issued by the Ministry of Labour, the

dispute referred for adjudication by this Tribunal is:

“Whether the demand of the five Trade Unions functioning in the establishment for regularization of 170

mineral loading workers (List attached) in the mines of Indian Rare Earths Ltd. is legal and justified? If

so, what relief the workers concerned are entitled to and from which date?”

25.

The first management is a Government of India undertaking under the administrative control of the

Department of Atomic Energy. The first management is having two units in the State of Kerala one at Chavara in

Kollam District and another at Udyogamandal at Ernakulam District. The first management is engaged in mining and

separation of minerals from the beach sand available in the coastal areas between Neendakara and Kayamkulam. The

first management started production in the year 1970. As part of the production activities the first management is doing

mining work at Vellananthuruthu Ward of Alappad Panchayath and Ponmana Ward of Panmana Panchayath. While so

the local people in and around that area raised demands including employment under the first management. It is stated

that the first management was not in a position to consider or accept the demand for employment from the local people.

Subsequently law and order situation arose and the revenue authorities intervened in the matter. It is stated that after

detailed discussion with the representatives of the local people an understanding was arrived at and on the basis of

which a settlement was entered into on 26.08.1993. Subsequently a Welfare Forum was formed in the year 1997 as

agreed between the parties and the terms and conditions of employment are in accordance with the byelaws of the

Forum. It is stated that there was settlements on 05.04.2008, 03.11.2010 and 12.11.2010 and the persons involved are

governed by the terms and conditions of the settlements.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4207

26.

The management has stated that during the year 1999-2000, a new mining site was opened at Ponmana and at

that time the local people raised the claim for employment. At the intervention of the revenue authorities 180 persons

were enrolled from Ponmana area as members of the Forum. The first management has stated that the workmen

involved were not directly employed by them for the mining work. It is stated that as per the terms of settlement, the

Forum is disbursing wages and other emoluments to the workers and that the workers are governed by the byelaw of

the Forum. The first management has denied the employer-employee relationship between them on the one hand and

the workmen involved herein on the other. According to the first management they never employed the workmen

involved directly for the various activities as stated in the claim statement.

27.

The third union has disputed the claim of the first management. According to the third union the workmen

involved were directly employed by the first management and that they are entitled for regularization of service under

first management. Union No.3 has further stated that management Nos.2 and 3 are formed as a sham and nominal

entity; created with intent to deny the workmen their legitimate right for regularization of service under the first

management. It is stated that the workmen involved are entitled to be regularized in service in the first management

with all service benefits.

28.

While examined as WW1, the General Secretary of union No.3 has stated that he is not a member of the

second management Forum. He has stated that the other workmen involved in this reference are also not members of

the second management Forum. WW1 has admitted that Ext.W13 is copy of the Award passed in relation to the

workmen who are similarly placed. WW1 has stated that there is no document to prove that IREL has issued an order

appointing him as a workman under them. He has stated that there is no document to prove that the first management

is paying salary to him. WW1 has stated that Ext.W6 is the document issued to the member No.53. WW1 has further

stated that he received a card of similar type in which his number is written as 167. WW1 has denied the suggestion

that it was the second management who is paying their wages.

29.

While examined as MW1, the Senior Manager, MIS, IRE Ltd. has stated that he is employed under the first

management. He has stated that the service conditions and the payment of salary and other aspects relating to the

mining workers are handled by the HR department. He has further stated that he was not directly involved in any of the

matters relating to the workmen involved in this reference. MW1 has stated that the office bearers of the Forum are

the officials working in the first management. MW1 has stated that the administrative control and management of the

Forum are done by the Director Board. He has further stated that the members of the Director Board are elected by the

General Body. He has stated that he had no knowledge as to how many workmen are working in the mines of the first

management. MW1 has stated that manpower assessment and employees’ strength are decided by the HR department

of the first management. MW1 has further stated that the salary for the workmen involved in this reference is paid

through bank. He has stated that he has no knowledge as to whether there was any agreement entered into between the

first management and the second management. MW1 has denied the suggestion that the second management is a sham

and a nominal entity.

30.

While examined as MW2, the Senior Officer, HRO of the first management has stated that he is working

under the first management. He has stated that there are no other office bearers for the second management. MW2 has

stated that the second management has no registration or license under the Contract Labour Regulation. He has denied

the suggestion that Ext.M1 document was created at the instance of the first management. MW2 has stated that the five

persons signed as representatives of the Forum management are employees under the first management. MW2 has

denied the suggestion that the second management is only a nominal entity created by the first management.

31.

On going through the documents produced on either side and the oral evidence adduced in this case, it can be

seen that the second and third management Forum were constituted by the first management so as to enable the smooth

functioning of the first management company. In Ext.W13 award there is a finding to the effect that the workmen

involved in that case are casual workers under the first management. The evidence adduced in this case also

probabilises the fact that the workmen involved in this reference also are casual labourers under the first management.

In Ext.W13 this Tribunal has observed that in view of the judgment in Umadevi’s case the possibility for providing

employment to the workmen has to be explored in the light of the observations in that judgment. Admittedly the

workmen involved are casual labourers engaged temporarily for the loading and unloading of sand – which is the raw

material required for the functioning of the first management company. The first management company is an

establishment under the administrative control of the Depart of Atomic Energy. The workmen involved herein cannot

claim any legal right to regularize their service under the first management especially for the reason that they were

engaged as casual labourers for the civil contract work, without following the due procedure for appointment. In such

circumstance their claim for permanency cannot be upheld in the eye of law. Therefore, the points for consideration

are answered against the union.

32.

Point Nos.(iii) & (iv):- In view of the finding on point Nos.(i) & (ii) the workmen involved are not entitled to

the relief as per the reference order. Points are answered accordingly.

4208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

33.

In the result an award is passed holding that the workmen involved in this reference are not entitled to any of

the relief as per the reference order.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the

23^rd day of June, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the 3^rd union

WW1

Shri K. Sarish

11.08.2014

Witness for the first management

MW1

Shri K. Sunil Kumar

20.10.2014

Witness for the second and third managements

MW2

Shri Sunil Sebastian

15.01.2014

Exhibits for the union No.3

Reference for Hospitalisation/Consultation form bearing Case file No.266/M-258/AMH/DGM/14

dated 29.04.2014 issued by the General Manager(Medical), IRE Loading, Civil, Mining Area,

Ponmana to the Medical Officer, AM Hospital, Karunagappally.

Reference for Hospitalisation/Consultation form bearing Case file No.265/M-272/P/DGM/14 dated

29.04.2014 issued by the General Manager(Medical), IRE Loading, Civil, Mining Area, Ponmana to

the Medical Officer, Pearl Hospital, Karunagappally.

Enquiry Notice No.001285 dated 02.07.2013 issued by the Enquiry Officer, SM(Resources), Indian

Rare Earths Limited, Chavara to Shri R. Rajesh, member No.272.

Authorisation letter No.CH/MNG/VT/DGMS dated 23.04.2014 issued by the Mines Manager,

Vellanathuruthu Ilmenite Mine, Indian Rare Earths Limited, Chavara to Shri N. Sygal, member

No.220.

Authorisation letter No.CH/MNG/VT/DGMS dated 23.04.2014 issued by the Mines Manager,

Vellanathuruthu Ilmenite Mine, Indian Rare Earths Limited, Chavara to Shri N. Sygal, member

No.220.

Authorisation letter No.CH/INMIN/VT/01 dated 16.11.2013 issued by the Mines Manager,

Vellanathuruthu Ilmenite Mine, Indian Rare Earths Limited, Chavara to Shri T. Sunil Raj, member

No.53.

Letter No.MACCWWF/2009 dated 27.06.2009 issued by the Head of the first management to Shri D.

Jayapalan, President, JTUC, Ponmana, Chavara.

Letter No.CH/HRM/VT Mining/2011 dated 17.11.2011 issued by the Chief General Manager of the

first management to Shri D. Jayapalan, President, JTUC, Ponmana, Chavara.

Letter No.MACCWWF/2009 dated 23.06.2009 issued by the Head of the first management to Shri D.

Jayapalan, President, JTUC, Ponmana, Chavara.

W10

NOTICE bearing No.CH/HRM/Mining Forum/2012 dated 26.07.2012 issued by the Head of the first

management to Shri C. Syam Sunder, President, IRE Mining & Loading Workers Union(STU),

Vellanathuruthu.

W11

Letter No.CH/HRM/Mining/2011 dated 12.10.2011 issued by the Head of the first management to

Shri D. Jayapalan, President, JTUC, Ponmana P.O., Chavara.

W12

NOTICE bearing No.CH/HRM/TRG/2010 dated 28.07.2010 issued by the Senior Manager(HRM) of

the first management.

W13

True copy of Award in ID 158/2006 dated 04.06.2010 passed by the Central Govt. Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4209

W14

Copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 06.12.2011 in the presence of the Hon’ble Chief Minister

and Hon’ble Union Minister of State for Industries and Labour by the first management.

W15

True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 02.07.2013 at Kollam Collectorate Conference Hall

before the District Collector between the first management and the representatives of different Trade

Unions.

W16

True copy of the letter No.8/(IRE/Chavara-(VIP)/2012/B.1 dated 23.01.2014 issued by the Regional

Labour Commissioner(Central), Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central), Cochin to the

General Secretary, IRE Mining & Loading Workers Union, Vellanathuruth, Cheriazheekal PO.,

Karunagappally – 690573.

W17

True copy of the letter No.CH/HRM/IR/ALC/2014 dated 24.01.2014 issued to the Asst. Labour

Commissioner (Central), Ramanilayam, T.C. No.25/3453, Uppalam Road, Thiruvananthapuram –

695001 by the first management.

Exhibits for the first management

True copy of the Byelaws of the IRE Mining Area Civil Contract Workers Welfare Forum.

True copy of the settlement dated 12.11.2010 arrived at between the Forum management and

representatives of different Trade Unions representing the members of the Forum under Section 12(3)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 26.08.1993 before the District Collector, Kollam.

True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 23.07.1999 between the members of the IRE Mining

Area Civil Contract Workers Welfare Forum and the representatives of Trade Unions in the Forum.

True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 15.09.1999 with the members of Shree Sugunanda

Vilasom Karayogam by the first management.

True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 02.03.2000 convened by RDO, Kollam with the

representatives of the trade unions and the first management.

True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 19.08.2000 convened by the first management.

True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 13.11.2000 between the representatives of the first

management, representatives of the civil contract workers and the raw sand loading/transporting

contractor

True copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 15.01.2002 convened by Shri K. Rajendran Nair,

President.

Exhibits for the Second Management

M10

True copy of the Byelaws of the IRE Mining Area Civil Contract Workers Welfare Forum.

M11

True copy of the settlement dated 12.11.2010 arrived at between the Forum management and

representatives of different Trade Unions representing the members of the Forum under Section 12(3)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

IRE MINING AREA CIVIL CONTRACT WORKERS WELFARE

FORUM (Jr. Members) PONMANA MINING SITE

Sl. No.

Member No.

Member Name

230

Shyam Kumar S

118

Jawaharlal S

261

Manesh Mohan

269

Sajith R

284

Shaiju J

291

Harish B

155

Manoj V

163

Sunil Kumar B

116

Brijith B A

124

Rajesh R

4210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

140

Prem Kumar T P

144

Pramod O

146

Ratheesh R

154

Sunil S

156

Thushar Kapoor

161

Jayan J

187

Syam A

202

Sajith Reni.G

214

Biju G

236

Santhosh R

259

Rethnadas R

274

Ullas R

134

Thrithilal P

145

Shiji A

211

Bineesh D

223

Sanil Kumar

227

Liju S

283

Binu V

126

Shaji S

137

Subhash K

147

Nishanth B

216

Rajesh R

225

Sunil R

241

Ullas Raj B

268

Pramod T

279

Anil Kumar C

282

Ajith C

190

Santhosh S

204

Sreekumar G

272

Rajesh R

276

Binu V

280

Sreelal C

115

Maneesh R

135

Sabu S

175

Biju C

193

Rajesh R

200

Anil Kumar K

231

Vinod V

271

Santhosh C

287

Amritharaj V

289

Biju K

127

Suresh S

158

Praveen K

166

Lali S

171

Manilal P

189

Sajesh Kumar S

203

Shibu C

278

Manas I

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4211

153

Anil A

167

Sarish K

178

Subhash S

201

Anil R

205

Prasad V

222

Raju A

246

Santhosh Kumar S

251

Sudheesh Kumar S

258

Vinod.J

263

Ambilikuttan G

290

Omanadas R

128

Ajayakumar T

138

Hareendra Sarma P

152

Yogidas G

199

Sasi Kumar S

215

Pushparajan P

224

Bensilal R

235

Satheesh S

237

Sunil S

266

Sanu T

123

Manikuttan K

141

Santhosh T V

160

Murukan D

164

Biju T

188

Sunil Kumar J

212

Shaji S

233

Vinaya Kumar R

245

Anil Kumar A

262

Biju D

132

Viswanand V

191

Suresh K

197

Sreelal D

220

Sygal N

253

Raji Vishnudas

129

Sabu T

151

Babu B

194

Jayapalan D

255

Saji C

121

Subhaprasad D

133

Rajesh B

168

Suresh S

100

256

Sudhi S

101

120

Manilal P

102

122

Saji Kumar S

103

169

Dinajan G

104

226

Krishnanlal B

105

250

Sebastian G

4212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

106

157

Sarasan P

107

177

Subhashchandran K

108

183

Sathyarajan D

109

195

Sasi Kumar D

110

206

Vigendran B

111

207

Omanakuttan B

112

229

Anil Kumar.S

113

249

Anrudhan A

114

254

Suresh Kumar S

115

257

Omanadas K

116

270

Sisupalan B

117

288

Leela Krishnan.C

118

119

Viswanadhan.T

119

172

Sajeev D

120

184

Ramesan K

121

213

Satheesan G

122

217

Chithan S

123

148

Chithrasagar L

124

149

Manikuttan K

125

181

Thulaseedharan V

126

186

Vijayan V

127

208

Rajoo S

128

210

Rajendran P

129

228

Mohanadas B

130

232

Soori D

131

Moni G

132

218

Chandrabhanu V

133

264

Madhu T

134

117

Rajendran P

135

130

Soman K

136

159

Chithiran G

137

260

Unnikrishnan V

138

267

Prasanna Kumar V

139

142

Shaji E

140

143

Rajeevan B

141

150

Mohanadas B

142

179

Babu P

143

281

Rajeevan S

144

242

Dinakaran B

145

244

Satheesan N

146

139

Sukesan G

147

176

Radhakrishnan K

148

238

Asokan S

149

174

Prasannan G

150

247

Dineesan A

151

196

Sivanandan V

152

180

Vinayachandran A

153

198

Prakasan B

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4213

154

209

Vivekanandan.K

155

219

Jayasooriyan N

156

239

Rengan K

157

240

Ravi A

158

252

Peethambaran K

159

277

Devarajan S

160

162

Muraleedharan K

161

192

Asokan D

162

273

Raju E

163

170

Sarathchandran S

164

173

Vasudevan A

165

243

Rajagopalan S

166

248

Gopalakrishnan V

167

165

J Jagadeesh

168

182

C Manu

169

185

NAjay Kumar

170

265

S Vijayan

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1880-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ukseqnhu vk;ju vksj ekbZUl 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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 71@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&26012@2@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 1880.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Noamundi Iron Ore Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

29.08.2016.

[No. L-26012/2/2000-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

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

REFERENCE NO. 71 OF 2000

PARTIES

The Asstt. Secretary,

Noamundi Mazdoor Union,

P.O. Noamundi Bazar

Distt: Singhbhum (W) (Jharkhand)

Vs.

4214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Manager,

Noamundi Iron Ore Mines,

P.O. Noamundi Bazar,

Distt: Singhbhum (W) (Jharkhand).

Order No. L-26012/2/2000-IR(M) dt. 12.07.2000

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

None

On behalf of the Management

Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld.Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Mines

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20^th June, 2016.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-26012/2/2000-IR (M) dt. 12.07.2000.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Noamundi Iron Ore Mine in denying employment on

compassionate ground to the dependant son of Shri Nageshwar Tiriya is justified? If not, to what relief his son

Shri Mukhesh Tiriya is entitled?”

Neither the workman not the Representative of the workman appeared on date nor did even produce long

awaited workman-witness to move further in the matter of hearings despite giving the last chance. A through glance

over the file reveals the adjournments on several occasional on the issue of evidence of the workman. Though more

than three Notices had been sent to the Union on its address referred in the Order of Reference itself apart from one

Show Cause Notice but to no avail. Whereas as against it, the O.P./Management side Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

shows his presence not for this time but almost all along since inception. The case is related to employment of the

workman on compassionate ground.

On perusal of the case record, it stands prima facie apparently clear that the Union or the petitioner has all

along lost interest to contest the case on merits, or ever tried to push it to finality through adjudication. As the real

issue, as of now, seems to have been lost its relevancy and no longer in existence between the parties. The case hovers

over one issue of evidence of the workman since 07.01.2004 despite having been provided sufficient opportunity. So it

is of no use dragging it indefinitely on the one issue for a prolonged period rather it should be closed in the natural

interest and wider prospect. So the case is closed as ‘No Dispute Award’. Accordingly an Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1881-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lSVsykbV lh,uth l£olst izk- fy- 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;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 143@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@6@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 1881.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 143/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Satellite CNG Services Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 29.08.2016.

[No. L-30012/6/2015-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4215

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 143/2015

Shri Rajnath, S/o Shri Ram Chander Sah,

Through Bhartiya Engineering & General Mazdoor Union,

Bharat Mill Charkhi Gate, Plot No.1,

Near D Block, Karampura,

New Delhi 110 015

…Workman

Versus

M/s Satellite CNG Services Pvt. Ltd.,

45, Community Centre, 1^st Floor,

Narayana Industrial Area Phase I,

New Delhi

…Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-30012/6/2015-IR(M) dated 03.06.2015, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether non-providing of job to the workman Shri Rajnath S/o Shri Ram Chander Sah by the management

of Satellite CNG Services Pvt. Ltd. after 01.08.2014 may be construed as termination of services in violation

of Section 25F & 25G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled

to?

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party raising the dispute to file statement

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

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

Despite directions so given, Shri Rajnath opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

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

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

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

was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

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

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : August 23, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1882-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e-

,e-Vh-lh- 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;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 90@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@12@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 1882.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

4216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

29.08.2016.

[No. L-29012/12/2016-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 90/2015

Shri Ramesh Chand, S/o Shri Ram Das,

R/o 1222, L Block, Gali No.26, Sangam Vihar,

New Delhi 110 002

…Workman

Versus

1. The Director,

MMTC Ltd. Scope Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003

2. The Manager,

MMTC Co-operative Canteen Society Ltd.

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,

New Delhi 110002

3. The President,

MMTC Co-operative Canteen Society,

C/o MMTC Ltd., Jhandewalan,

Jewelry Complex, Rani Jhansi Road,

New Delhi 110 002

…Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-29012/12/2016-IR(M) dated 24.02.2016, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether retirement of Shri Ramesh Chand with effect from January 2013 by the management of MMTC Co-

operative Canteen Society Ltd. can be construed as termination of service without complying with provision

of Industrial Disputes Act? If not, what relief the workman concerned can be given?

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party raising the dispute to file statement

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

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

Despite directions so given, Shri Ramesh Chand opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

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

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

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

was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

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

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : August 23, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1883-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-

,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4217

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1310@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@77@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 1883.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1310/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

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

29.08.2016.

[No. L-30012/77/2000-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 25^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1310/2004

The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518.

M/s Sagar Construction,

Near Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza, Kagdaila ONGC Road,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518

…First Party

V/s

Shri Dharmendra P. Patel,

At. Bhatpur,’

Taluka Choryasi, Surat (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

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

30012/77/2000-IR (M) dated 05.07.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the Contractor M/s Sagar

Construction in respect of the contractual workman Shri Dharmendra P. Patel is sham & bogus contract?

“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Dharmendra P. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and

regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd or from the date of notification issued by Government of India,

prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief

Shri Dharmendra P. Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the

matter?”

4218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference dates back to 05.07.2000. Both the parties submitted their statement of claim Ext. 3 on

24.10.2000 and written statement Ext. 7 on 10.04.2001 respectively. Reference was listed for evidence of the second

party but on 30.06.2016, only workman involved in the reference Shri Dharmendra P. Patel, moved an application Ext.

23 for withdrawal from the reference. Therefore, on 30.06.2016 the name of the aforesaid workman was deleted from

the reference. He was the only workman involved in the reference. Therefore, no further action was required in the

reference.

