4484 GI/2016
(4465)
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- 40]
ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 25—vDrwcj 1] 2016] 'kfuokj@ vkf'ou 3—vkf'ou 9] 1938
No. 40]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 25—OCTOBER 1, 2016, SATURDAY/ASVINA 3— ASVINA 9, 1938
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2011-—राीयकृत ब क ( बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) और खड 8
के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत, ब ककारी कंपनी (उप म का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उप-
धारा (3) के खंड (क) "ारा द$ शि'य का योग करते *ए, के-.ीय सरकार, एतद्ारा, /ीमती पी. वी. भारती (ज-म ितिथ
22.03.1960), महा बंधक, केनरा ब क को पदभार 6हण करने क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश
तक, जो भी पहले हो, केनरा ब क म9 कायपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयु' करती है।
¹iQk- la- 4@5(1)@2016&chvks&Iº
Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo
4466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016
S.O. 2011.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and sub
clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the
Central Government, hereby appoints Smt. P. V. Bharathi (DOB : 22.03.1960), General Manager, Canara Bank as
Executive Director in Canara Bank for a period of 3 years w.e.f. the date of her taking over charge of the post or until
further order, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5(1)/2016-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2012-—राीयकृत ब क ( बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) और खड 8
के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत, ब ककारी कंपनी (उप म का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उप-
धारा (3) के खंड (क) "ारा द$ शि'य का योग करते *ए, के-.ीय सरकार, एतद्ारा, /ी संजीव शरन (ज-म ितिथ
05.05.1959), महा बंधक, पंजाब नैशनल ब क को पदभार 6हण करने क तारीख से 31.05.2019 तक अथात उनक
अिधव=षता क तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब नैशनल ब क म9 कायपालक िनदेशक के पद पर
िनयु' करती है।
¹iQk- la- 4@5(2)@2016&chvks&Iº
Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016
S.O. 2012.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and sub
clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the
Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Sanjiv Sharan (DOB: 05.05.1959), General Manager, Punjab National Bank
as Executive Director in Punjab National Bank w.e.f. the date of his taking over charge of the post up to 31.05.2019
i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further order, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5(2)/2016-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2013-—राीयकृत ब क ( बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) और खड 8
के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत, ब ककारी कंपनी (उप म का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उप-
धारा (3) के खंड (क) "ारा द$ शि'य का योग करते *ए, के-.ीय सरकार, एतद्ारा, /ी चौ. एस. एस. मि@लकाजुन राव
(ज-म ितिथ 22.01.1962), महा बंधक, ओरयंटल ब क आफ कामस को पदभार 6हण करने क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के
िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, Eसिडकेट ब क म9 कायपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयु' करती है।
¹iQk- la- 4@5(3)@2016&chvks&Iº
Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016
S.O. 2013.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and sub
clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the
Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Ch. S. S. Mallikarjuna Rao (DOB: 22.01.1962), General Manager, Oriental
Bank of Commerce as Executive Director in Syndicate Bank for a period of 3 years w.e.f. the date of his taking over
charge of the post or until further order, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5(3)/2016-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4467
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2014-—राीयकृत ब क ( बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) और खड 8
के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत, ब ककारी कंपनी (उप म का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उप-
धारा (3) के खंड (क) "ारा द$ शि'य का योग करते *ए, के-.ीय सरकार, एतद्ारा, /ी अतुल कुमार गोयल (ज-म ितिथ
26.12.1964), महा बंधक, इलाहाबाद ब क को पदभार 6हण करने क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले
आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूिनयन ब क आफ इंिडया म9 कायपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयु' करती है।
¹iQk- la- 4@5(4)@2016&chvks&Iº
Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016
S.O. 2014.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and sub
clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the
Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Atul Kumar Goel (DOB: 26.12.1964), General Manager, Allahabad Bank as
Executive Director in Union Bank of India for a period of 3 years w.e.f. the date of his taking over charge of the post or
until further order, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5(4)/2016-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2015-— जीवन बीमा िनगम अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 31) क धारा 4 "ारा द$ शि'य का योग
करते *ए, के-.ीय सरकार, एतद्ारा, /ी वी. के. शमा, बंध िनदेशक, भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम (एलआईसी) को अंतरम
Jवथा के Kप म9 कायभार 6हण करने क तारीख से छ: महीने क अविध के िलए अथवा िनयिमत पदधारी क िनयुि' तक
अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, एलआईसी के अNयO के पद का अितर' कायभार सPपने का आदेश देती है।
[फा.सं. ए-15011/10/2012-बीमा-I (भाग-I)]
एस. के. मोह-ती, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2016
S.O. 2015.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31
of 1956), the Central Government hereby orders the assignment of additional charge of the post of Chairman, Life
Insurance Corporation of India to Shri V.K. Sharma, MD, LIC in addition to his own duties, as an interim arrangement,
for a period of six months w.e.f. the date of assumption of the charge or till the appointment of a regular incumbent or
until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[F.No. A-15011/10/2012-Ins.I(Part-I)]
S. K. MOHANTY, Under Secy.
(राज व
(राज व
(राज व
(राज व िवभाग)
िवभाग)
िवभाग)
िवभाग)
(हदी अनुभाग
हदी अनुभाग
हदी अनुभाग
हदी अनुभाग-2)
ubZ