Hence, the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1884-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-

,u-th-lh- 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1322@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@70@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 1884.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1322/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

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

29.08.2016.

[No. L-30012/70/2000-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 27^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1322/2004

The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518.

M/s Sagar Construction,

Near Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza, Kagdaila ONGC Road,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518

…First Party

V/s

Shri Hitendra J. Patel,

At. Bhatpur,’

Taluka Choryasi, Surat (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

None

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4219

AWARD

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

30012/70/2000-IR (M) dated 05.07.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the Contractor M/s. Sagar

Construction in respect of the contractual workman ShriHitendra J. Patel is sham & bogus contract?

“Whether the demand of the workman ShriHitendra J. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and

regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd or from the date of notification issued by Government of India,

prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief

ShriHitendra J. Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 05.07.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 4 on

24.10.2000 and first party submitted the written statement Ext. 9 on 10.04.2001. The reference was listed for evidence

but on 19.07.2016 only workman involved in the reference Hitendra J. Patel moved an application Ext. 27 for withdraw

and deleting his name from the reference. Same was allowed on 19.07.2016.

Thus, the reference is dismissed as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1885-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ifjJe yscj dks&vksijsfVo lkslkbVh@vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 312@2004) 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 31st August, 2016

S.O. 1885.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 312/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Parishram Labour Co. Operative Society/ONGC Ltd. 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

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 25^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 312/2004

[Old Complaint (ITC) No. 15/98]

Shri Suresh B. Parmar,

Peon Contract,

C/o Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,

434/46, Gandhivas, Koba Road,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad – 5

…Complainant

4220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

1. Parishram Labour Co. Operative Society,

19, Sahajanand Shopping Centre,

Shahibuag, Ahmedabad – 4

2. The Group General Manager (Projects),

ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad,

AvaniBhavan, 5^th Floor,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad

…Opponents

For the Complainant

Shri G.K. Parmar

For the Opponent No. 1

Absent

For the Opponent No. 2

Sh. K.V. Gadhia & M.K. Patel Advocates-

AWARD

The complainant moved a complaint under section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 in Reference

(CGIT-A) no.48 of 2004, old Reference (ITC) No. 11/97 praying mainly as under:

“1. It is respectfully prayed that the Honourable Industrial Tribunal may kindly hold that the service of the

complainant was terminated from 16.06.1997 to 20.08.1997 and from 1.08.1998 is in contravention of

section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act and is illegal and prayed for reinstatement on his original post.

2. Any other relief, if any may be granted.”

The complainant in his complaint alleged that he was employed and had been serving as a peon in the

establishment of Opposite Party no.2 under a contract with Opposite Party no.1. He is one of the workman involved in

the pending aforesaid Reference (CGIT-A) no.48 of 2004, old Reference (ITC) No. 11/97praying for absorption of

their services as the regular employee of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, herein after referred to as, ONGC. His

(complainant) name appears therein the list annexed with the Reference at serial no.39. He has enclosed the Terms of

Reference as annexure-A with the complaint. He had been working as peon in the office of Opposite Party No.2 in

accounts section of ONGC office situated at AwaniBhawan, Ahmedabad. He also alleged that he had earlier worked as

Helper Khalashi in the workshop of ONGC from 1996. He further alleged that he earlier objected to the change of his

cadre, therefore his services were terminated on 16.06.1997 but later he was taken back and reemployed on 21.08.1997

and was posted at R-2 Rig. He further alleged that that the Opposite Party no.1, ONGC employed new workforce. He

had worked on R-2 Rig from 21.07.1997 to 31.07.1998 but his services were abruptly terminated without following the

due procedure of law. Therefore he prayed for reinstatement of his services by Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Part.

No.1, ONGC on his original post with immediate effect without change of cadre with all the back wages from

01.06.1997 to 15.06.1997 and also back wages for illegal termination of his services from 16.09.1997 to 20.08.1997

and thereafter from 01.08.1997 till the reinstatement. In short, he has prayed for reinstatement of his service with back

wages on his original post without changing his cadre.

Both the Opposite parties no.1 and 2 were served through registered post but Opposite party no.1 did not prefer

to appear and file his reply cum written statement. Therefore my predecessor Sri B.K.Sinha proceeded ex parte against

him, though he did not pass any specific order.

Opposite party no.2 The Group General Manager (Projects), ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad appeared through

solicitor firm named, K.V.Gadhia Associates and submitted his written statement vide Ext. 10 wherein Opposite party

no.2 denied all the averments and contentions made in the complaint and submitted that ONGC has not violated any

provisions of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, Therefore complaint is not legally maintainable. It has been also

stated that the complaint was the employee of the opposite party no.1 M/s Parishram Labour Co-operative Society,

hereinafter referred to as Society. Complainant was employed and posted at TBG Workshop of ONGC till May, 1997

and, thereafter he was shifted outside the TBG Workshop by the Society on 23.06.1997. The letter of posting was

annexed with the written statement filed by the Opposite party no.2, the ONGC. The said letter reveals that the

complainant was shifted/ posted at R2 Rig with effect from 23.06.1997 but the complainant did not report on the same

day i.e.23.06 1997 and reported at R2 Rig on 01.09.1997. It is further submitted that opposite party no.1 Society

informed the ONGC vide letter dated 15.08.1998 annexed with the written statement that Complainant had not been

reporting for duties since 01.08.1998, therefore wages were not paid to him by Opposite party no.1 Societyaccordingly.

It has been further submitted that admittedly the Complainant was the employee of opposite party no.1 Society;

therefore, there was no master-servant relationship between workman/Complainant and opposite party no.2 ONGC.

Thus the complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed against opposite party no.2 ONGC. It is further

submittedthat ONGC, opposite party no.2 has not violated any provisions of law including the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, therefore complaint be dismissed as not maintainable under law.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4221

The Complainant examined himself as his witness which is Ex-5 and stated on oath that he had been working at

TBG section of ONGC as peon since 1. 11.1996and was transferred to Mechanical workshop of ONGC in the year

1997. He reported there where he was assigned the work of Khalasi. He objected to it. Consequent to his objection his

services were terminated on 06.07.1997. He further stated on oath that he was reinstated on 04.12.1998.1998 and

posted Rig 2 where he was assigned the work of Khalasi and again was terminated on 01.08.1998. But at the time of

termination of service, neither any notice nor was anycompensation paid to him. He further stated on oath he moved the

industrial dispute through his Union wherein Department of labour and Employment, Government of India referred the

dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as Reference (ITC) no.- 11 of 1997 for knowing as to whether the

services of such contract labourers ought to be regularised wherein he was listed at serial no.39. He further stated on

oath that since the termination of his services he is unemployed. He has further stated that he has filed the complaint or

reinstatement as regular employee of ONGC as peon.

First Party no.2 ONGC examined one of his officialsDhirubhaiMaganlalParmar. He is his affidavit/ examination

in chief Ext. 5 stated on oath that he has been working in the Department of Civil since last 25 years. Parishram Labour

Co-operative Society entered into a contract with ONGC commencing from 1994 till 1999 for providing labour. The

complainant was working in ONGC under a contract of labour byto be provided by Parishram Labour Co-operative

Society. ONGC never gave any appointment letter to the complainant for. He further stated that the complainant

abstained to report as when he was shifted from the office to Rig 2. Complainant was not a workman of the ONGC. He

was the workman of Parishram Labour Co-operative Society. Therefore, ONGC was neither required nor gave any

notice to the complainant. Rather the complainant stooped coming on duty out of his own will. The ONGC can give

him work unless Parishram Labour Co-operative Society provides him work and also ONGC cannot direct or instruct

the Society in the matter. The workman did not cross-examined the witness on the point of issuance of appointment

letter to workman, tenure and terms of contract of Society with ONGC and as to why the workman stopped coming to

work assigned by the Society. Thus the same are being uncontroverted thus may be believed as true.

Later after the closure of evidence by ONGC, complainant prayed for leading more evidence. Same was

allowed. The complaint submitted his additional affidavit/examination in chief and repeated his earlier averement. He

also filed some documents which the ONGC denied their veracity. These documents reveals that the complainant was

the workman/ contract worker of the aforesaid contractor addressed to the Security Officer of ONFC for issuance of

Gate pass or the identity card for the purpose of entry into ONGC premises. Thus these documents do not establish that

complainant was in any way the employee of ONGC. However these documents vindicate the contention of the ONGC

that the complainant was the employee or contract labour of the Society. Thus these documents do not help the

complainant in any way.

Shri G.K Parmar representing the complainant submitted in his argument that complainant was not given any

notice and also any pay in terms of notice. Therefore the complainant is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages.

He further advanced his arguments that the witness examined by the ONGC stated in his statement on oath that

complainant stopped coming on duty, therefore, ONGC admits that the complainant was the employee of ONGC. This

argument is untenable because one has to read the whole statement which makes it very much established that

complainant was the contract labour of the contractor Society (i.e. first party no. 1).

The learned Solicitor, K.V.Gadhia for ONGC argued that ONGC filed his written statement wherein it stated

and that too complainant admitted in his cross-examination that ONGC did not give him any appointment letter.

Complainant in his cross-examination also admitted that he was working with ContractorParishram Labour Co-

operative Society, O.P.No.1 and the said Contractor used to pay him his salary. The witness examined by ONGC never

admitted that ONGC might have given appointment letter to the complainant.

The learned Solicitor, K.V.Gadhia for ONGC further argued that a reference for regularisation of workmen

including the complainant is pending adjudication in the Tribunal and if the same is rejected by this Tribunal then the

order of the Tribunal in the present case would amount to allowing the main reference without adjudication which

cannot be said to be permitted in law.He further argued that it would not be wise to reinstate the workman who left the

job 18 years ago without any reason.

10.

After considering the evidence and arguments of both the parties, I am of the considered view that complaint is

not maintainable. First the main reference relates to the 139 workmen and all those workmen have not been impleaded

while if this complaint is allowed then it would amount to allow the main reference. Thus the complaint is bad for non-

joinder of all the workmen and misjoinder of all the contractors as the contract with Contractor Parishram Labour Co-

operative Society, O.P.No.1 ceased in the year 1999 and in his place new contractor entered into contract with ONGC.

Besides this in the main reference, there have been nine parties (as opposite parties) while complainant has made

ONGC Contractor Parishram Labour Co-operative Society, O.P.No.1 as opposite parties. Second, the complainant has

utterly failed to establish the Master-Servant relationship between ONGC with him, as the contractor Society was

proved to pay the master of the complainant. Third, in the year 1999, new Contractor replaced Parishram Labour Co-

4222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

operative Society, as service provider contractor and same has not been made party, therefore, without making him the

party, such relief is not possible to be granted. Fourth, as per the main relief in the Reference 48 of 2004 the

complainant has been shown as attendant in TBG i.e. Technical Business Group Department, meaning that he was

working as attendant under the contractor, while in the complaint he has sought the relief of reinstatement as peon with

full back wages with ONGC. Fifth, He has been seeking relief after a lapse of long period and he has not stated in his

examination as to how he sustained himself and his family without any employment for such a long period. Thus the

complaint has failed to prove his case; therefore complaint deserves to be dismissed.

11.

Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1886-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-

,u-th-lh- 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 43@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30011@1@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 1886.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

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

29.08.2016.

[No. L-30011/1/2013-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 43/2013

1. The Basin Manager,

ONGC Ltd., Makarpur Road,

Vadodara (Gujarat).

2. M/s Abhay Intelligence & Security Service,

17-20, Gujarat Industrial Estate, Behind A.S. Motors,

Old Chhani Road, Baroda (Gujarat)

… First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Bhartiya Karmachari Sangh,

Vcishwakarma Shram Sadhna Trust,

101, Shirali Complex, Anustu Tekri, Kothi Chart Rasta,

Vadodara – 390001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party :

None

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4223

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/1/2013-

IR (M) dated 07.03.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the charter of demands of Nav Jagrut Labour Union i.e. (1) Payment of 25% House Rent, (2)

Rs.200/- per month on account of uniform maintenance charges/washing allowance, (3) City Compensatory

Allowance, (4) Rs.500/- for Conveyance Allowance, (5) Paid National Holidays, (6) Snacks and Tea facilities,

and (7) Shift allowance for their 39 members (list enclosed) working as Security Guards in the establishment of

ONGC Ltd., Baroda through contractor M/s Abhay Intelligence & Security Service, is legal and justified? What

relief the contract workmen are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 07.03.2013. Both the parties were served by registered post 23.02.2015 and first

party ONGC Ltd., submitted the vakalatpatra Ext.6 of his advocate on 07.12.2015. Since then second party has been

absent and has not preferred to submit the statement of claim. Thus, it appears that the second party are not willing to

prosecute the case.

Thus, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1887-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1011@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@60@95&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1887.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1011/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.09.2016.

[No. L-41012/60/95-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 15^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1011/2004

The Mandal Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Bhavnagar – 392001

…First Party

V/s

The Mahasachiv,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

TBZ – 17, Gurunagar, Gandhidham,

Kutch – 370201

…Second Party

4224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party

Shri N. J. Acharya

For the Second Party

Shri O.P. Vashistha

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/60/95-

IR (B-I) dated 17.04.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Western Railway Kamdar Sangh, Gandhidham against the management of

Divisional Railway Manager, Bhavnagar that Shri D.J. Dabbi having passed the written test, completed the

training course of Guard successfully on 02.02.1993 should be promoted and posted as Guard w.e.f.

02.02.1993, irrespective of the imposition of penalty in his earlier post as A.B.C., valid and justified? If so, to

what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 17.04.1996. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 2 on

08.04.1997 with a service on the advocate of the first party. The first party submitted the written statement Ext. 5 on

30.04.1998.

The second party in his statement of claim has stated that he was appointed as Assistant Booking Clerk in the

grade of 975 to 1540 in the Bhavnagar Division. He applied for the promotional post of Guard in the scale of 1240 –

2040. He succeeded the examination. He was sent for training on 17.12.1992 which he successfully completed on

02.02.1993. All the candidates junior to him were promoted and posted as Guard in the aforesaid scale with effect from

02.02.1993 but he was denied to be appointed as Guard in the aforesaid scale without any reason. He made the

representation but to no result. Thus, he has prayed for the aforesaid relief to be appointed as Guard in the grade pay of

1240 – 2040 with effect from 02.02.1993 with back wages. The first party in his written statement Ext. 5 has stated no

dispute can be raised for the promotion as it is the management’s prerogative to consider each case on its merits. The

second party Mr. Dhabi was not eligible to be promoted as he was imposed penalty on account of his misconduct

committed by him during the course of duty.

The second party has also filed the documents which indicate that the second party was not given promotion

despite successful training but the document also indicates that the second party was failed to maintain devotion to duty

and thereby violated Rule No. 3.1(II) of the Railway Service Conduct Rules.

The second party workman was orally examined by the tribunal on 06.10.2005 and reiterated the pleadings

made in the statement of claim. But he has not denied that he was not subjected to departmental enquiry wherein he

was held guilty of misconduct under the Rule No. 3.1(II) of the Railway Service Conduct Rules.

Thus, the contention of the first party is correct under law that it is the prerogative of the management to

appoint an employee on a promoted post. In this case, the second party has been found guilty of misconduct. Therefore,

he cannot claim as a matter of right to be appointed on the promoted post despite succeeding the examination for

promotion and successful training. Thus, the reference has no force and the action taken by the first party was legal and

justified.

Thus, the reference is decided accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1888-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

Vksd;ks feRlqfc'kh ;q ,iQ ts fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 14@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 05-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@311@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1888.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4225

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of

Tokya – Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.09.2016.

[No. L-12012/311/2003-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/14 of 2004

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.

The General Manager;

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ LTD.

15^th Floor, Hoechst House

193, Vinay K. Shah Marg

Nariman Point

Mumbai- 400 021

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubhishi Employees Association

15^th Floor, Hoechst House

193, Vinay K. Shah Marg

Nariman Point

Mumbai- 400 021.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. L. L. D’Souza, Representative.

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. Vinay Menon, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 15^th July, 2016

AWARD PART-I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment by its Order No.L-12012/311/2003-IR (B-I),

dated 22.02.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd, Mumbai in dismissal of Shri

Viswanath Shetty is justified? If not, what relief theworkman is entitled to?”

After the receipt of Reference notices were issued to both the parities. In response to notice second party union

has filed Statement of Claim Ex-11. According to the second party union, the concerned workman was appointed in the

first party Bank on and from 15/06/1984 in the post of Clerk. He was elected as General Secretary of second party

Union in 1986.He took active part and keen interest in the affairs of the Union so as to ensure proper industrial peace

inter-se the Bank and its employees. He being the General Secretary of second party would question the officers of the

bank,in case with regards to service conditions of employees concerned. This became much of eye-sore to the

management and the first party connived with the officers, so as to remove him out of way.

According to the workman, ultimately in 1993 the first party Bank put an accusationto workman alleging that he

had committed forgery and as such lodged a criminal case which is now pending before Hon’ble Court. He was

suspended and prevented from entering the first party Bank. Thereafter he contested election, once again for the post of

General Secretary and was elected as General Secretary in the year 2001 but on 25/1/2001 when the workman

attempted to enter the premises he was confronted by Mr. M. Izaki, who showed him two letters, one which contained

the permission to enter the union office and other a charge sheet alleging misappropriation and causing loss to the

Bank. He was also issued the letter dated 25^th September, 2001 on 5/10/2001 wherein it is alleged that some where in

the month of May, 1999 workman had forwarded certain medical bills to the Bank for reimbursement which were false

and as such he had committed an act of gross misconduct within the meaning of Para 19.5(j) & (m) of the Bipartite

Settlement dated, 19^th October, 1966.

4226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

According to the workman he was called upon by the First Party to show cause, within 10 days of receipt of the

said letter. He has filed a detailedexplanation on 30^th October, 2001. However thereafter the first party issued a Charge

Sheet, dated 6/12/2001, to him alleging that he was guilty of misconduct as enumerated in the Bi-partite settlement and

was informed that one Mr. Kishore K. Bijlani of the New-Delhi Branch was authorized to hold and conduct the enquiry

as Enquiry Officer.Theenquiry was commenced on 3/1/2002 at 11.30 a.m. and same was attended by him. On that date

his Defence Representative, Mr. Sankar Joshi, had to go to his native place. Accordingly,the subsequent procedure of

the enquiry commenced and workman duly participated in the same.

It is contention of the workman that his Defence Representative, Shri Joshi, could not remain present on fixed

dates due to his personal difficulties. Despite the absence of the Defence Representative, he took part in the enquiry

and took full note of the proceedings. Thereafter it came to beadjourned to 3/4/2002 despite the fact that his defense

representative could not remain present since he wasrequired to completecertain religious rituals pertaining to his

father’s demise. The opportunity has not been given to him and the management had conducted the inquiry in disregard

to the Principles of Natural Justice. It is contended that inquiry was conducted in colourable exercise of management’s

rights and in hasty manner.

According to the workman Inquiry Officer denied his request to grant him time so that he could bring his

defence representative.Thus, the said so called inquiry is nothing but a farce created in the eyes of law. This action

ofmanagement shows that first partyhasengaged in unfair labourpractices in total violation of Principles of Natural

Justice. As such the findings given by the Enquiry Officer Shri Kishore Bijlani are totally perverse as the same are

based on the statements and documents which have not been proved. According to the workman the findings of the

Enquiry Officer are perverse and thus deserve to be set aside. He therefore,prays that the inquiry be declared not fair

and proper and the findings of Enquiry officerbe declared perverseandpunishment be set aside with full back wages.

The first party resisted the Statement of Claim by filing their Written Statement at Ex-12.According to them the

workman has submitted medical bills of his mother’streatment inAmeya Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home. The

details of the bills are as follow.

Bill No.

Date

Amount

458

13^th May 1999

10,150/-

480

28^th June 1999

11,500/-

700

2^nd April 2000

22,850/-

Accordingly he was paid by the Bank, the following amounts in respect of the above bills submitted by him:

Bill No.

Date

Amount

458

10^th June 1999

7,405/-

480

28^th August 1999

8,490/-

700

26^th May 2000

15,591/-

According to the first party it was further brought to thenotice of Bank that they were false bills.They directed

the workman to show cause within 10 days of receipt of the show cause notice as to why disciplinary action should not

be taken against him for committing an Act of gross misconduct within the meaning of Para 19.5 (j) and (m) of the

Bipartite Settlement dated 19^th October 1966. The workman submitted a letter dated 8^th October, 2001to the

Disciplinary Authority and requested the bank to furnish copies of all the bills.The Bank forwarded the copies of the

billsvide Bank’s letter dated 8^th October,2001. The workman thereafter submitted a letter dated 10^th October, 2001 and

requested for further period of 10 days time to submit his reply to the show cause notice. He was granted 10 days time

and he was directed to submit his reply to the show cause notice by letter dated 25^th October, 2001. Again he

requested for additional period of 5 days to submit his reply and his request was granted by the Bank. Thereafter the

workmanhad submitted his reply on 30^th October, 2001. The Disciplinary Authority after perusing the reply dated 30^th

October, 2001 to show cause notice did not find any satisfactory reasons and therefore issued a charge sheet dated 6^th

December, 2001 alleging various charges level against him as specified in the charge sheet.The workman was charged

with acts of gross misconduct within the meaning of Para 19.5 (j) and (m) of the Bi-partite Settlement dated 19^th

October, 1966.Workman appeared before Enquiry Officer, he was allowed to defend himself by his defense

representative of his choice. However, in the entire enquiry proceedings, 13 different dates were given but the workman

was unable to bring his defence representativeor an advocate of his choice who wasalso permitted to defend himself in

the inquiry. PresentingOfficer of the Bank submitted the documents before the Enquiry Officer in support of the

chargesleveled against him and a copy of the same was also supplied to the workman.Workman was also permitted to

inspect the original documents which were submitted by the Presenting Officer. Enquiry officer directed the workman

toproduce certain documents which were in his possession and the relevancy of those documents pertaining to the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4227

charges leveled against the workman but hefailedto produce the documents till the date of enquiry proceedings.

PresentingOfficer of the Bank examined four management witnesses in support of the charges leveled against him.

However workman failed to cross examine any of the management witnesses.On 23^rd May, 2002 when the second

management witness Dr. F.E. Palia was examined by the Presenting Officer, before the Enquiry Officer,the

workmanchoseto remain absent in enquiry proceedings and walked out of the enquiry room without any valid reasons

and without cross examining the management witness and without signing the proceedings.

10. According to the first partymanagement, workmandid not avail of the opportunity given to him to lead evidence

on his behalf and did not even file any documents in support of the case.He failed to bring his defence representative in

theinquiry even for once.Thereafter the Presenting Officersubmitted his written brief on 17^th July 2002 the workman

sought time to submit his written reply.He again sought further time vide letter dated 25^th July, 2002 and even he also

leveled false allegations against the Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances the Enquiry Officer after waiting till 5^th

August, 2002 therefore had no other option but to finalize the report without written brief of the workman. After

analyzing the oral evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer was of the view that charges as leveled against the workman

were conclusively proved and accordingly submitted his report dated 5^th August, 2002. Disciplinary Authority

thereafter forwarded the report of the enquiry along with the proposed order of dismissal dated 20^th August, 2002 and

workman was informed that in terms of Para 12(a) ofBi-partite Settlement dated 10^th April, 2002, he was given

opportunity of a hearing regarding theproposed punishment and therefore he was directed to appear before the

Disciplinary Authority on 30^th August, 2002 in person. He was granted time to submit hiswritten arguments.After

considering the written submissions of the workman the Disciplinary Authority vide his Order dated 12^th September,

2002 passed the order of dismissal by way of punishment for gross misconduct under Clause 19.6(a) of the Bi-partite

Settlement dated 19^th October, 1966. The workman thereafterfiled his appeal dated 18^th October, 2002 to the Appellate

Authority. However the Appellate Authority was of the view that there was no violation of anyprocedureof the Bi-

partite Settlement and the I.D. Act, 1947and entire procedure was scrupulouslyfollowed. The Appellate Authority

concurred with findings of the Disciplinary Authority, confirming the punishment of dismissal passed by Disciplinary

Authority by its order dated 18^th December, 2002. Thus thecontention of first party is that the punishment as awarded

by the Disciplinary Authority was justified and proportionate to charges leveled against him.So according to them

contents of the Statement of Claimarefalse.

11.

Following are the Preliminary Issues for my consideration. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to

follow.

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1. Whether inquiry conducted is fair and proper?

Yes.

2. Whether findings are perverse?

No.

REASONS

ISSUES NOS. 1& 2:

12.

The main objection raised on behalf of second party workman is that he was not offered an opportunity to

conduct his case. The departmental inquiry has been challenged on the ground that the proceeding were conducted in

the absence of defence representative and despite request for adjournment made by workman, the Inquiry

Officerproceeded ex-parte. Ld.Counsel for the second party workman contended that domestic inquiry held against

workman was not as per the Principles of Natural Justice. This argument is based on the grounds as under.

(a)

First party has hastily conducted the enquiry.

(b)

Workman was deprived representation by his defence representative.

(c)

He was not offered an opportunity to be represented by lawyer.

(d)

Inquiry Officer acted in biased manner and acted as the representative of the management.

13.

In the context, if we see the pleadings of the second party workman in his Statement of Claim, the only ground

pleaded by him is that the proceeding were conducted in the absence of his defencerepresentative and despite request

for adjournment made by workman the Inquiry Officer proceeded Ex-parte.

14.

In this respect, I would like to point out that the enquiry recorded categorically shows that the inquiry

proceedings were held on 3/1/2002 to 3/7/2002. Ongoing through Exhibit- 52, it appears that on 3^rd January 2002

workman requested to the Inquiry Officer to postpone the enquiry as defencerepresentative Shankar Joshi had gone to

his native place to perform the last rites of his father. The date was postponed and next date was fixed on 26^thFebruary

2002. On 26/2/2002 workman requested for adjournment by sending fax on the ground that his defencerepresentative

had not still returned to Mumbai and therefore the next date was fixed on 3^rd April 2002. On 3/4/2002 inquiry

4228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

proceedings were adjourned because the defencerepresentative was absent. The next date was fixed on 21^st May

2002.On that date workman and his defence representative were absent. On that date charge sheeted employee

submitted letter mentioning therein that due to unforeseen circumstances he was not attending the inquiry. However the

letter Ex-14 was silent about the presence of his defence representative. But then the proceedings were adjourned and

the next date was fixed as 22^nd May 2002. On 22/5/2002 workman and his defence representative were absent and the

proceedings were adjourned to 23^rd May 2002. On 23/5/2002 statements of management witnesses were recorded but

the defence representative was not present and the next date was fixed on 3^rd June 2002. On 3/6/2002 the proceedings

were adjourned. Howeveron that date also DefenceRepresentative was absent next date was fixed on 4^th June 2002. On

that date the proceedings were adjourned to lead defence evidence as well as to file the documents and on that date

alsodefence representative was not present and next date was fixed on 11^th June 2002on that date also the proceedings

were adjourned due to non-availability ofdefence representative and next date was fixed on 12^th June 2002 and again

the proceedings were adjourned due to non-availability of defence representative. Similarly on 2^nd July 2002 and

3^rd July 2002 proceedings were adjourned due to non-availability of defence representative.

15.

It can be seen that the enquiry was repeatedly adjourned on the ground of absence of defence representative.

The management witnesses were examined on 23^rd May 2002. On that date workman declined to participate in the

enquiry as the Inquiry Officer declined to grant any further adjournment.Even it can be seenthat the workman was

given an opportunity to produce documents and to lead evidence.On the request made by workman the proceedings

were adjourned to 4^th June, 2002.On 4^/6/2002 the workmansoughtadjournment on the ground that his

defencerepresentative was not available. The proceedings were adjourned as a last opportunity to the workman on

12^th June, 2002. Even on 12^th June, 2002neitherworkman or his defencerepresentative came nor did he file any documents

or examine any witness in his defence. Ex-15 shows that workman requested the Inquiry Officer to adjourn the

proceedings to 2^nd June, 2002. On that date the proceedings were adjourned and the workman was given understanding

that if he would fail to leadevidence on 2^nd July, 2002, the proceedings would be concluded Ex-parte. Even on 2^nd July

2002, workman did not bring his defence representative and sought an adjournment.On that date, he wanted to appoint Mr.

B.S.Mule as his Defense Representative. Hence, the inquiry was concluded after inquiry proceedings.

16.

It can be seen from the aforesaid record of the inquiry proceeding that workman failed to produce his evidence,

despite opportunities were given to him by the Inquiry Officer. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that the

opportunities werenot givento the workman during the inquiry proceedings and therefore he cannot claim that

inquirywas concluded hastily without givingopportunity to him. If the workman was not in a position to keep present

his defence representative and claiming adjournment on the same grounds on number of dates,then the Inquiry Officer

has no option but to proceed with the inquiry. On the other hand that would show the conduct of the workman which

leads to the inference that he did not want to participate in the inquiry fairly and defend himself to disprove the charges

leveled against him.

17.

Ld.Counsel for the management seeks to rely on the decision in case of Bank of India V/s.Apurba Kumar

Saha, 1994 II CLR 131, to submit that;

“when employee had refused to avail of the opportunities provided to him in the proceeding of defending

himself against the charges of misconduct involving his integrity and dishonesty, he cannot be permitted to

complaint later on that he had been denied the opportunity of defending himself of the charges leveled

against him and the disciplinary proceeding conducted against him by the employer had resulted in violation

of Principles of Natural Justice of fair hearing.”

18.

Ld.Counsel for the management also resorted to in case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation V/s. Rawel

Singh, 2008 (117) FLR 354 wherein it has been observed that;

“Apart from that it is also clear from the record that so far as charge as to unauthorized absence of the

respondent is concerned; the same is duly established from the record.The Inquiry Officer, in our opinion

righty observed that charges (II) and(III) were consequential in nature and based on charge (I) and hence all

the charges can be said to have been proved against the respondent. It is not a case of not extending an

opportunity to the employee but not availing of opportunity by the employee.Therefore, the finding recorded

by the Labour Court that the inquiry was vitiatedbeing violative of natural justice and fair play is based on

‘no evidence’ and must be set aside”

19.

Ld.Counsel for the management also resorted to decision in case of State Bank of India V/s Hemant Kumar

2011I CLR Page 1wherein it has been observed that,

“We are of the view that both the reasons assigned by the Tribunalfor condemning the departmental enquiry as

defective are completely untenable.The Principles of Natural Justice cannotbe stretched to a point where they

would render the in house proceedings unworkable. Admittedly, the respondent had not appeared for the enquiry

on two earlier dates. On the third date too he was absent and there was no intimation from him before the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4229

Inquiry Officer, yet the Tribunal insists that it was the duty of the Inquiry Officer to find out from the concerned

department of the Bank whether any intimation or application was received from the respondent. Let us take a

case where inquiry is not being held in the bank premises or even in the same town, where the concerned branch

of the bank is located. In such situation, it may take hours or even a day or two to find out; whether any letter or

intimation from the person facing the inquiry was received in the bank and for all that time the Inquiry

Committee would remain in suspended animation. The Tribunal’s observation that it was only the third date of

hearing and hence, it could not be said that the respondent had adopted dilatory tactics can only be described as

unfortunate. We completely reject the notion that three barren dates in an in-house proceeding do not amount to

delay. Let the in-house proceedings at least be conducted expeditiously and without any undue loss of time.”

20.

In the instant case, it clearly appears thatthe charge sheeted employee/ workman was given number of

opportunities and inquiry was spread over 12 sittings and in none of the sittings the workman’sdefence representative

was present. The proceedings were repeatedly adjourned at the request of the second party workman citing non-

availability of his defence representative.It is in that circumstances, it can be observed that sufficient opportunity was

given to workman to defend himself.

21.

Realizing these difficulties, Ld.Counsel for workman submitted that the management was represented by the

Advocate and therefore it was the responsibility of the management to allow the workman to be defended by an

Advocate.Submission isto the effect that the managementrejected his request to bear the fees of his lawyer and

therefore he could not be represented by an Advocate. In the context Ld. Counsel for the workmanresorted to Apex

Court ruling. The Hon’bleApex Court in the decision in case of Director, BCG Vaccine Laboratory, Madras and S.

Pandian & Orshas observed that;

“The Inquiry Officer combines the judge and prosecutor rolled into one. Witnesses are generally employees

of the employer who directs an inquiry into misconduct. This is sufficient to raise serious apprehensions.

Added to this uneven scale is the weight of legally trained minds on behalf of the employer simultaneously

denying that opportunity to delinquent employee. The weighted scales and tilted balance can only be partly

resorted if the delinquent is given the same legal assistance as the employer enjoys. Justice must not only

be done but must seem to be done is not a euphemism for courts alone, it applies with equal vigour and

rigour to all those who must be responsible for fair play in action. And a quasi judicial Tribunal cannot

view the matter with equanimity on inequality of representation.”

22.

In that case Central AdministrativeTribunal,Madras Bench directed payment to the legal practitioner assisting

the respondents in an inquiry the same remuneration as would be paid to the Presenting Officer who conducted the

inquiry for the appellant and who was also a legal practitioner. The contention of the appellant was that the relevant

rules governing disciplinary proceedings did not make provision for making such payment. It was held that

respondents were under suspension and could not have the resources to bear the fees of the legal practitioner who was

assisting them in the inquiry.The Tribunal had not committed in the view of the court, any error in giving the directions

regarding payment of legal charges to their advocate.Having regard to these facts and circumstances it was observed

that Tribunal has not committed any error in giving the directions regarding payment of legal charges payable to their

advocate assisting the respondents in the departmental inquiry on the same rate as were payable to the Presenting

Officer who was also a legal practitioner.

23.

Here in the instantcase, it has not been pleaded by the charge-sheeted employee that he did not have sources to

bear the fees of legal practitioner. He did not appoint any legal practitioner in the departmental proceedings to assist

him but all the while he sought adjournment on the ground that his defence representative was not present.

24.

In the contextLd. Representative forManagementMr. L.L. D’Souza seeks to rely on the decision in case of

Shankar Chakravarti V/s Britannia Biscuit Co., AIR 1979 SC 1652,wherein it is held that;

“The issue which is not pleaded cannot be looked into even if there is evidence in support thereof.”

25.

In the instant case, it appears that for the first time at the time of argument this issue has been raised by the

concerned workman which is neither pleaded nor proved by adducing evidence to the effect that he did not have source

of income to pay the fees of legal practitioner who would have represented him in the departmental proceedings.

Therefore on this ground also the inquiry cannot be said to have vitiated on the groundthatPrinciple of Natural Justice

has not been followed.

26.

It is because the report of Inquiry officer (Ex-19) shows that the findings given by him are based on

evidence.The charges against the workman were that he submitted bills of medical treatment for Mrs. DevkiShetty for

treatment at Ameya Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home and thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Bank that

they were false bills.During the inquiry, statement of SurendraPatil, managementwitness- 3 was recorded. According

to him, he along with his daughter is running nursing home in the name of “Ameya Maternity and Surgical Nursing

4230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Home” for the last seven years. In his evidence he has stated that after verifying the records he replied the queries in

this regard for the Bank that no patient in the name of Devki Shetty was admitted in nursing home during the calendar

year 1999-2000. According to him the Cash Memo No 458 dated 13/5/1999, was stolen from his nursing home along

with carbon copy and the said cash memo No. 458 is not signed by him or his staff. It appears to have been signed by

one PramodTripathia pathological technical who used to come to collect sample from nursing home. According to his

evidence he lodged police complaint against PramodTripathi and that amount shown in cash memo had never been

received by nursing home.

27.

It appears that the Inquiry Officer on the basis of evidence concluded that the bills were false as Mr. Shetty’s

mother has never beenadmitted in nursing home and that employee has made false statement in the Bank while seeking

reimbursement of his mother’s medical bills. It appears therefore that these findings are based on evidence particularly

the evidence of Dr. Patil who was running the nursing home “Ameya Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home”.

28.

Even then Ld. Counsel for workman,Shri VinayMenonsubmitted that the inquiry was commencedex-parte

immediately on the thirdsession of inquiry i.e.3^rdApril, 2002, wherein the charge-sheeted employee stated,since he was

on suspension and half pay, he was unable to meet the expensesof a professional lawyer. Therefore, he requested that

all the cost of his professional lawyer be borne by the Management. That request was rejected and inquiry proceeded

further.With this the submissionis that the inquiry was an eye wash to put up a picture of fairness of inquiry.

29.

In the facts of present case, I find that his submission is not acceptable since sufficient opportunities were given

to the workman to defend himself but he himself did not avail any opportunity given to him and kept on insisting that

proceedings be adjourned, since his defence representative was not available.

30.

In this respect even the evidence of Dr.Mrs.F.E.Palia is explicit and material to prove that medicine with which

second party workman’s motherwas supposed to have been treated, did not match with the disease. This sort of

evidence has not been rebutted by second party workman. Even second party workman was given an opportunityof a

personal hearing on passing final order on 12/9/2002. In all these circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the inquiry

held against the workmanis as per the Principles of Natural Justice and the findings of the Inquiry Officerare based on

substantial evidence on record. Therefore, I hold that findings are not perverse.Accordingly, issue nos. 1 and 2 are

answered as indicated against it in terms of above observations. In the result, I pass the following order:

ORDER

The inquiry is held fair and proper.

Findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse.

Parties are directed to argue/lead evidence on the point of quantum of punishment.

Date: 15/07/2016

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1889-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

tEew&d'ehj cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 31@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-

09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@54@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1889.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.09.2016.

[No. L-12012/54/2010-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4231

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.P.SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 31/2010

Shri Bashir Ahmed Khan son of Shri Noor Mohammed Khan,

resident of Darish Kadal, Baghi Sunder Payeen, Srinagar( J&K)

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman, Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited,

Corporate Head Quarters, M.A. Road, Srinagar (J&K)

The Branch Manager, J&K Bank Limited,

Regional Engineering Branch, Hazratbal, Srinagar (J&K)

…Respondents

Appearances

For the workman

Shri Pawan Longia Advocate.

For the management

Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on 11.07.2016

Central Govt. vide notification No.L-12012/54/2010-IR(B-I) dated Ist of February 2011 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of J&K Bank Limited in terminating the services of Sri Bashir Ahmad

Khan, S/o Sri Noor Mohd. Khan w.e.f. 15.01.2008, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled?”

The brief facts of the case according to the workman are that on 15.1.2008 while he was holding the post of

Cashier-cum-Clerk he was dismissed from service. It is pleaded by the workman that he remained posted at Branch

Office of the J&K Bank at Fruit Complex, Srinagar w.e.f. 23.6.1996 as Cashier-cum-Clerk up to 1.5.1997 and he was

relieved from the said Branch to HSH Street Branch on 1.5.1997 in pursuance to the order dated 1.3.1997. It is pleaded

by the workman that after relieving of the workman an alleged fraud of Rs.579025/- was noticed to be committed in the

SB Account No.2204/23 in the name of one Hafiz Ali Baba whereby a fraudulent insertion of the entry of Rs.100000/-

to Rs.700000/- had been made thereby raising the balance by Rs.600000/- out of which Rs.579025/- has been

withdrawn by presentation of cheques during the period 19.5.1997 to 24.5.1997. The management lodged an FIR

No.167/97. The workman was arrested despite the fact that workman was transferred from the said Branch much

before the said incident and the workman was no way related to the said incident. Workman was released subsequently

and investigating agency seized all the relevant record of the bank including the account opening form, specimen

signatures of the account holder, the ledger sheet, cheque book issue register, the cheque presented in the account for

withdrawal of money etc. Investigating agency, obtained the handwriting specimen of all the staff members posted at

the Branch for identification of the real culprit having indulged in conversion of the figure 1 to 7 which were later on

sent for forensic examination. Besides police investigation the management has also conducted investigation at its

own level and statement of all the persons were recorded. It is further pleaded by the workman that besides police

investigations, the management conducted investigation at its own level and in that process, recorded the statements of

all the officers posted at the branch including the workman and also taken specimen signatures which were sent

separately to some handwriting expert, but the outcome or copy thereof was never supplied to the person concerned

including the workman. It is also pleaded that the management of bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against eight

officials posted at the concerned branch at the relevant time including the workman. The workman was charged with

the following allegations: –

(a)

Processed opening a fake and fictitious SB Account in the name of Hafiz Ali Baba; and

(b)

Therefore making fraudulent insertion in the entry of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/- raising the balance

from Rs. 1,11,100/- to Rs. 7,11,100/- as on 07-04-1997.

4232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(c)

The other Officials posted at the Branch subjected to disciplinary proceedings included S/Sh. Ab. Ahad

Malla, Branch Manager, Ab. Majid Wani, Manager Accounts (2^nd Officer), Mohammad Arif Chisti,

Manager Accounts, Ali Mahammad Mattoo, Spl. Assistant (allowed to function as Manager Accounts),

Manzoor Ahmad Sheikh, Rafiq Ahmad Malik, Shakeel Ahmad Wani all the three Cashier cum Clerks.”

It is further pleaded by the workman that on the basis of investigation conducted by the police authorities

informed the management of the bank that involvement of the workman had not been established in view of the expert

opinion of FSL and the communication clearly mentioned that on the basis of evidence other staff members i.e.

Manzoor Ahmed, Cashier-cum-Clerk, Abdul Majid, Manager and Ab. Ahad Mala, Chief Manager had been found

involved. It is pleaded by the workman that ignoring all the above facts the workman was charge sheeted and in

pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 18.8.1997 ,an inquiry was got conducted by the management and on the basis

whereof an order of discharge from service was passed against the workman on 24.7.2001. The inquiry was not

conducted in fair and proper manner and order of the disciplinary authority was based on the wrong enquiry. The

workman filed appeal before the appellate authority and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.11.2003 set aside

the order of discharge accepting the appeal of the workman and the fresh inquiry was ordered. It is further pleaded that

though a fresh inquiry was not permitted under the Rules but the inquiry was completed in a slip short manner which is

in total disregard to the factual and legal proposition and against the settled principle of natural justice and fair play. It

is further pleaded by the workman that during the inquiry it has been fully established that managerial staff tried to

escape the liability and workman was made scapegoat without any justification. It is pleaded that as regard liability of

summation is concerned that could not be stretched to the extent of inflicting major punishment upon the workman and

this fact was very much in the knowledge of all and there is no denial that summation could not be done by the

workman due to heavy rush and workload.. It is also pleaded that circumstances of alteration of allotment were based

on imagination and concoction as order of allotment provided saving bank ledger No.23 to the workman and did not

bear any evidence of any alteration of whatsoever nature. The Inquiry Officer while returning the findings of guilt

against the workman do not at all deal with the vital circumstances and choose to shut his eyes simply to incriminate

the workman without any basis. Bank-management also refused to supply copy of FSL Report to the workman during

the inquiry. Punishment awarded to the workman was in a hurriedly manner and excessive. The workman prayed for

his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. Along with claim statement workman also filed affidavit

and number of documents. The workman also placed on record the copy of order dated15.1.2008 by which he was

dismissed from service.

The management submitted written statement stating therein that the workman was dismissed from service after

prolonged investigation, disciplinary proceedings and his case was considered by the appellate authority under rules.

After transfer of the workman from the branch Fruit complex, Srinagar, it came to the knowledge while tallying the

balance in SB account found a discrepancy of Rs. 6lakhs. On further investigation it came to the notice that fraudulent

insertions had taken place in SB account No. 2204/23 in the name of ostensible account holder namely Hafiz Ali Baba

that was opened and maintained by the workman till is posting at the branch and after the transfer of the workman,

withdrawals in the said account took place on 19.5.1997 to 25.5.1997 culminating in fraudulent withdrawals. The

management lodged FIR with the police and the police arrested some officials of the branch including the workman

and it was found that the workman during his tenure at the Fruit Complex Branch processed opening of a fake and

fictitious saving bank account No. 2204/23 in the name of one Hafiz Ali Baba on 25.3.1997 by compromising on vital

issues/counts which finally led to a fraud to the tune of Rs. 579025/- which was committed by insertion/alteration in the

credit entry of Rs. 100000/- to Rs. 700000/- by making digit 1 to appear as digit 7 at lakh place value raising the

balance from Rs. 1,11,100/- to 7,11,100/- on 7.4.1997 in the said SB account. The workman did not obtain photograph

of the ostensible account holder of Hafiz Ali Baba on 25.3.1997 and also while issuing the cheque book will fully

ignored that the signature of the depositor on the cheque book issue register did not tally with the one on the cheque

book issue requisite application. The management pleaded that it is a fact that payment cashier gave a statement that the

payment of withdrawal of Rs. 5000/- dated 1.4.1997 was credited to the said factitious account on the said date also

connected the workman with the fraud and the workman did not do summation while carrying over balance to the next

page to avoid detection of fraud. The management further pleaded that the workman with malafide intentions, got his

allotment altered in the allotment register in respect of taking down saving account balance for the month of April

1997. Ledger No. 20 was allotted to the workman while ledger No. 23 pertaining to the fictitious account was allotted

to another cashier/clerk Shri Manzoor Ahmed Sheikh which were got swapped by the workman and the workman

paved the way for fraudulent incident. It is further pleaded that the admitted hand writings were sent to Forensic Lab

Srinagar and Forensic lab Shimla and the Srinagar Lab did not indict the workman but Shimla lab stated that nothing

could be definitely stated regarding authorship or otherwise of writing referred to it alongwith admitted hand writings.

Thus no reliance was placed on both the labs nor the same was used against the workman, therefore, making it public

did not arise. The workman was served with the charge sheet. The other officials were also charge sheeted as per

individual involvement and subsequently cases against all of them were taken to logical conclusion as per rules which

only shows the fair, rationale, transparent and just approach of the management. It is further submitted that inquiry was

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4233

conducted in a fair and proper manner and workman was found guilty and earlier inquiry was set aside by the Appellate

Authority which leads credence to the fairness and impartiality of the Appellate Authority and also to the system of the

management and the appellate authority rightly ordered for fresh inquiry. A fresh inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry

Officer in fair and proper manner and as per the principles of natural justice. The workman was afforded full

opportunity to put across his case, produce his witnesses and other evidence and cross-examine the witnesses of the

management. The documents were provided to the workman. The enquiry officer submitted his report. Show cause

notice was given to the workman. The workman was also provided with the personal hearing and after considering all

the material the order dated 15.1.2008 was passed. The appeal filed by the workman was also decided on merits. In the

reply filed by the management, the management also seek opportunity to lead evidence in support of the averments

made in the written statement to prove the contention of the management in holding the inquiry and subsequent

dismissal of the petitioner from service of the bank if the Hon’ble Court is of the view that sufficient material is not on

record to prove the charges made by the management. Management has prayed for the dismissal of the reference.

Management also along with written statement filed documents of inquiry.

Replication also filed by the workman reiterating the claim made in the claim statement.

The parties were heard on the issue of fairness of the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer and order passed

by the disciplinary authority and order passed by the appellate authority in appeal. It may not be out of place to mention

here that during the course of hearing on fairness of inquiry an application has been filed by the workman for placing

on record written arguments and documents W54 to W72. Both the parties also filed written arguments in which they

have largely pleaded as per their pleadings in the claim statement and written statement. Along with this the workman

had also filed copy of judgment dated 26.2.2013 of 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar by which it is impressed

upon that no charge was proved in the criminal case by the management and they were acquitted of the commission of

offence for which they were charged.

This Tribunal after hearing the arguments on fairness of enquiry, passed order dated 10.9.2013 holding the

enquiry to be fair and proper. Aggrieved by this order, the workman filed a SWP No. 2287/2013 before the Hon’ble

High Court of J&K. The Hon’ble J&K High Court vide order dated 18.5.2016 passed in the above SWP No. 2287 of

2013 set-aside the findings of para (11) of the order dated 10.9.2013.The Hon’ble High Court of J&K passed the

following order:

“For the above stated reason the finding recorded at paragraph(11) of the orderdated10th September,

2013passed by Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh is set-

aside. The Tribunal to proceed ahead with reference made to it by the Central Government and conclude the

same within four weeks from the date copy of this order is served.”

The management filed the copy of the Hon’ble J&K High Court order dated 10.6.2016 passed in MPNo.01/16

in SWP No.2287/13 which is as under:

“Allowed for the reasons stated in the application. Time is extended by six weeks.”

Both parties appeared. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (comments) provides as under:

“When the Tribunal allows the management to produce evidence after holding the domestic enquiry as illegal,

the evidence given by the employers in domestic enquiry is wiped out and the Tribunal has to record the

findings on the basis of evidence before it while adjudicating an industrial dispute pertaining to dismissal of

the workman; Luxco electronics Vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal,2004LLR 46.”

10.

Management moved application dated 7.6.2016 for seeking permission to produce the copy of the FSL report.

In this application the management also prayed that since the workman has challenged the enquiry, therefore, he may

be asked to lead his evidence first and thereafter the management shall lead its evidence. The workman opposed this

application and filed written objection on 8.6.2016. It is pertinent to mention here that the workman had already filed

his affidavit in evidence and he workman was examined and cross-examined on that very date i.e. 8.6.2016. The FSL

report has already taken on record and also supplied to the workman

. Thus there is no need to pass any order on the

application of the management and objection of the workman dated 8.6.2016 as the application of the management and

objection of the workman become redundant.

11.

The workman was issued charge sheet containing the following articles of charges.

Statement of Articles of charge preferred against Mr.Bashir Ahmad Khan (10922) Cashier/Clerk presently

under Suspension.

4234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Article I

That the said Mr Bashir Ahmad Khan (10922), during his tenure at B/O Fruit Complex, Srinagar, commited

various acts of omission and commission which culminated into a fraud to the tune of Rs.5,79,025/- by

adopting modus operandi of opening of a fake and factitious Saving Bank Account under No.2204/23 in the

name of Hafiz Ali Baba S/O Mohammad Sadiq Baba R/O Parimora P.C Depot, and thereafter making a

fraudulent insertion in the entry of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/- thereby raising the balance from 1,11,100/-

to Rs.7,11,100/- as on 7.4.1997.

He willfully did not obtain photograph of the ostensible account holder namely Hafiz Ali Baba on

25.3.1997.

ii.

While issuing cheque book against the said A/C he ignored the fact that the signature of the so called

depositor on the cheque book issue register did not tally with the one on the cheque book issue

requisition application.

iii

His direct involvement into the fraud is corroborated by the fact that the payment cashier has

categorycally stated that the payment of withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- dated 11.4.97 has been credited to the

said fictitious account on the said date at the instance of the said Mr.Bashir Ahmad Khan (10922)

cashier/clerk.

iv He did not made summations in the said account while carrying over balance to the next page.

The said Mr.Bashir Ahmad Khan (10922) with malafide intensions altered his allotment in the concerned

allotment register for taking down Saving Account balance for the month of April 1997. concering

ledger No.20 & 23 in so far as Ledger No.20 was allotted to the said Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan and

ledger No.23 was allotted to Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Sheikh (9482) Cashier/clerk. Which were altered vice

versa by the said Mr Bashir Ahmad Khan (10922).

The said Mr.Bashir Ahmad Khan (10922) has thus Indulged in:-

(a)

doing an act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and gross negligence involving the bank in

serious loss which amounts to gross misconduct in Terms of clause 19.5(j) Bipartite Settlement 1966.

(b) negligence in performing duties and breach of rule of business of the Bank which amounts to minor

misconduct in terms of clause 19.7(c & d) of Bipartite Settlement 1966.

ARTICLE:-II

That the aforesaid official during his tenure at the aforesaid branch helped his brother in law namely Mr.

Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh,in obtaining loan of Rs.12000/- under sponsored scheme IRDP insofar as he

mentioned wrong address though the said Mr.Bashir Ahmad Khan has stood guarantor in the said

account.The Said Mr.Bashir Ahmad Khan (10922) thus mislead the bank.

ii.

He prevailed upon M/s. Abdul Gani Nazir Ahmad C/D A/C holder 45 and misused their bill for

Rs.12,000/- against which loan of Rs,12,000/- was raised/ released by the Bank in favour of his

brother- in- law Mr.Mushtaq Ahmad. The said Mr.Bashir Ahmad Khan (10922) has thus Indulged in:

An act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank likely to involve the Bank in serious loss, which

amount to gross misconduct in terms of Clause 19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settlement 1966.

b. Breach of rule of business of the Bank which amounts to minor misconduct in terms of clause

19.7(c) of Bipartite Settlement 1966.”

12.

In connection with the charges, the workman examined and cross-examined as WW1. The management in order

to prove the charges, filed as many as ten affidavits of MW1 Abdul Ahad Malla, who also relied on documents Ex.M2

andM3 MW2 Shakeel Ahmed Wani who relied on documents Ex.M5 andM6,MW3 Manzoor Ahmed Seikh who relied

on documents Ex.MM8, MW4 Ali Mohd Matto, MW5Rafiq Malik who relied on document Ex.M11,MW6 Mohammed

Arif Chesti, MW7 Ab. Majeed Wani, MW8 Fayaz Ahmad Beigh and MW9 Fida Hussain Shah who relied on

documents Ex.M16 to M24. The management gave up the evidence of 10^th witness Shri Ali Mohd Bhat and did not

produce him for cross-examination. These nine witnesses of the management were cross-examined by the workman .

13.

For proving the charges against the workman, management filed documents as well as oral evidence. The

documents and oral evidence has been duly considered. Ex.W5 is the letter written by Sr. Supdt. of Police Crime

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4235

Kashmir to the management Chairman’s Secretariat J&K Bank Ltd. Srinagar. In this letter Sr. Supdt. Of Police has

mentioned that “ the criminal involvement of Shri B.A.Khan, cashier-cum-clerk has not been established in view of the

expert opinion received from FSL”. Ex.W71 is the copy of the judgment of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar

in file No. 04/B/45/receipt decided on 26.02.2013 in which Abdul Ahad Malla ,Manzoor Ahmad Sheikh and Bashir

Ahmed Khan (workman) were charged under the office U/S 409,420,471,477-A,468, and 120-B of RPC. Vide

judgment dated 26.02.2013 all the above persons were acquitted of the commission of offences for which they were

charged. The management submitted that acquittal in criminal case is not binding on the Tribunal because there are

different parameters in holding guilty in criminal case and proving the charges in domestic enquiry. The management

cited 2012 L.L.R 236 Jyothi Kondaraju Vs. Additional General Manager( CS&HRD) and 2012 L.L.R.362 Kehsab

Chandra Saha Vs. United Commercial Bank and Ors.

14.

As stated above, the above stated documents do not prove the involvement of the workman for the offences. So

far the documentary evidence led by the management is concerned; the criminal involvement of the workman is not

established.

15.

In oral evidence MW1 Abdul Ahad Milla in his cross-examination admitted that the charge sheet was issued

against him in connection with the opening on account by the workman. The charges were for not obtaining

photographs of the account opener and second charge was for cancellation of demand draft worth Rs. 300000/-. This

witness also admitted that departmental enquiry was conducted against him and punishment of censure was awarded.

This witness also admitted in cross-examination that Ex.W19 is his statement given before Deputy General Manager

I&B. In Ex.W19 this witness( MW1) stated “I have given concession of photographs to the captioned account on the

plea that this account was introduced by a valuable client of the bank named Hazi Mohammed Baba who is maintaining

his account with us.” This witness also to a question regarding not making caution for photographs, this witness

replied” I did not mark the caution because the workman told me that account opener is well known to me and he will

not issue the pass book till the photographs are not submitted.” This witness also admitted “ on 24.5.1997 I did not ask

for photographs of the account opener because that was a matter of draft cancellation which came from another table”.

16.

MW2 Shri Shakil Ahmad Wani admitted in his statement that he was charge sheeted pertaining to the fraud in

this case. This witness was also warned to be cautious in future. This witness also admitted that he joined the branch

on 17.5.1997 and worked there till 2000. This witness also admitted that “a cheque was received for rupees three lakhs

where as there was not sufficient balance to honour the cheque. The cheque was not sent back to the drawer. It was kept

because some bank official told me that some DD credit cancellation is coming to the account”.

17.

MW3 Manzoor Ahmed Seikh admitted in his cross-examination that he was charge sheeted in connection with

the same bank fraud. The charge against him was that in ledger allotment order initially he was allotted ledger No.23

but it was changed to ledger No.20. The charge against him was that why he did not represent to the immediate officer

for making initial on the order of the change of the ledger. This witness replied that he was a clerk at that time and even

oral instructions were sufficient to be complied by him. He was exonerated of the charge.

18.

MW4 Ali Mohammed Matto in his cross-examination stated that he was charge sheeted regarding the bank

fraud but he was charged for draft cancellation and change in allotment of ledger and insertion in the account

summation not attested.. This witness also admitted that he was punished as censure entry in charge sheet issued

against him. The charge against him was for not summation the account was also proved.

19.

MW5 Rafiq Malik also admitted in his cross-examination that he was charge sheeted in connection with the

fraud in the bank. This witness stated that he was charged for not obtaining second signatures on the reverse of the

cheque. No charge was proved against him.

20.

MW6 Mohammed Arif Chesti in cross-examination stated that in the same matter charge sheet was issued to

him. He was advised to be careful in future by the disciplinary authority. This witness clearly stated that he issued the

cheque book to the account holder Hafiz Ali Baba in discharge of his official duty on authentication of the account

holder.

21.

MW7 Abdul Mazid Wani also stated in his cross-examination that in the same matter charge sheet was issued to

him and he was advised to be careful in future. This witness also admitted in cross-examination that he (MW7) verified

the signatures of the introducer Shri Khazir Mohd. Baba who was a current account holder on the opening of new

account of Hafiz Ali Baba.

22.

MW8 Fayaz Ahmed Beigh stated in his cross-examination that” I made a credit entry in the account of Hafiz

Ali Baba.The date is not remember. After making the credit entry total balance was recorded by me. The balance was

Rs. 270,975/-. Prior to the credit entry there was no total balance recorded in the account”. MW9 Fida Hussain Shah

stated in cross-examination that he never remained posted in Fruit Complex Branch Srinagar.

4236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/ BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23.

Thus taking into consideration of the statements of all the witnesses of the management, almost all the witnesses

were charge sheeted in the same matter and most of the witnesses were let off by awarding minor punishment. The

above statements of the management’ witnesses cannot be fully relied upon against the workman as most of the

witnesses were charge sheeted almost in the same matter and were awarded minor punishments. This is common

human nature that co-wrong-doer in order to save themselves, may make statements against the other person. Thus on

the basis of the oral evidence produced by the management, the charges as mentioned in the above charge sheet not

proved against the workman except the charge No. IV contained in Article I of the charge sheet. Surprisingly the

workman was also charge sheeted for the charge as contained in Charge No.ii of Article No.1 which is as under:

“ii.

While issuing cheque book against the said A/C he ignored the fact that the signature of the so called

depositor on the cheque book issue register did not tally with the one on the cheque book issue

requisition application.”

MW6 Mohammed Arif Chesti in his cross-examination stated that he (Mohammed Arif Chesti) issued the

cheque Book to the account holder Hafiz Ali Baba in discharge of his official duty. Thus in view of the clear statement

of MW6 Mohammed Arif Chesti, the charge No.2 as contained in Article I of the charge sheet can not be held to be

proved rather disproved against the workman.

24.

So far the other evidence is concerned, it is admitted that the workman was transferred from the Fruit Complex

Branch on 1.5.1997 and the fraudulent transactions took place between the periods from 17.5.1997 to 24.5.1997. On the

entire evidence the management failed to prove the charge No. i, ii, iii, v as contained in the Article 1 of the Charge

sheet. As regard Article 2 of the charge sheet is concerned, the management has not adduced any cogent and reliable

evidence to prove theses charges.

25.

In so far as the charge no. iv in Article 1 of the charge sheet is concerned that the workman did not make

summation in the said account while carrying balance to the next page, the workman Bashir Ahmad Khan while

appearing as WW1 himself admitted “it is correct that I did not summation at the bottom of the page. Voluntarily

stated: - it was not done due to heavy rush”. Thus the charge no. iv contained in article of the charge sheet is proved

against the workman.

26.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the dismissal order of the workman dated

15-01-2008 is illegal, unjust and discriminatory and cannot be sustained and the same is set-aside. So far as the charge

no. iv as contained in Article 1 of the charge sheet the same is held to be proved against the workman. As regard the

punishment for this proved charge is concerned, the co-wrong- doer MW IV Ali Mohammad Mattu who also admitted

that summation was not done, was awarded minor punishment of censure entry. Thus similarly placed workman also

may be awarded the punishment of censure entry for this act of omission.

27.

In view of the above discussion, the management is directed to reinstate the workman within one month from

the date of publication of this award with 40% back wages. The management will be at liberty to make entry of

censure as observed above in the service record of the workman for the charge No. iv contained in Article No.1 of the

charge sheet.

28.

The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Government for publication.

Chandigarh

11.07.2016

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4237

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1890-—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] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 19@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@144@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1890.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur 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 05.09.2016.

[No. L-12012/144/2006-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 19 of 2007

Between :

Sri Harish Chandra Kumar,

3/90 Mundera Bazar,

Chauri Choura,

District Gorakhpur

AND

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region -1, Zonal Office,

Gorakhpur

AWARD

Central Govt. Mol & Employment, vide notification no. L-12012/144/2006-IR (B-1) dated 13.02.07, has referred

the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

KYA PRABANDHAN STATE BANK OF INDIA GORAKHPUR DWARA SRI HARISH CHANDRA

KUMAR CLERK CUM CASHIER KO ADESH DINANK 25.06.03 KE DWARA NAUKARI SE NIKALA

JANA NYAYSANGAT HAI? YADI NAHI TO KARMKAR KIS ANUTOSH KA HAQDAR HAI?

In short the case of the worker is that he joined the service of the management on 15.09.86 as clerk cum cashier at

Chauri Choura Branch, District Gorakhpur.

It is alleged that in the year 1994 one Sri Niyamat Ullah Ansari was also posted as Agriculture Assistant at the

branch who deliberately committed fraud of Rs.50 in the RD Account no.1309 maintained by Km. Pinki Lath

(since deceased) daughter of Sri Om Lath.

It is alleged that one Sri Ikram Ullah Ansari who was also posted there as field officer was having strenuous

relations with the worker on the ground that there took a fraud in the year 1992-93 in advances in which both the

aforesaid persons were badly involved but no action was taken against them by the bank whereas the then branch

manager was removed from the service of the bank on the basis of inquiry held against him for the

misappropriation of banks fund committed by both the above officers and they were saved at the intervention of

one Sri G M Khan, General Secretary of the State Bank of India Officers Association. During the course of

domestic inquiry against Sri S N Mishra the then branch manager the worker being Treasurer of SC/ST Forum

raised his voice to the effect that no innocent person should be held responsible for the above misconduct and

fraud case committed by the above officers of the branch except the real culprit should be dealt with according to

law. This act of the worker was highly disliked by the above two officers of the branch and they started feeling

animosity against him. Thereafter the worker was transferred to Sardar Nagar Branch, Gorakhpur, on 12.01.95 at

the behest of the above officers.

4238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is alleged by the worker that he was placed under suspension by the authorities of the bank vide order 01.11.95.

No preliminary investigation was ever conducted by the bank prior to passing of the suspension order. Thereafter

the worker was issued a charge sheet dated 13.11.98. After conclusion of inquiry proceedings he was issued a

show cause notice dated 08.02.03 by the competent authority and ultimately the services of the worker was

removed by the disciplinary authority by order dated 25.06.03. The worker preferred an appeal against the final

order which too was dismissed by order dated 27.10.05.

There are so many factual aspect of the matter asserted by the worker in his claim statement but the same will be

considered and discussed while recording findings on merit of the case at appropriate stage.

On the basis of pleadings raised by the worker in his claim petition, he has prayed that the action of the

management be held illegal and unjustified and he be directed to be reinstated in the service of the bank with full

back wages, continuity of service and with all consequential benefits.

Apart from above nothing has been stated in his claim statement.

10.

Management has filed its reply against the claim statement of the worker in which it alleged that the worker was

issued charge sheet dated 13.11.98 against which the worker submitted his reply dated 05.04.99. The reply of the

worker was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority, therefore, it was decided to hold a regular inquiry

to inquire into the charges and accordingly enquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority. First date

of inquiry was fixed by the enquiry officer with direction to the worker to attend the inquiry along with his

defense representative on 19.08.2000. On the said date worker was present with his defense representative and

the presenting officer produced documents which were marked as Ext M.1 to 27 copies of which were given to

the r representative of the worker by the enquiry officer. On the next date of inquiry defense representative

requested to adjourn the inquiry on medical grounds which was allowed by the inquiry officer and next date in

the inquiry was fixed as 23.09.2000. The defense representative for the worker also requested to change the

inquiry officer, which was refused by the disciplinary authority. On the request of the D.R. he was also shown

originals of some of the documents and copies of documents mentioned at serial no.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 were

also provided to the worker by the enquiry officer and on 17.10.200o copies of rest of the documents were also

provided to the defense representative of the worker. The presenting officer on various dates of inquiry has

proved the charges leveled against the worker.

11.

On merit of the case after elaborating the banking procedure in day to day the management has denied the entire

allegations of the worker and it is alleged that the worker with malafide view has blamed the officers of the bank.

It also alleged by the bank that the gross misconduct has been proved during the domestic inquiry. There was

proper documentary evidence hence oral evidence was not necessary in the light of proved misconduct and the

request of the worker is not tenable in the eye of law. The charge sheet is legal and valid. The claimant was given

opportunity of his defense before passing of final orders by the disciplinary authority. The final order is legal and

should not be interfered by the tribunal as the same has been passed after considering the inquiry report in which

the enquiry officer has proved all the charges. It is also alleged by the bank that in case this tribunal does not find

the inquiry to be fair and proper in that event the bank should be given an opportunity to prove the charges.

12.

In the last it has been prayed that the claim of the worker be dismissed being devoid of merit.

13.

In this case worker has not filed rejoinder.

14.

After exchange of pleadings between the parties, my learned predecessor by order dated 10.12.08 has framed a

preliminary issue to the effect whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the management against the workman

was fair or proper and not against the natural justice.

15.

My learned predecessor by order dated 30.06.11 has held that the inquiry held against the worker was not fair and

proper ad gave an opportunity to the bank to prove the charged on 18.08.11 by adducing all the evidences.

16.

In order to prove the charges management has examined M.W.1 Sri Jamir Hasan who was chief manager in

Sardar Nagar Branch from June 95 to Nov.97. M.W.2 Sri S P Gupta, Hand Writing Expert, who has compared

the signatures of CSE Harish Chandra made on vouchers and found that signatures were done by CSE Harish

Chandra and M.W.3 Yogendra Prasad, Branch Manager, during the period June 93 to June in ChauriChoura

Branch.

17.

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

18.

Both the parties have filed several documents and the management bank has also filed relevant registers which

shall be discussed at appropriate stage.

19.

I have heard both the parties at length and have perused the documents carefully.

20.

Paper no.11/5-6 is the charge sheet issued the charged employee Harish Chandra (HEREINAFTER REFERRED

TO AS CSE).

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4239

21.

First charge leveled against worker is that he got opened an Saving Bank account no 14120 on 25.07.95 in the

name of Ram Milan by depositing Rs.100/- and in this account on 5.8.95 and 11.8.95 Rs.1000/- and 200/- were

deposited respectively. Thereafter under a conspiracy with Ram Milan by enhancing actual balance in the said

account withdrew Rs.20000/- on 28.7.95, 17000 on 31.7.95, 13000/-on 3.8.95, 23000 on 14.8.95, 10000 on

19.08.95 and 10000 on 29.08.95 and in order to conceal the fraud committed by him he either destroyed or

removed the ledger sheet opening form and some vouchers and prepared a forged ledger sheet in the name of Sri

Ram Mishra for the same saving account no.14120 showing balance of Rs.100/- only.

22.

Second charge leveled against CSE is that during his posting at Chauri Choura Branch during the period

September 86 to December 90 he has received a sum of Rs.50/- on 5.8.94 for depositing it in her recurring

account no.1309 and did not deposit it in bank nor entered the amount in ledger nor in bank record but shown the

entry of depositing of Rs.50/- in her pass book and made his initial signature.

23.

In the claim statement he alleged that some officers of the branch got opened the said bank account no.14120 in

the name of Ram Milan by depositing Rs.100/- and these officers are responsible for withdrawing the amount

fraudulently. He has also pleaded that all concerned officers of the bank with the support of local gundas and

criminal of the local area gheraod the applicant 17.09.95 which was holiday being Sunday and used coercive

measures and badly assaulted him and used physical force at about 4.30 p.m. asking the worker to confess the

alleged fraud by putting blank paper before him. The above officers were also having with them a blank ledger

sheet and under pressure they got the same filled from the worker in his own hand writing. They also lodged FIR

against worker at P.S. ChauriChaura on the same day at 7.00 p.m. on the strength of confession letter obtained by

them by using undue threats. While in the written statement it is alleged that confession letter was made on free

will of worker and he has given different versions at different times which can be seen in the alleged letter dated

18.09.95 addressed to S.P. Gorakhpur Dehat by the claimant.

24.

In order to prove the charges management has filed two confession letters of worker one is sent by post which

was received in the bank on 20.09.95, its photo copy is paper no. 11/23-24 and photocopy of envelop is 11/25 in

which he has requested that if any report is given to police / administration it may kindly be taken back and

requested to open OL account in his name and releasing his arrear and salary in that account stating that he will

repay all the dues as he has given the money to the persons from whom he has taken loan.

25.

Second confession letter is paper no.11/29-31 dated 17.09.95 in which he has confessed that he has withdrawn

the money by fraud which he will deposit in installments otherwise the same may be adjusted from housing loan

PF and arrears. He has further admitted that he got opened account no.14120 of Ram Milan on 25.07.95 by

Rs.100/- and thereafter he endorsed showing Rs.98000/- in account of Ram Milan and in the concerned ledger

sheet and also signed it and thereafter he has withdrawn Rs.20000/- on 28.07.95, 17000/- on 31.07.95, 10000 on

29.08.95 by filling withdrawal forms and making signature of Ram Milan, he received the amount, but the

vouchers relating to these transactions could not be destroyed by him. Further he has withdrawn Rs.13000 on

3.08.95, 23000 on 24.08.95 and 10000 on 29.08.95 and he has destroyed these three vouchers and also accounts

opening form and also ledger sheets. Further he has prepared a forged ledger sheet in the name of Sri Ram

Mishra showing his account no.14120 in his writing and further he had requested that he may pardoned and he

will deposit all the amount withdrawn by him as above. Regarding this confession letter i.e. 17.09.95 worker

claimant Harish Chandra has stated in his claim statement that bank officers has manhandled him and got this

letter written by him under duress but he has not stated anything regarding his confession letter sent by him

through registered post.

26.

A perusal of his confession letter dated 17.09.95 reveals that it is written in natural course with same flow of pen.

Worker has sent an application to S P Dehat Gorakhpur on 18.09.95 a copy of which is paper no.7/2-3 under

UPC and copy of envelop is 7/4 wherein he has stated that on 17.09.95 at 4.00 p.m. branch manager along with

miscreants of the local area forced him to write the confession letter by showing him country made pistol.

27.

In this regard worker Harish Chandra Kumar w.w.1 has stated in his cross examination that he has sent a letter to

SP Dehat by an ordinary post. He has further admitted that he has not mentioned anything in the letter addressed

to SP regarding his earlier confession letter sent to the bank by registered post on which he has admitted his

signatures. He has further admitted that in the letter sent to SP he has not mentioned that he was forced to prepare

ledger sheet paper no. 11/26 in the name of Sri Ram Mishra for saving bank account no.14120.

28.

If bank manager with other miscreants of local area forced the worker to write confession letter on 17.09.95 and

to prepare ledger sheet for the same account in others name worker may not sit silently after sending letter to S.P.

in this regard but worker would have tried to lodge FIR against the authorities of the bank who forced him to

write confession letter on pistol point or he would have taken the matter to court by moving an application under

156(3) CR. P. C. against bank authorities. It appears that the worker has simply done a formality by sending a

letter to SP Dehat Gorakhpur and thereafter he did not taken any further action which also makes his case

doubtful that he was forced to write confession letter on pistol point or by using coercive method assaulting him.

4240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29.

It is also beyond imagination that on 17.09.95 being holiday on account Sunday why several bank officers along

with miscreants assembled together and forced worker claimant to write confession letter.

30.

Worker Harish Chandra has admitted in his cross examination that in paper no.11/102 it is correctly mentioned

that his work was to issue token after withdrawal form and making in ledger. He further deposed that all the dates

mentioned in the charge sheet he was on duty and he has done entry and posting in the relevant registers.

31.

Bank in support of charge sheet examined M.W.1 Zameer Hasan who was chief manager in Sardar Nagar Branch

from June 95 to Nov.97.Hehas deposed that the account of Ram Milan was opened on 25.07.95 by depositing

Rs.100/- in saving bank account no. 14120 and the pass book was prepared Harish Chandra which was issued on

25.7.95. Thereafter in this account Rs.200/- and Rs.1000/- was deposited on 11.08.95 and 5.08.95 respectively.

Cashier receipt scroll register is filed in the court in original and its photocopy is paper no. 11/198 and 11/200.

From this account no.14120 several withdrawals on different dates as mentioned in the charge sheet were made.

Original withdrawal forms are filed in the court of CJM Gorakhpur in criminal case and its true certified copies is

filed which are paper no.11/216 to 11/221. Worker Harish Chandra has given two confession letters its original

are filed in criminal case and certified copy is filed in this case which are paper no.11/224 to 11/228. Worker has

sent his first confession letter on 12.09.95 as this date is mentioned in registered cover which was received in the

bank on 20.09.95. Second confession letter dated 17.09.95 was given by worker by hand in the bank. Original

ledger sheet for account no. 14120 is filed in the criminal case and its certified copy is filed in this case as paper

no. 11/222-223showing Rs.100/- deposited by Ram Milan in his account. Photocopy of attendance register of the

dates on which withdrawal was done has also been filed which is paper no.11/201-208 showing presence of

worker in the bank on these dates. It was the duty of worker to issue token after making posting in the ledger

sheet on receiving withdrawal form, preparing and issuing of new pass books. Original payment register for the

relevant dates mentioned in the charge sheet are also proved by the witness who has also filed its photocopies of

all the six dates which are paper no. 11/209-214 showing payments as mentioned in the charge sheet was made

from the account no.14120. He has said on oath that worker has submitted confession letter without any pressure

from his side and further deposed that no such complaint was made by the worker to any senior officers of the

bank. He further deposed that worker has admitted in his confession letter dated 17.09.95 that worker got opened

account of Ram Milan having account no.14120 and was responsible for payment of Rs.93000/- against deposit

of only Rs.1300/- and has also admitted that he has prepared another ledger sheet of account no.14120 but by

mistake he has entered the name of Sri Ram Mishra in place of Ram Milan. Worker has further admitted to have

toured original ledger sheet, account opening form and three withdrawal forms of Ram Milan. He has further

deposed that account that account no.14119 was also opened by the worker on 24.7.95 in favor of Manish Chopra

and on different dates as mentioned in charge sheet money was received by Harish Chandra personally. In this

way he has withdrawn Rs.93000/- on different dates.

32.

In his cross examination he has admitted that the process of payment of amount for more than Rs.5000/- on

withdrawal form is that on receiving withdrawal forms counter clerk has duty to issue token after making entry in

ledger sheet and send it to passing officer and passing officer after comparing the signature of the account holder

will pass it and send it cashier for payment.

33.

No other relevant factor has come in his evidence and this witness has supported the allegation of charges.

34.

As discussed above worker was posted as clerk cum cashier and after receiving withdrawal form it was his duty

to see as to whether amount mentioned in withdrawal form is available in the account of the account holder and if

yes then he will issue token and send the withdrawal form and register to the passing officer who will see the

posting done by cashier cum clerk in the register and after verifying the signature will pass it and send it to the

paying cashier. Therefore, the prime duty lies on the cashier to ensure whether sufficient balance is available in

the account or not and also it is the duty of the passing officer to see it whether entry made by the clerk cum

cashier in the ledger on the basis of withdrawal form is correct or not. If cashier cum clerk plays a foul role by

endorsing fake entry in the ledger book showing sufficient balance then passing officer will have no option but to

pass it unless foul play of cashier cum clerk comes to his notice. As original ledger sheet is alleged to have been

removed by the worker this tribunal cannot give a positive finding on this point. But definitely it is evident that as

worker was duty bound to see sufficient balance available in the account only then he was duty bound to issue

token and send it to the passing officer to pass it and without playing foul game by the worker as cashier cum

clerk no payment from this account can be made.

35.

Bank has also examined M.W.2 Sri S P Gupta, Hand Writing Expert who has proved his report which paper no.

11/32-44 and in his opinion he has found that on the withdrawal form dated 28.07.95 for Rs.20000/- dated

31.7.95 for 17000/- and dated 29.08.95 for Rs.10000/- are written by worker Harish Chandra and also he has

found ledger sheet prepared in the name of Sri Ram Mishra for account no.14120 is written by Harish Chandra.

Certified photocopies of the said vouchers are 11/217, 11/219 and 11/221 and photocopy of ledger sheet is

17/223. Hand writing expert has compared the disputed hand writing with the available hand writing of Harish

Chandra. The evidence of hand writing expert and his report is acceptable as nothing has come in his cross

examination to disbelieve his testimony.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4241

36.

Management has also examined M.W.3 Sri Yogendra Prasad who was manager in chauri choura from June 93 to

June 96 where worker Harish Chandra was also working as cashier cum clerk. He has given evidence regarding

charge no. 2(ka) and 2 (kha). The charge leveled against the worker is that the worker has obtained Rs.50/- from

PinkiLat for depositing in her account no.1309 but has not deposited the amount and made entry in her pass book.

He has proved paper no.11/48 which is original opening form of account of R.D. No. 1309. He has also proved

original ledger sheet paper no.11/50 which shows that no deposit of Rs.50/- was made in the ledger sheet on

5.8.94. He has also proved original scroll register of cashier which is paper no.13/51 and in this also no deposit of

Rs.50/- is found mentioned and also proved day book 11/52 in which also no mention of the amount. He has also

proved the original pass book showing deposit of Rs.50/- was written on 5.08.94 and proved the initials of worker

Harish Chandra. He has also proved the complaint made by depositor which is paper no. 11/45-47. In his cross

examination he has deposed that on receiving of complaint from PinkiLat he inquired the matter and perused the

pass book and ledger sheet and found that amount was mentioned in pass book by the worker and signed by him

but has not entered the amount in ledger sheet and he did not found any need of hand writing expert report on this

point. PinkiLat could not be examined by bank in this court as it is admitted to worker in his cross examination

that PinkiLat has died. The testimony of M.W.3 appears to be acceptable as nothing has come in his cross

examination to disbelieve him.

37.

From the above discussion of evidence and documents it is found that worker Harish Chandra has prepared

forged withdrawal forms in his own hand writing which were passed by the passing officer on receiving the

withdrawal forms along with ledger after tallying the signature of the account holder and send the same to the

paying cashier for payment. Worker Harish Chandra has send the withdrawal forms for passing knowingly that

no sufficient balance is available in the account of account holder and he has further admitted all these facts in

both the confession letters and has also prepared a forged ledger sheet for account no. 14120 in the name of Sri

Ram Mishra in place of Sri Ram Milan. It is also proved that on 5.8.94 at branch chauri choura he received 50/-

from Pinki Lath for depositing the same in her R. D. account no.1309 but has not deposited the amount in the

bank and made entry in her pass book. Thus he has defrauded the bank by not depositing Rs.50/- after receiving

the amount from the account holder.

38.

Bank failed to prove charge no.1 (kha) in which it is alleged that Harish Chandra has destroyed opening form of

account no. 14120, ledger sheet and concerned vouchers.

39.

Therefore, charge no.1 (ka) & (ga) and charge no.2 (ka) and (kha) are fully proved against the worker.

Accordingly it is held that the bank has rightly dismissed the services of the worker on the proved charges which

need not to be interfered. Under the facts and circumstances of the case there appears no justification to interfere

in the punishment under section 11-A of the Act.

40.

Award is passed accordingly against the worker

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1891-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad 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] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 49@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@237@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1891.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2006) 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 State Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.09.2016.

[No. L-12012/237/2005-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

4242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR-COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 49 of 2006

Between :

Bashishtha Muni Mishra,

Son of Late Sri Ram Lakhan Mishra,

Resident of 70/16 Noorullah Road,

Near Prayag Hotel, Allahabad.

AND

The Deputy General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Cantonment Board, Varanasi.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide notification no. L-12012/237/2005-IR (B-1) dated 26.06.06 has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

KYA PRABHANDHAN STATE BANK OF INDIA ALLAHABAD KE DWARA SRI VASHISHTHA MUNI

MISHRA, DAFTRI KO ADESH DINANK 22.09.04 KE DWARA NAUKARI SE NIKALA JANA

NYAYOCHIT TATHA NYAYSANGAT HAI? YADI NAHI TO KARMKAR KIS ANUTOSH KA AHIKRI

HAI?

The case of the worker in short is that he was appointed as messenger cum water boy on 17.02.79 on six months

probation and subsequently was confirmed on 17.08.79. Considering the work and conduct of the worker he was

promoted at the post of Daftri. Due to his trade union activities the officers’ community were displeased from

him and posted him at branch office Johnstonganj Branch, Allahabad. It is alleged that on 12.08.99 a new saving

bank account baring no. 01190022061 was allowed to be opened in an irregular manner in the SBI Johnstonganj

Branch Allahabad in the name of one Smt. Prema Devi whose specimen signature and photograph were verified

by a clerk named Sri A K Sharma who was not at all authorized to do so. This saving bank account was

introduced by Smt. Maina Devi depositor of saving bank account no. 58901 and her introductory reference or

Smt. Prema Devi was taken as good and accepted by the above named Sri A K Sharma to open the account and

the account was thus opened after completion of necessary formalities. On 13.08.99 the depositor newly opened

account no.22061 deposited a cheque dated 16.07.99 for Rs.67050/- issued by Life Insurance Corporation of

India in her favor which was collected by the bank through local clearing and account of the cheque was credited

in the said saving bank account of Smt. Prema Devi on 17.08.99. The withdrawal was allowed and passed for

payment by an authorized official of bank and the payment was made by the concerned cashier to Smt. Prema

Devi at the counter.

Subsequent to the above transaction it came to the notice of the bank authorities that the Life Insurance

Corporation cheque in question which was sent per registered post belong to some other Smt. Prema Devi and

Smt. Prema Devi whose savings bank account no.22061 was allowed and opened on 2.08.99 was not a genuine

lady who has given a wrong address and was untraceable. The authorities of the bank then inquired the

whereabouts of Smt. Prema Devi from the introducer of her account Smt. Maina Devi. A FIR was lodged with

the police by the Life Insurance Corporation of India about the loss of cheque and against Smt. Prema Devi and

Smt. Maina Devi. The applicant was arrested by the police on 15.02.2000 and was bailed out later on.

A departmental inquiry against the worker was instituted against the worker which was wholly illegal and against

the provisions of service regulation. The inquiry was commenced on 18.06.02 and was concluded on 29.06.02 in

hasty manner and the inquiry officer submitted his report on 26.09.02 holding all the allegations of charges as

proved. Enquiry officer acted unlawfully in holding the charges as proved against the worker. The finding of the

enquiry officer is highly erroneous and perverse as he has committed gross irregularity in relying upon the police

case diary to prove the allegations of charges. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is perverse and

illegal. On the basis of illegal inquiry report the disciplinary authority proposed to inflict the punishment of

dismissal from service vide order dated 22.09.04 and he was required to reply the same within 7 days. The

worker complied it but the disciplinary authority did not consider any submission of the worker and confirmed

the proposed punishment order by passing final order on 26.10.04. The appeal of the worker was decided in most

casual manner by the appellate authority by order dated 19.01.05, where by the appeal was rejected. Thus the

worker has prayed his reinstatement in the service of the bank with full back wages, continuity of service with all

consequential benefits.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4243

Along with the claim petition worker has also filed certain documents paper no. 5/8-40 which are in the nature of

photocopies.

Management filed reply against the claim petition of the worker denying the entire allegations of the worker. It is

alleged that the worker filed his reply against the charge sheet on 01.03.02 which was not found satisfactory;

hence it was decided to hold a domestic inquiry against the worker. The presenting officer made available

documents P. Ex 1 to 14 to the defense representative and also made available a list of witness. The defense

representative made a request to the inquiry officer to provide two documents for the defense which were made

available to him. The defense representative also requested to the inquiry officer to stop the proceedings of the

case in the light of criminal case pending against the worker upon which the inquiry officer explained that the

present inquiry is going on under the orders of the Hon’ble High Court passed on 08.11.01 in writ petition no.

33817 of 2001. P.W.1 to P.W.4 were presented before the inquiry office who were cross examined by the defense

representative. M.W.3 Smt. Maina Devi confirmed that she had made the complaint to the bank on 07.10.99. The

inquiry was concluded by the enquiry officer on 26.06.02. The worker was given every possible opportunity to

defend his case. Ultimately the enquiry officer submitted his report on 26.09.02 to the disciplinary authority in

which he found that out of three charges, charge no.1 and 3 were proved and charge no.2 was partly proved.

Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice proposing punishment and considering the reply

of the worker confirmed the proposed punishment by passing final order dated 26.10.04 and appeal preferred by

the worker was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 19.01.05. It is also alleged that the enquiry was

fair and according to principle of natural justice and the punishment is based on the proved misconduct hence

there is no need to interfere either with the inquiry or with the punishment awarded to the worker and also that

the bank has lost the confidence and trust reposed to on the worker. The worker did not raise the objection

regarding conduct of the inquiry. The allegation regarding Smt. Maina Devi as co-accused is wrong. Accordingly

it is prayed by the management that the claim petition of the worker is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit

and it should be rejected.

Worker has not filed rejoinder statement in the case.

Management vide application dated 08.06.07 has filed 17 documents including enquiry proceedings running into

17 pages and Bank Cash Scroll Register in original.

10.

The management vide application 28.09.07 has also filed original accounting form of Prema Devi in original and

withdrawal form in original dated 18.8.99 for Rs.65000/-.

11.

The relevancy of the documents filed by the both sides shall be discussed at appropriate stage while recording

findings of the case on merit.

12.

Worker examined himself as w.w.1 whereas management examined Sri Prem Kishan as M.W.1.

13.

After recording of evidence of both the sides on merit, this tribunal by its order dated 07.02.13 has framed a

preliminary issue to the effect whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the management is just and fair. By

order dated 12.08.15 this tribunal held that the inquiry conducted by the bank is just and fair and it will be

examined as to whether on the basis of evidence recorded by the management charges stands proved against the

worker or not. It is also pertinent to mention here that on 12.08.15, authorized representative for the worker has

moved an application stating that he has no issue in regard of inquiry up to the extent of procedure, but the

finding enquiry officer is not tenable in the eye of law. Thus it is clear that worker has admitted the fairness of the

inquiry procedure adopted in the domestic inquiry and he has only challenged the findings of the enquiry officer.

14.

I have heard the representatives for the parties at length and have also perused the records carefully.

15.

Learned authorized representative for the worker has contended that the findings of the enquiry officer are

perverse as the management failed to prove any role of worker in opening the account in the name of Smt. Prema

Devi. It is also contended that the withdrawal of cheque issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India by

authorized official of the bank and the payment was made by the concerned cashier to Smt. Prema Devi at the

counter and he has been acquitted in the criminal case lodged by the bank.

16.

The authorized representative for the bank contended that the worker has raised dispute regarding his dismissal

by order dated 22.01.04 and for the said date reference has been made and it is also contended that from the

reference order it is clear that the worker was dismissed by the management of State Bank of India, Allahabad.

The date of dismissal and the fact that worker was dismissed by State Bank of India, Allahabad is incorrect and

therefore dispute raised and reference made on the on the complaint of worker is bad in the eye of law. He further

contended that in domestic inquiry it is found that worker has asked Smt. Maina Devi to introduce Smt. Prema

Devi and a fake account was opened and a sum of Rs.67050/- was withdrawn from the said account the cheque of

which was issued by Life Insurance Corporation of India in favor of Smt. Prema Devi.

17.

As domestic inquiry has been admitted by the worker therefore, the tribunal concluded that the domestic inquiry

conducted by the management was just and fair, therefore, now it is to be seen whether on the basis of evidence

4244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

recorded in domestic inquiry by the enquiry officer whether charges leveled against the worker stands proved or

not.

18.

On perusal of charge sheet paper no.8/16 it appears that the worker Sri Bashishtha Muni Misra was issued a

charge sheet on the following counts-

1. (a)

that the worker showed special interest in opening of account of alleged Prema Devi and prompted Smt.

Maina Devi to introduce Smt. Prema Devi as introducer in opening the account and shown her to be her

relative.

(b)

that you approached Sri U N Kapoor branch manager for releasing Rs.65000/- from the account number

SB 5890 of Smt. Prema Devi and attempted to obtain the concerned voucher from Sri Kamal Narain

after few days which was not accepted by him.

(C). That you along with Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi has committed this fraudulent act.

2. That due to your above misdeed bank has to suffer a loss of Rs.65000/-.

19.

It is not in dispute that a fake saving bank account no.5890 was opened in the name of Smt. Prema Devi who

was introduced by Smt. Maina Devi and a cheque of the amount of Rs.67050 issued by Life Insurance

Corporation of India was deposited in the said account and Rs.65000/- was withdrawn from the account by

alleged Smt. Prema Devi.

20. Briefly stated, the contents of charge sheet are that the worker Sri Bashishtha Muni Mishra posted as daftari

has taken into confidence Smt. Maina Devi for introducing Smt. Prema Devi at the time of opening of the

account of Smt. Prema Devi pretending Smt. Prema Devi to be his relative and thereafter the worker has

approached the branch manager Sri U N Kapoor for release of Rs.65000/- from the said account and thereafter

he tried to obtain concern voucher from Sri Kamal Narain Bhalla record keeper of the branch and this has put

the bank to suffer financial loss to the tune of Rs.65000/-.

21.

Management during the course of inquiry has examined four witnesses. P.W.1 Sri G.A. Hashmi stated before

the inquiry that none including the charged employee came with Smt. Prema Devi at the time of opening the

account. P.W.2 Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma has shown his ignorance as to how the worker has helped Smt.

Prema Devi in opening the above saving bank account.. P.W.3 Smt. Maina Devi has stated that the worker got

her signature as introducer for the account of Smt. Prema Devi and when she refused to do so she was

convinced by the charge sheeted employee. She has also received a letter of thanks from the bank. In her cross

examination she has stated that she knows Sri Mishra from 1977 who used to fill up her forms occasionally.

She also stated that Sri Mishra told her that Smt. Prema Devi is his relative and obtained her signature as

introducer. Management has also examined P.W.4 during the course of domestic inquiry who is Sri Kamal

Narain Bhalla who has stated that Sri Mishra charged employee has requested him to provide voucher but he

refused to give. It has also come in the inquiry that Sri U N Kapoor has been transferred out of station and

therefore, there is no possibility of recording his evidence. Smt. Maina Devi has also made a complaint to the

branch manager which is paper no. 8/31-33 and also gave an application to P.S. Kotwali and SSP Allahabad

which are paper no.8/34-37 and a FIR has been lodged against the charged employee and Sri Rajendra Kumar

Dwivedi.

22.

Worker Sri Bashistha Muni Mishra has also been examined and nothing relevant has come in his statement

except that Sri U N Kapoor has not been examined in the case. Although Sri U N Kapoor has not been

examined in domestic inquiry due to his non availability but the management’s witnesses has proved his

writing on bank’s cash scroll register in which name of Sri Bashishtha Muni Mishra in short as B N Mishra is

written where withdrawal of amount Rs.65000/- is shown on the date 18.08.99. It shows that Sri B N Mishra

has approached U N Kapoor for clearance of the cheque, therefore, branch manager has written his name in

short as stated by management witnesses.

23.

In the light of the above evidence of the management and the charged employee the tribunal has examined the

findings of the enquiry officer and tribunal finds that the enquiry officer has well discussed the evidence

available on the record of domestic inquiry and no other opinion is possible from the evidence as has been

opined by the enquiry officer. Tribunal also finds that the enquiry officer has rightly come at the conclusion

that the charges no. 1 leveled against the charged employee stands proved and also charge no.2 stands partly

proved.

24.

After giving anxious consideration on the report of enquiry officer on charge no.3, tribunal is unable to concur

with the findings of the enquiry officer mainly for the reasons that the said charge has been proved only on the

basis of the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation. It is settled legal position that

statements recorded by the police authorities during the course of investigation cannot be made basis for

proving the charge in domestic inquiry against the charged employee unless witnesses are examined before the

enquiry officer.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4245

25.

Accordingly it is held by the tribunal that the charge no.3 is not proved as the statements of the witnesses

recorded before police authorities is of no help to prove the charge no.3 against the worker.

26.

The tribunal, after going through the show cause notice and final order passed by the disciplinary authority,

supports the same with full swing. The reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority in show cause notice and

while passing the final order concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority has

rightly proposed the punishment of dismissal from service considering the facts and circumstances of the case

and ultimately has rightly approved the same by passing final punishment order. The tribunal is of the

conclusive opinion that the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority need not to be interfered

at the hands of this tribunal which is perfect and based on sound reasons.

27.

Therefore it is concluded that the worker has rightly been punished by the disciplinary authority in the matter

of charge sheet issued to him which fully commensurate with the gravity of proved misconduct.

28.

Before parting with the award it may also be pointed out here that the learned representative for the

management has raised some technical ground regarding maintainability of the present reference before this

tribunal.

29.

Firstly it has been contended by him that the management of State Bank of India, Allahabad, had never

terminated the services of the charged employee. There was no reply from the side of the worker. The tribunal

on this point has also examined the final order passed by the disciplinary authority who is none other than the

Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region IV, Zonal Office, Varanasi which had passed the

order of punishment dated 26.10.04.

30.

Therefore on this score the dispute raised by the worker is against the correct facts and reference made by

government is apparently suffers from infirmities.

31.

It has secondly been argued by the authorized representative for the bank that the charge sheeted employee

had never been dismissed from the service of the bank as has been shown in the reference orderi.e.22.09.04. In

fact this date is the date of show cause notice issued to the worker by the disciplinary authority after

completion of the inquiry whereas the worker was dismissed from the bank’s service by order dated 26.10.04,

which has not been challenged by the worker.

32.

I find force in the contention of the representative for the management. By a bare perusal of the records it is

proved that the worker has been penalized by order dated 26.10.04, of the disciplinary authority, but the

reference shows that the removal of the worker from the service of the bank has been done with effect from

22.09.04, which appears to be contradictory.

33.

Therefore it is held that the charged employee Sri Bashistha Muni Mishra has neither been dismissed by the

State Bank of India, Allahabad, nor on the date mentioned in the reference order i.e. 22.09.04 which is the date

of show cause notice.

34.

In view of above discussions of the facts of the case the tribunal finds that the dispute raised by the worker

showing date of dismissal from service as 22.09.04 is incorrect, in fact it is the date of issuance of show cause

notice to the worker by the disciplinary authority. As such at any rate it cannot be said that the services of the

worker were dismissed by the disciplinary authority on 22.09.04 as referred to in the reference order which

also makes the reference order defective, therefore, the worker on this score cannot be granted any relief as

claimed by him in his claim petition.

35.

Reference is therefore answered accordingly against the charged employee Sri Bashishtha Muni Mishra

holding that he is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him in his claim petition.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1892-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj eè;

jsyos 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] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 27@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@36@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

4246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1892.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2008) 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 North Central Railway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

05.09.2016.

[No. L-41011/36/2007-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 27/2008

Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari,

Divisional Secretary,

Uttar Madhya Railway Karamchari Sangh,

119/74 Quarter No. 61, Naseemabad, Kanpur.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager,

North Central Railway, Allahabad.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide notification No. L-41011/36/2007-IR (B-I) dated 17.01.08, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of North Central Railway in imposing penalty of stoppage of one

increment with effect from 01.07.04 to Sri Gulab Chandra Gupta son of Sri Shiv Prasad Gupta, Parcel

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

In short the case of the worker is that he is presently posted as Parcel Supervisor under the management and he

was deputed to work as senior shed clerk and in the inventory dated 02.11.03 he received the charge of the goods

mentioned there under. The duties of the senior shed clerk is to release the goods after verifying the gate pass and

records and in this way about 350-450 articles of goods are to be released daily whereas the work of dating clerk

is to mention the date of the goods whether received or not and both these works are of different nature and to do

the work two clerks are deputed. On 03.11.03 dating clerk was not on duty then he reported the matter with

request to provide a dating clerk but he was asked to work as dating clerk in addition to his work of shed clerk

whereupon he objected it but all in vain. On 14.11.03 when the worker was working in the shed a person came

with a bilty with railway receipt to get release a scooter booked from Aurangabad to Kanpur Central on

verification of the record when no entry was found therein he asked the holder of bilty to see him after one hour

and on the same day he delivered the goods to the bilty holder and he also sent an apology letter to his superior.

He was issued a charge sheet in the form of SF-II by Divisional Commercial Manager on 08.12.03 whereby he

was charged that he returned the holder of bilty on the ground that the good is not available but from the records

it is clear that the good was received and this fact was not mentioned in the records which created serious

problem to the holder of bilty as a result of which the railway administration has to wipe out the charges for

which the worker is responsible. He submitted his reply on 19.12.03 but the same was found unsatisfactory. The

railway authorities without considering the reply submitted by the worker imposed a penalty of imposition of

stoppage of one annual graded increment vide order dated 17.06.04 which was made effective with effect from

01.07.04. He preferred an appeal but that too was rejected without proper application of mind. Therefore, it is

prayed that the punishment order be set aside and he be allowed his increment on the premises as if he had never

been awarded any punishment.

Worker has also filed certain papers with his claim petition which shall be adumbrated at the appropriate stage.

Management submitted its reply in which the working place and the work as detailed by the worker has been

admitted. As per effective roster dated 03.01.03 the worker was required to work on the point of senior shed clerk

on the inventory of dated 02.11.03 neither the TIA Chief Parcel Supervisor nor Commercial Inspector was

present and the worker had not prepared the inventory and the said inventory was prepared by the previous staff

for the purpose of making/handing over the charge. The senior shed clerk was ordered to do the work of dating

clerk which was in practice due to shortage of staff and he was informed about the order vide letter dated

12.01.03 to follow the same. It is absolutely denied that there was no entry of scooter in the entry shed book and

the scooter in question was arrived on 15.10.03 and the version of the worker is wrong that there was no entry in

the shed record bilty number was recorded by the worker. The consignee was asked to visit after one hour is false

and fabricated. It is admitted by the petitioner that from 20.10.03 to 14.11.03 has checked each and every page of

the register and checked about 182 entries and 14.11.03 was recorded for non-arrived of scooter. The reality is

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4247

that he id not checked the shed record carefully and 14.11.03 was recorded date of non-arrival of goods on bilti

when the consignee contacted to not received cell where a complaint was already filed by him then he came to

know that his scooter has arrived on 15.10.03 and the delivery of scooter was made to the consignee on 15.11.03.

It is admitted that SF-11 was served upon the worker and the allegation leveled therein were found proved and

the penalty of stoppage of one increment with effect from 01.07.04 was imposed upon him. There is no illegality

or irregularity in the penalty imposed upon the worker. The petitioner failed to perform his duties honestly and

the party was informed that his good was arrived at Kanpur on 15.10.03 while the worker has mentioned the date

of arrival on bilty as 15.11.03. The competent authority was satisfied with the allegation therefore, the worker has

rightly been imposed with the penalty of stoppage of one increment as per rule. Appeal preferred by him has

rightly been rejected by the appellate authority.

On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the petition of the claimant is liable to be rejected being devoid of

merit and it should be rejected.

Worker has filed 12 documents paper No.3/9-23. Management has not filed documents in evidence. Worker

Gulab Chandra Gupta has examined himself as w.w.1 and the management did not examine any witness in

support of its case.

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

In brief the case of the worker is that he was posted as shed clerk from 03.11.03, copy of order is paper No.3/9.

He was also asked to do the duty of dating clerk due to shortage of staff as is clear from the paper no.3/11. He

was give SF-11 charge sheet dated 29.11.03 which was received by him on 10.12.03 on the fact that during his

duty a scooter was available for delivery which was booked from Aurangabad to Kanpur and the worker has

refused the party on 14.11.03 saying that the scooter is not available. It was his duty to check the record before

refusing to deliver the scooter and for this reason party as to suffer and railway has to exempt the due charges

which is paper no.3/13-14. On receiving this memo worker has submitted his written reply which is paper

No.3/15-17 stating that he was posted as shed clerk and he was also asked to do the duties of dating clerk. Due to

over load of work it is possible that some mistake might have occurred as he was doing heavy duty every day.

From the record it appeared that scooter was received on bilty on 20.10.03. He has asked the party to come after

one hour as he has to check the goods received. When party has come again by then he had searched it and

entered the date of receiving the goods on 14.11.03 as is clear from paper No.3/12.

10.

On receiving this explanation the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment for

one year with the observation that the explanation of the worker was not found satisfactory. The order of the

disciplinary authority was passed on printed proforma in contravention of Rule 47.26 read with RB’s Circular

No. E/D&A) 2002/RG-6-27 dated 24.09.02 : RBE 168/2002, in which it is provided that in disciplinary cases the

disciplinary authority and appellate authority do not write speaking and reasoned orders and they use printed

proforma for this purpose. This is highly objectionable. Therefore, the disciplinary and appellate authority

henceforth discontinues such practice.

11.

From perusal of punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority it is clear that no fact finding is given in

the punishment order passed on printed pro forma paper No.3/18 as to how disciplinary authority came to the

conclusion that the worker was guilty for the misconduct. It is clear that the disciplinary authority has passed the

punishment order in cursory manner without applying his open mind. As the disciplinary proceedings are in the

nature of quasi-judicial proceedings, therefore, the disciplinary authority was under obligation to pass a reasoned

and speaking order as to how he came to the conclusion that the worker was guilty of the misconduct for which

he was charged.

12.

Besides worker has examined himself in support of his case and no witness has come forward on behalf of the

management to rebut the testimony of the worker. It is also clear that the worker was doing extra work of dating

clerk in addition of his own work i.e. shed clerk, it is quite possible that due to over burden of work some minor

mistake might have occurred and there is no allegation that the worker at any point of time tried to obtain any

benefit of his own from the party before releasing the scooter.

13.

From the punishment order it also reveals that the same has been passed in contravention of the mandatory

provision of Rule 47.26 read with Railway Board’s letter dated 24.09.02 (supra).Therefore, at any rate the

punishment order and appellate order cannot be sustained in the eye of law which are liable to be set aside and

accordingly both these orders are set aside.

14.

In view of discussions as above, it is held that the action of the management of NCR Allahabad in imposing the

penalty of stoppage of one increment with effect from 01.07./04 to Sri Gulab Chandra Gupta Parcel Supervisor is

neither legal nor justified. As a consequence of which worker is entitled for all the consequential benefits as if he

had never been awarded any such punishment.

15.

Reference is answered accordingly in favor of the worker and against the railway management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1893-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1036@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@147@94&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1893.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1036/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

to the management of Western Railway and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 05.09.2016.

[No. L-41012/147/94-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 15^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No- 1036/2004

The Chief Engineer (Construction),

Western Railway,

Station Building, Kalupur, Ahmedabad.

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

TBZ – 17, Gurunagar, Gandhidham,

Kutch – 370201.

… Second Party

For the First Party

: ShriYogesh C. Rasyaguru

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-41012/147/94-IR (B-I) dated 17.01.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of The Chief Engineer (Construction), Western Railway, Station

Building, Kalupur, Ahmedabad in cancelling the evidence of promotion in respect of Shri M.O. Vashistha and

promoting his juniors is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 17.01.1997. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 2 on 15.03.1997

along with the 5 documents vide list Ext. 3. The First party The Chief Engineer (Construction), Western Railway,

Station Building, Kalupur, Ahmedabad, submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 4 and written statement Ext. 7 on

04.09.2001. Since then, the second party has been absent and has not been leading evidence.

Thus, in the said circumstances, the reference is liable to be dismissed. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4249

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1894-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 42@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@65@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1894.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

to the management of Western Railway and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 05.09.2016.

[No. L-41012/65/2011-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 15^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No- 42/2012

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Near Chamunda Bridge,

Asarwa, Ahmedabad.

The Sr. Section Engineer,

Western Railway, Kalupur Railway Station,

Ahmedabad.

…First Party

V/s

Shri Vijay Chunnilal Solanki,

Harijanvas, Behind Majestic Talkies,

Dabhoi, Tal. &Distt. Vadodara,

Vadodara.

…Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: Shri R. S. Sisodia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-41012/65/2011-IR (B-I) dated 30.01.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

4250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad in

terminating the service of Shri Vijay Chunnilal Solanki Ex. Safaiwala w.e.f. 13.06.2006 is legal and justified? To

what relief the workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 30.01.2012. The second party submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 5 and statement of

claim Ext. 6 on 10.05.2002. The first party Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad was

served by registered post on 30.04.2012/10.05.2012 but since then the first party did not submit the vakalatpatra

as well as written statement. This tribunal also issued a notice Ext. 4 to the first party no. 2 Sr. Section Engineer,

Western Railway ,Kalupur Railway Station, Ahmedabad but the same was received as unserved. Therefore on

04.03.2016, the reference was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party.

The second party on 14.07.2016 submitted his affidavit cum examination chief Ext. 5 wherein he has stated on

oath that he belongs to schedule tribe and was appointed on compassionate ground on account of sudden death of

his father in the year 1999 as sweeper. He has been bearing the responsibility of his whole family including

mother, brother and sisters. His service was spotless but without explaining any valid reason, his services were

terminated on 13.06.2006 showing him as absent from 10.07.2004 to 18.07.2005. The departmental enquiry was

conducted but proper opportunity was not given to him to cross-examination the witnesses produced in the

enquiry. He was also not given the copy of the statement of the witnesses examined in the departmental enquiry.

He has further stated that on 10.07.2004, he went to Dabhoi after seeking due permission and leave where he fell

ill and underwent medical treatment there under a local doctor. He has further stated that he came to re-join along

with the medical certificates but he was denied to join and was subjected to departmental enquiry. In the enquiry,

one of the witnesses Shri Chunnilal made the enquiry officer aware regarding his illness.

But none appeared today on behalf of the first party to cross-examination the second party workman/witness.

Thus, the evidence of the workman second party has not been rebutted by the first party therefore the tribunal has

no reason to disbelieve it.

Thus, in the said circumstances believing the evidence of the second party workman, I do not find any reason to

justify the action taken by the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad/First party to

terminate the services of Shri Vijay Chunnilal Solanki /Second party.

Thus, the reference is decided in the favour of the second party / Shri Vijay Chunnilal Solanki and I hold that the

action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad in terminating the

service of Shri Vijay Chunnilal Solanki Ex. Safaiwalaw.e.f. 13.06.2006 is against law and cannot be said to be

justified. The second party workman bereinstated with immediate effect with all back wages.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1895-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 29@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@114@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1895.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

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

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

to the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.09.2016.

[No. L-41011/114/2009-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4251

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-lcum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 15^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 29/2011

The Chief Medical Supdt.,

Western Railway, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat).

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Western Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28/B, Narayan Park, Behind Railway Station,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat).

…Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

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

L-41011/114/2009-IR (B-I) dated 20.04.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of The Chief Medical Superintendent, Western Railway,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad in not making reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs. 13950/- to

LShri K.K. Ansari incurred by him for treatment of his wife, is legal and justified? To what relief

the Union/workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 20.04.2011. On 15.07.2016, the second party Shri R.S. Sisodia, the

President, Western Railway Karmachari Parishad, does not press the reference vide application Ext. 3.

Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1896-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 30@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@115@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

4252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1896.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

to the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.09.2016.

[No. L-41011/115/2009-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 15^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No- 30/2011

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Kothi Compound, Rajkot.

The Chief Personnel Officer,

North Western Railway, Jaipur.

… First Party

V/s

The President,

Western Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28/B, Narayan Park, Behind Railway Station, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat).

… Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

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

L-41011/115/2009-IR (B-I) dated 20.04.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot, in not

granting promotion to Shri Prabhu Singh Khinchi, Section Engineer w.e.f. 01.11.2003, is legal and justified?

To what relief the Union/workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 20.04.2011. On 15.07.2016, the second party Shri R.S. Sisodia, the President,

Western Railway Karmachari Parishad, does not press the reference vide application Ext. 3.

Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1897-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

MCY;wlh,y 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 89@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@83@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4253

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1897.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2012) of the 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 Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.09.2016.

[No. L-22012/83/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/89/2012

General Secretary,

Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

Lal Jhanda, Pathakheda Area,

District Betul (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

PO Pathakhera, Distt. Betul.

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14^th day of July 2016

As per letter dated 24-7-12 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-22012/83/2012-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the wages of Shri Pancham Suryawanshi is less than that drawn by Shri Kasim Miyan and whether

the same is against the National Coal Wage Agreement VI & VII. To what relief he is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party failed to appear in reference proceeding.

Consequently Ist party is proceeded exparte on 19-10-2015.

2^nd party has filed exparte Written Statement. The contention of the management in Written Statement are

Shri Pancham Suryavanshi Gr.B SLU was promoted on 6-8-03 as Sr. SPA (T&S) Grade-A. His basic was fixed

Rs.7802/-. On 1-1-2004, claimant was granted increment in Grade B SLU. His pay was fixed Rs.8000/-.

Shri Kasim Miyan was granted promotion on 9-11-2004. His pay was fixed at Rs.8400/-. The pay fixed after

promotion is protected as per I.I.No.14.

2^nd party has filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Ishwar Das supporting contentions in Written Statement. As the

workman has not filed statement of claim, he is proceeded exparte. The dispute under reference could not be

decided on merit.

In the result No Dispute Award is passed in the matter.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1898-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y

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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 12@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@61@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1898.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2005) 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 South Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

05.09.2016.

[No. L-22012/61/2004-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

4254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/12/2005

General Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (BMS),

Johilla Area,

PO Nowrozabad, Distt. Umaria (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

SECL, Johilla Area,

PO Nowrozabad,

Distt. Umaria (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15^th day of July 2016

As per letter dated 19-1-2005 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-22012/61/2004-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Johilla area of SECL, PO Nowrozabad, Distt.

Umaria not giving promotion to Kamta Prasad and 6 other mechanical Fitter Cat V to mechanical Fitter Cat VI

and promoting Dilshad Khan Turner Cat-VI changing his post to mechanical fitter and appointing on said post is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party Secretary of Union filed statement of

claim at Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of Ist party Union is that post of six employees Kamta Prasad Verma, Dinesh

Tiwari, Nandilal Gupta, Brijesh Tiwari, K.L.Rohit, raj Kumar Gautam and Raj Bhan Bhargawa are illegally

changed by the management of 2^nd party. That 2^nd party No.2 Dilshad Khan is turner. All the six workmen (Ist

party) are placed from Cat-V to IV by the management. That 2^nd party No.2 Dilshad Khan was working as a

turner. The line of promotion of mechanical fitter Cat VI starts from Helper Category II. The line of promotion

for cadre of turner is different. 2^nd party No.2 Dilshad is designated as Mechanical fitter Cat VI contrary to the

cadre scheme. That post of mechanical fitter was lying vacant. The order of promotion was not passed from post

of Cat-IV to V and form the post of Cat-V to VI mechanical fitters by the management. Despite grievances were

raised , no order was passed by the management. The line of promotion has been changed pf 2md party No.2. He

is imported to other category and promoted instead of Ist party workman. That Ist party workman got notional

promotion after completing 3 years during existing category. They are placed from Cat-V to IV in lower

category. It is contrary to the rules that promotion has been granted in higher category as per Agreement NCWA-

VI by management is discriminatory and unfair. The promotional post of category of Ist party workman is

snatched contrary to the cadre scheme. The nature of job of mechanical fitter and turner is different. They form

different categories for purpose of promotion. The rule doesnot authorise to import person in different category

and grant him promotion ignoring seniority of other categories. On above contentions, Ist party prays that

promotion of 2^nd party No.2 to CatVI be set-aside. Ist party also prays direction that they maybe promoted from

Mechanical Fitter Cat-V to Mechanical Fitter Cat-VI.

2^nd party management filed written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/5 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd

party raised preliminary objection that the dispute is in respect of 7 workmen. However names of those workmen

except Kamta Prasad are not given in the reference therefore reference is not capable for adjudication. That

dispute raised by General Secretary of BKKMS was discussed with Union. The Union had given consent w.r.t.

change of cadre of Dilshad Khan cadre of Dilshad Khan was changed with consent of Union. Subsequently

Union raised dispute is not tenable.

2^nd party further submits that Kamta Prasad and 6 others are working as Fitter Category IV (placed in Cat-V)

in underground of Pali Colliery, Johilla Area. That service conditions of employees are governed by NCWA II

No.32 is applicable. Verbatim of II 32 has been reproduced. That existing ITI Personnel who have completed 3

years in the existing grade as on 31-12-99 will be notionally placed in next higher category w.e.f. 1-1-2000 but

the financial benefit will accrue w.e.f. 1-1-01 and this will be personal to them as one time arrangement. That

Director Personnel SECL Hqr issued circular dated 31-12-02 giving clarification that this should also be noted

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4255

that this placement will not come in the way of promotion. The incumbent may be promoted from the original

post to the higher grade in which he will get the benefit of fitment as is available under normal promotion rule.

This will depend on vacancy and subject to vacancy. That Dilshad was working as turner, he was given

promotion as turner Cat-IV form 9-12-2000. He was working under control of Shri N.P.Singh Supt. Engineer.

Due to exigency of work, the management has taken work from Dilshad khan time to time of Fitter. Dilshad

applied for change of cadre. As the change of cadre of Dilshad will not affect carrier growth of other employees,

the Competent Authority has considered his case along with other employees by common order dated 22-2-03.

The cadre of Shri Dilshad was changed from Turner Cat VI to Mechanical Cat VI. BMS Union has endorsed no

objection on the common application submitted by Dilshad and other co-workers. That Dilshad was performing

job of fitter, his designation was changed from turner to fitter in same pay. It was not promotion neither his

category was upgraded nor pay was enhanced. That as per sanctioned manpower, Dilshad and two others for

change of designation was counter changed by functional Union representation including representative of

BKKMS Union. It is denied that category of Kamta Prasad and other six workers is changed. There was no

promotion of Shri Dilshad. His cadre from Turner to Fitter Category was changed into administrative

requirement. That promotion depends on recommendation of DPC subject to availability of sanctioned post and

administrative requirement. It is denied that line of promotion has been changed of Dilshad Khan. The change of

his cadre has no effect on carrier growth of workman. The claimants were working as fitter Cat-IV (Placed in

Cat-V) under I.I.No.32. Dilshad Khan was working in Category VI. On such contentions, 2^nd party prays that

reference be answered in its favour.

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

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

(i)

Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Johilla

area of SECL, PO Nowrozabad, Distt. Umaria not giving promotion to

Kamta Prasad and 6 other mechanical Fitter Cat V to mechanical Fitter Cat

VI and promoting Dilshad Khan Turner Cat-VI changing his post to

mechanical fitter and appointing on said post is legal and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

Notice dated 21-1-2006 issued to 2^nd party No.2 Dilshad Khan but he remained absent and failed to participate in

reference proceeding. The term of reference pertains to change of category of Dilshad Khan to fitter Cat-VI and

denial of promotion of Ist party workmen. Affidavits of evidence of Raj Kumar Gautam, Dinesh Kumar Tiwari,

Brajesh Tiwari, Nandlal Gupta are filed but they have not appeared for their cross examination. Kamta Prasad

filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim that category of 2^nd party No.2

Dilshad Khan was changed from Turner to Fitter Cat-VI is discriminatory changing line of promotion. That the

management misinterpret the provisions while changing category of 2^nd party No.2 Dilshad Khan. Thereby

management committed illegality and irregularity. In his cross-examination, Kamta Prasad says he passed HSc

exam, he was not General Secretary of BMS Union. Dilshad Khan was working as turner. That he was appointed

as General Mazdoor. He voluntarily accepted the said post covered in category of mechanical fitter. In April

1988, he was on post of helper. Presently he is working on post of Mechanical Fitter VI. He was unable to tell

whether documents 6/7 is the cadre scheme.

He further tells that consent given by Union came to his notice subsequently, he orally complained about it. His

grievance was not considered by the Union. That he had not received proper promotions in fitter cadre. He

complained orally about it.

Management’s witness I.G.Tulsidhara Kurup filed affidavit of his evidence supporting most of the contentions in

Written Statement filed by the management. That Dilshad Khan was working as Turner, he was given promotion

as turner Cat-IV from 9-12-2000. He was working under control of Suptd. Engineer. Due to exigency of work,

management has taken work of fitter from Dilshad Khan. Dilshad submitted application for change of cadre from

turner to fitter alongwith other employees. His cadre was changed from Turner Cat VI to Mechanical Fitter Cat-

VI. The Union had given no objection. As per sanctioned man power, Shri Dilshad and two others for change of

designation was also countersigned by functioning Trade Union Representative. Management’s witness in his

cross says clarification for post of Fitter Mechanical is candidate should be literate. Post of Mechanical Fitter is

Separate cadre than the turner cadre. He denies that Dilshad Khan Turner was promoted as Mechanical Fitter

Cat-VI. That there are no rules for promotion of turner to fitter. Dilshad was Turner Cat-VI, he was converted to

Cat-VI Fitter. There is no rule or provision for conversion of turner to fitter. From evidence of management’s

witness, it is clear that there is no rule for conversion of turner VI to Mechanical Fitter VI. The evidence of

management’s witness shows that Union had given consent for changing Turner VI of Dilshad to Mechanical

Fitter Cat-VI. When consent is given and there are no rules for such conversion, the consent given for conversion

4256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in violation of the rules would be void and illegal. Kamta Prasad and 6 others were holding post of Mechanical

Fitter Cat-IV and they were placed in Category V. In normal course, when Dilshad Khan was converted to

Mechanical Fitter Cat-VI, certainly the promotional chances of claimants Ist party would be adversely affected.

The conversion of Dilshad from Turner Category VI to Mechanical Fitter Cat-VI in violation of rule is illegal.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is illegal.

(2)

Conversion of Shri Dilshad Khan from Turner Category VI to Mechanical Fitter is set aside. 2^nd party

management is directed to consider the matter of promotion to Fitter Cat-VI following cadre scheme.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1899-—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 deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 102@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@462@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 102/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bansara

Colliery of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.09.2016.

[No. L-22012/462/2004-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. 102 OF 2005

PARTIES: The management of Bansra Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.

Vs.

Sri Lakhan Kora

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 : 12.08.2016

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-22012/462/2004–IR(CM-II) dated 01.09.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4257

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bansra Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing

Sri. Lakhan Kora from services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the individual is entitled? ”

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/462/2004–IR(CM-II) dated 01.09.2005 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 102

of 2005 was registered on 09.09.2005. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In

pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties

appeared in the Tribunal, through their representative.

The workman Sri Lakhan Kora has pleaded in his written statement, in brief, that he was in employment of the

company as Under Ground Loader at Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

He fell sick on 19.03.2003 for which he was treated by private practitioner. He was declared fit on and from

17.04.2003. He reported before the management for resumption of duty but he was not allowed. He has stated

that he was Charge Sheeted vide Charge Sheet no. ECL/BC/PER/03-04/1194 dated 23.06.2003 for alleged

misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty. He submitted his treatment papers before the enquiry officer and

participated in enquiry proceeding but he was not given proper opportunity to defend his case. The Enquiry

Officer was highly prejudice and biased against him. Even points which were not raised buy management

representative were incorporated by Enquiry Officer. The findings of Enquiry Officer were not found on records.

The management did not follow the principles of natural justice and without giving him opportunity to prove his

innocence conducted the departmental enquiry and passed the dismissal order. Even not a single witness was

examined by the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge. The dismissal of Sri Lakhan Kora from service of the

company is illegal and unjustified. The workman belongs to downtrodden community. He is sitting idle without

any job and his whole family is dying without meal. The workman has prayed that the management of Bansra

Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited be directed to reinstate the workman with

payment of full back wages from the date of dismissal with all consequential benefits.

The Agent of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated, in brief, in

his written statement that ex-workman was charge sheeted by the management for his act of misconduct as

mentioned in the Charge Sheet as per the provision of standing order applicable to the establishment vide Charge

Sheet no. ECL/BC/PER/03-04/1194 dated 23.06.2003 under Clause - 26.29 and Clause - 26.23 for the period of

absence form 19.03.2003 to 23.06.2003. The ex-workman failed to submit satisfactory explanation to the Charge

Sheet and as such domestic enquiry was held to the said charges by the Enquiry Officer duly appointed by the

competent authority. The Enquiry Officer issued due notices of enquiry and reasonable opportunity was given to

the ex-workman to defend his case in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer after

conclusion of enquiry proceeding submitted his finding by holding the ex-workman to be guilty of charges

levelled against him. The ex-workman was previously imposed punishment on the ground of habitual absence

during his tenure of service which indicates habitual absenteeism. As per record prior to dismissal he was present

only 91 days in 2000, 153 days in 2001 and 77 days in 2002. The disciplinary authority after careful

consideration of the Charge Sheet, Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report and other relevant papers awarded an

Order of Dismissal of ex-workman considering the gravity of misconduct committed by the ex-workman. Order

of punishment of dismissal is justified. The Workman is not entitled to any relief.

The union has filed following documentary evidences (i) Copy of the Charge Sheet, (ii) Copy of the Medical

Treatment Paper, (iii) Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding and Findings, (iv) Copy of the Dismissal Order.

Sri Lakhan Kora has filed affidavit in his evidence.

The Agent of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria 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 S. K. Pandey, learned union representative appearing on behalf workman has argued that enquiry has been

conducted without compliance of natural justice. The workman was absent due to his sickness. He filed his

medical papers in enquiry proceeding to manager. Manager handed over the medical paper to Enquiry officer.

But it was not considered. Even workman was not permitted to put his defence evidence. Workman was absent

from duty form 19.03.2003 to 16.04.2003. He was absent merely for a period for 29 days. For mere absence of 27

days the punishment of dismissal is quite disproportionate and illegal. Workman was not issued 2^nd Show Cause

Notice. He has argued that the workman is physically handicapped during course of employment.

On the other hand Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited has argued that the enquiry has been conducted in compliance of natural justice, workman has

4258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

participated in enquiry proceeding. The workman has been punished as keeping view of the principles of natural

justice. Punishment of dismissal is justified.

It is not disputed that Sri Lakhan Kora, the delinquent workman was in employment of Bansra Colliery under

Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as Under Ground Loader. It is also not disputed that he has

been dismissed form service of company due to his absence of duty. As per allegation of workman his absence

was due to his sickness. Enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice which has been denied

by agent of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The workman was charge

sheeted under Clause - 26.23 and Clause - 26.29 of Certified Standing Order applicable to Bansra Colliery under

Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Certified Standing Order prescribes misconduct for

unauthorized absence. The Clause - 26.23 and Clause - 26.29 of Certified Standing Order are as follows:

“ 26.23 : Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

26.29 : Sleeping on duty. ”

As per allegation of written statement of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited the delinquent workman was Charge Sheeted for his unauthorized absence from his duty. The enquiry

has been conducted by Enquiry Officer against delinquent workman against his unauthorized absence from duty

without sufficient cause. There is no allegation on the workman for “sleeping on duty” but workman has been

Charge Sheeted also under Clause - 26.29 for sleeping on duty. The Charge Sheet has been drafted in mechanical

manner without application of mind. It is needless to say that Charge Sheet is the charter of disciplinary action.

The domestic enquiry commences with the service of the Charge Sheet.

The enquiry proceeding reflects that Sri Lakhan Kora has participated in the enquiry. His thumb impression is

present in the enquiry proceeding. Sri Prem Sankar Singh, M.R. recorded his statement on 11.11.2003. But

Enquiry Officer did not afforded opportunity of cross-examination to the concerned workman Sri Lakhan Kora.

The opportunity of cross-examination form management witness is valuable legal right of charge sheeted

workman, which can never be dispensed with. The Enquiry Officer has not recorded any reason for denial of

opportunity of cross-examination to the delinquent. It is relevant to mention that enquiry against delinquent has

not been conducted ex-parte. He has participated in the enquiry proceeding. He is present in the enquiry

proceeding on the concerned dates. He must have been provided opportunity of cross-examination. If opportunity

of cross-examination is not afforded to delinquent workman then examination-in-chief of management witness is

inadmissible as per Evidence Act. Merely because the rules and procedures do not apply to domestic enquiry and

the employer and workman are subject to rules laid down in the Standing Order does not mean that rules of

natural justice and fair play are to be ignored. The rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of

substance. If the enquiry is proceeded in a slip-shod way are in manner which indicates that the Enquiry Officer

was proceeding on the basis of standard of proof which is wrong in law and not consistent with the principles of

natural justice, then in that event the enquiry proceeding will be vitiated. The resultant effect of the violation of

natural justice will result in sufferance and prejudice to the delinquent.

10.

Sri Prem Sankar Singh, M.R. has stated in his evidence that Sri Lakhan Kora absented himself from duty form

19.03.2003 without any information and prior permission of the competent authority. Sri Lakhan Kora has

submitted a Medical Certificate of private doctor from 19.03.2003 to 06.09.2003 and due to reason he was unable

to join his duty. But he neither takes treatment at company’s hospital nor did he refer to any hospital from our

end and also he did not inform the management about his sickness. Sri Lakhan Kora was asked why he failed to

inform the management about his sickness. Sri Lakhan Kora replied that since he was sick and not in a position to

move outside, so he did not inform the management. The management representative has not filed any copy of

attendance register regarding exact period of absence. The Enquiry Officer has not recorded any finding that the

delinquent workman, Sri Lakhan Kora was absent from duty was willful or under compelling circumstances.

Absence form duty of any workman may be or may not be willful. Medical Papers issued by private doctor can

be disbelieved by Enquiry Officer if there grounds to disbelieve. But in that case Enquiry Officer must reach to

conclusion that absence from duty was willful. The entire enquiry proceeding was conducted in one day i.e.

11.11.2003. Enquiry commenced on 11.11.2003, Statement of Sri Prem Sankar Singh, M.R was recorded on

11.11.2003. The opportunity of cross-examination was not afforded to delinquent. Statement of Sri Lakhan Kora

was recorded on 11.11.2003 and even Enquiry Officer recorded his findings on 11.11.2003 without affording

opportunity of defence evidence to the delinquent. The Enquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial authority and in a

position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be representative of department. He is supposed to

function as independent adjudicator providing all reasonable opportunity to delinquent workman to put his

defence. Denial of opportunity to delinquent workman to defend himself is utter violation of principles of natural

justice.

11.

Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U. P. & another V/s C. S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 has held that:

“ If no opportunity is given to the delinquent to lead evidence, it was sufficient to vitiate the whole proceeding.”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4259

In the light of law propounded by the hon’ble Apex Court the entire enquiry proceeding is vitiated.

12.

From perusal of enquiry proceeding it is apparent that the delinquent workman, Sri Lakhan Kora was present in

enquiry proceeding and he participated in the enquiry proceeding. His thumb impression is present on each page

of enquiry proceeding. But contrary to this the dismissing authority, in dismissal order of Sri Lakhan Kora vide

Ref. No. A.KNT/P&IR/26B/7428 dated 19/20.12.2003 addressed to Sri Lakhan Kora has stated :

“ Reference to the Charge Sheet mentioned above issued to you, an enquiry was conducted wherein you failed to

participate in the enquiry, though you were given full opportunity to defend yourself. ”

It indicates that the dismissing authority the Chief General Manager of Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited even did not care to peruse enquiry proceeding and enquiry report before passing dismissal

order. The dismissing authority is required to apply his mind on the material placed on record. The dismissing

authority can not refuse to consider the relevant facts. He can not accept the testimony of witnesses based on the

basis of surmises and conjectures. Even before passing dismissal order neither delinquent workman was supplied

with the copies of enquiry proceeding, enquiry report and call upon to submit his explanation in response to 2^nd

Show Cause Notice before passing Order of Dismissal. The contention of workman that 2^nd Show Cause Notice

was not issued before passing dismissal order is conformed by perusal of Order of Dismissal. In dismissal order

itself there is no recital of issuance of 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the delinquent workman before passing Order of

Dismissal, which is mandatory in law.

13.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Managing Director of ECIL, Hydrabad and others, AIR 1994 SC 1074 (supra) has

held that:

“ When the Enquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a

copy of the Enquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the

guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges leveled against him. That right is a part of the

employee's right to defend himself against the charges leveled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer's

report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to

the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice.”

14.

Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India as well as the directive principles of The State Policy

provide a better and strong frame work for the protection of interest of the labour class. Employer has to keep in

mind that while disciplinary proceeding is going on against a charge sheeted employee it should not violate any

of the sacred provisions of the Constitution of India. Being the supreme law of the land and protector of the

interest of the labour class, provisions of labour and Industrial Laws have to comply with the provisions of the

Constitution of India.

15.

From perusal of material available on record it is manifest that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry

proceeding, in utter violation of principles of natural justice, denying the right of cross-examination and

opportunity of defence evidence to delinquent. Even the punishing authority has passed the dismissal order

without following the due procedure of law. Several factors are required to be considered before passing order of

punishment. The misconduct and gravity of charge, nature of duties, work place, rights of delinquent in enquiry

proceeding as well as validity of enquiry proceeding etc., failure to take into account these materials before

awarding the punishment will be fatal to the order of punishment. The Order of Dismissal which is a major

punishment. Without a valid, lawful, un-vitiated and proper enquiry the punishment of dismissal of any

delinquent workman for mere absence of few months is illegal, unjustified and quite disproportionate to the

unproved guilt of the delinquent workman which must be modified.

16.

The workman has stated in Para- 10 of his written statement that he is sitting idle without any job and his whole

family is dying without any food. This fact has not been rebutted by the Agent of Bansra Colliery under

Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The workman Sri Lakhan Kora has stated in Para- 7 of his

affidavit filed in his oral evidence that his pecuniary condition is measurable. It is apparent from the fact and

evidence of the delinquent workman that he was not anywhere gainfully employed during period of dismissal i.e.

from 19/20.12.2003. It indicates that there is no possibility of getting alternate employment anywhere else.

Hon’ble Apex 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 :

“The case in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the

statutory provisions and / or the principles of natural justice or is guilt of victimizing the employee or workman,

then the Court or Tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages.”

17.

Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. Hotel Airport Ashok (Kolkata Hotel Private Limited) V/s. Industrial

Tribunal and others, 2016 (148) FLR 1072 has held that :

4260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“In view of the domestic enquiry being set aside by the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal, the

management will reverse all decisions taken pursuant to and emanating out of such domestic enquiry against the

employee forthwith. In doing so, the management will ensure that the employee is not prejudiced either in course

of his employment or otherwise so far as monetary benefits as well as any other benefits receivable by such

employee is concerned. The management will treat the employee as if the impugned disciplinary proceeding was

not initiated against him.”

18.

In view of hon’ble Apex Court and hon’ble Calcutta High Court the delinquent workman Sri Lakhan Kora is

entitled for re-instatement with full back wages with all service benefits including promotions, increments,

fixation of seniority, etc. which could have been accrued to him had he been in service of Bansra Colliery under

Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The argument of Sri S. K. Pandey, that the delinquent

workman was physically handicapped during course of employment, has not been denied by learned counsel of

Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Though, neither party to the reference

has pleaded in their written statement that physical disability of Sri Lakhan Kora was during course of

employment. It is admitted fact by both the parties to the reference that Sri Lakhan Kora was in employment of

Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited before dismissal. Two fact situations

may arise. Firstly, if he was already physically handicapped when he joined the employment in Bansra Colliery

under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, the fact of his physical disability had already been

considered by Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited before inducting him in

employment. Therefore there should be no hurdle in his reinstatement. Secondly, if he was physically

handicapped during course of employment then he has better right because his physical disability is during course

of employment in Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. But it should be

kept in mind that M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is a public sector undertaking. Due to physical disability a

public sector undertaking should not suffer. The delinquent may be reinstated on some alternative suitable post.

19.

In the light of above discussion the action of management of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Lakhan Kora from service is illegal and unjustified. Bansra Colliery

under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to reinstate Sri Lakhan Kora with full back

wages form date of dismissal till his reinstatement. It is further directed that Sri Lakhan Kora will be entitled to

get all consequential service benefits from date of dismissal onwards eg. promotions, increments, fixation of

seniority, etc. Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited will be at liberty to

reinstate Sri Lakhan Kora at any suitable alternate post. Sri Lakhan Kora will be imposed punishment of stoppage

of 2 (Two) increment 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] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1900-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,llhlh,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@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 145@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

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

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1900.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 145/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of SCCL and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.09.2016.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4261

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 24^th day of June, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 145/2006

Between:

Sri Thummu Narasinga Rao,

S/o Narsaiah, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,

Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem Area, Kothagudem,

Khammam District.

The Superintendent of Mines,

PVK-5 Incline,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem Area, Khammam District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed under Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by Sri Thummu Narasinga Rao,

the workman, who worked as Fitter at PVK-5 Incline, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem against

the management for his reinstatement into the service of the management with full back wages and other relevant

benefits or consequential benefits, after setting aside his termination.

The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed in the 1^st Respondent company during the year 1988 and

was posted to work in the office of the 2^nd Respondent. While so, he was issued with a chargesheet dated 18.2.2004

for his unauthorized absence. The enquiry was biasedly conducted on the basis of charge sheet without giving any

opportunity to the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of lop sided enquiry erroneously held the charge as

proved against him. On the basis of erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from his

service as per the office order dated 5.1.2005. As such, the dismissal order passed against the Petitioner as per the

office order dated 5.1.2005 is entirely illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice.

The case of the Respondent as stated in their counter statement is that their company operates some mines, of

which the Central Government is the appropriate Government. In accordance with the averments of the Petitioner,

admittedly the Petitioner was appointed on 23.9.1998. In fact the charge sheet dated 18.2.2004 was issued to the

Petitioner for his misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism under the company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Concerning

his habitual absence from duty without any justification for the year 2003, in which he has absented for 211 days. The

Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 29.3.2004. Later, an enquiry was initiated. The Petitioner has fully

participated in the enquiry, in which he was given full and fair opportunity for his deeds/grievance. The Enquiry

Officer held the charges levelled against the Petitioner as proved. As such, the Respondent company was constrained

to dismiss the Petitioner for unauthorized absenteeism vide order dated 5.1.2005.

In the instant case, as per order dated 24.2.2009, the validity of the domestic enquiry was not challenged on

behalf of the Petitioner and it was held as legal and valid.

During the midst of hearing of the case at the consent of both the parties, the present case is placed before the

Chairman, Lok Adalat Bench on 24^th day of June, 2016. Wherein a settlement was arrived between the parties. The

4262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondent management has been directed to take back the Petitioner workman to duty as Badli Worker

(Underground) afresh. In agreement of the above, the parties/counsel have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions

in presence of the members of the Lok Adalat Bench and the order so passed has been annexed to this award as it is.

In view the settlement arrived before Lok Adalat Bench, a no dispute award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal and corrected by me on this the 24^th day of June,

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

IN THE LOK ADALAT

(For settlement of cases relating to CGIT-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad Under Section 20 of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987)

Friday the 24^th day of June, Two Thousand and Sixteen

PRESENT : 1. Sri Muralidhar Pradhan

: Presiding Officer

2. Sri C. Niranjan Rao

: Member

3. Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy

: Member

(Constituted U/s 19 of the LSA Act, 1987 by the APSLSA Order ROC No. 186/LSA/2006 dt. 22.8.2006)

In the matter of case No. LCID No. 145/2006/PLAC No. 3/2016

(On the file of CGIT cum-Labour-Court at Hyderabad)

Between :

Thumma Narsinga Rao (EC No. 0277851), S/o Narsaiah,

aged about 52 years, Ex-Fitter at PVK-5 Incline,

Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Kothagudem Area, Khammam District.

…Petitioner

AND

The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

rep. by its General Manager,

Kothagudem Area, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

The Superintendent of Mines,

PVK-5 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem Area, Khammam District.

…Respondents

This case is coming up before the Lok Adalat on 24.06.2016 for settlement in the presence of the applicant

appearing in person/represented by his counsel Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy and the Respondent too, being present in

person/represented by his counsel, Sri P.A.V.V.S. Sarma. On a perusal of the case record, after considering and

hearing both sides and with the consent of both sides, the Lok Adalat has arrived at the following settlement and

delivered the following :

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4263

AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A. ACT, 1987

The petitioner had agreed to the following proposals of the Management, as the petitioner had put in 100

musters in the two years of the preceding 5 years of dismissal and raised the dispute within three years from the date of

dismissal from service. The contents are read over and explained to the petitioner in his language and agreed by him by

signing the same.

The petitioner workman agreed to treat his appointment as fresh appointment as Badli Worker (Underground)

without back wages and continuity of service subject to medical fitness by Company Medical Board.

b. Irrespective of past designations, petitioner workman agrees to the appointment as Badli Worker

(Underground) afresh and need not be posted to the same place, where the workmen was last employed.

The petitioner workman agrees for observation of one year with minimum mandatory 20 musters every month

and review every three months is absolutely essential. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the 3

months period, his services will be terminated without any further notice and enquiry.

d. Respondent Management agreed that any forced obsenteeism on account of mine accidents/natural disease,

treatment taken at Company’s Hospitals will be deemed as attendance during the trial period.

All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest,

holidays, etc., for appointment afresh.

This LCID is disposed of accordingly. The respondent management is directed to take him back to duty as

Badli Worker ( Underground) afresh.

In agreement of the above, the parties/counsel have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions in the presence

of the members of this Lok Adalat Bench.

Signature of Applicant (s)

Signature of Respondent (s)

Signature of Counsel for Applicant (s)

Signature of Counsel for Respondent (s)

Signature of Presiding Officer and Members of the Bench

Note : This award is final and binding on all the parties and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Section 21(2) of

LSA. Act. 1987.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1901-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,llhlh,y 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- 121@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

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

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2016

S.O. 1901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 121/2007) 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 SCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.09.2016.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

4264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2016/BHADRA 19, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 24^th day of June, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 121/2007

Between:

Sri Md. Abid Pasha,

S/o Raj Mohammad,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,

Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalpally, Warangal District.

The Superintendent of Mines, KTK-3 Incline,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalpally, Warangal District.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed under Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by Sri Md. Abid Pasha, the

workman, who worked as a Ex. Shot Firer, Grade-C, KTK-3 Incline, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalpally against the management for his reinstatement into the service of the management with full back wages

and other relevant benefits or consequential benefits, after setting aside his termination.

The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as badli filler on 1.9.1995 and got promoted as Coal Filler

on 1.12.2000 and further he was promoted as Shot Firer on 10.10.2004. But he was issued with a charge sheet dated

25.8.2006 for his unauthorized absence following an enquiry. The enquiry was biasedly conducted on the basis of

charge sheet without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of lop sided enquiry

erroneously held the charge as proved against him. On the basis of erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the

Petitioner was dismissed from his service as per the office order dated 14/21.6.2007. As such, the dismissal order

passed against the Petitioner as per the office order dated 14/21.6.2007 is entirely illegal, arbitrary, violative of

principles of natural justice.

The case of the Respondent as stated in their counter statement is that their company operates some mines, of

which the Central Government is the appropriate Government. In accordance with the averments of the Petitioner,

admittedly the Petitioner was appointed on 30.8.1995 and was regularized as coal filler on 1.12.2000 and was promoted

as Shot Firer-C grade w.e.f. 14.10.2004 and was transferred to Bhupalpalli on 1.12.2000. In fact charge sheet dated

25.8.2006 was issued to the Petitioner for misconduct of his unauthorized absenteeism under the company’s Standing

Order No.25.25. Concerning his habitual absence from duty without any justification for the year 2005, in which he

put in only 100 musters. The Petitioner has not submitted his explanation within the stipulated time. Later, an enquiry

was initiated. The Petitioner has fully participated in the enquiry, in which he was given full and fair opportunity for

his deeds/grievance. The Enquiry Officer held the charges levelled against the Petitioner as proved. As such, the

Respondent company was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner for unauthorized absenteeism vide order dated

14/21.6.2007.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 10] 2016@Hkkæ 19] 1938

4265

In the instant case, as per order dated 21.1.2010, the validity of the domestic enquiry was not challenged on

behalf of the Petitioner and it was held legal and valid.

While the case was in the midst of hearing, at the consent of both the parties, it was placed before the

Chairman, Lok Adalat Bench on 24^th day of June, 2016. Wherein a settlement has been arrived between the parties.

The Respondent management has been directed to take back the Petitioner workman to duty as Badli Worker

(Underground) afresh. In agreement of the above, the parties/counsel have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions

in presence of the members of the Lok Adalat Bench and the order so passed has been annexed to this award as it is.

In view of the settlement arrived before the Lok Adalat Bench, a no dispute award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal and corrected by me on this the 24^th day of June,

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

IN THE LOK ADALAT

(For settlement of cases relating to CGIT-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad Under Section 20 of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987)

Friday the 24^th day of June, Two Thousand and Sixteen

PRESENT : 1. Sri Muralidhar Pradhan

: Presiding Officer

2. Sri C. Niranjan Rao

: Member

3. Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy

: Member

(Constituted U/s 19 of the LSA Act, 1987 by the APSLSA Order ROC No. 186/LSA/2006 dt. 22.8.2006)

In the matter of case No. LCID No. 145/2006/PLAC No. 2/2016

(On the file of CGIT cum-Labour-Court at Hyderabad)

Between :

Thumma Narsinga Rao (EC No. 0277851), S/o Narsaiah,

aged about 52 years, Ex-Fitter at PVK-5 Incline,

Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Kothagudem Area, Khammam District.

…Petitioner

AND

The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

rep. by its General Manager,

Kothagudem Area, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

The Superintendent of Mines,

PVK-5 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem Area, Khammam District.

…Respondents

This case is coming up before the Lok Adalat on 24.06.2016 for settlement in the presence of the applicant

appearing in person/represented by his counsel Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy and the Respondent too, being present in

person/represented by his counsel, Sri P.A.V.V.S. Sarma. On a perusal of the case record, after considering and

hearing both sides and with the consent of both sides, the Lok Adalat has arrived at the following settlement and

delivered the following :

4266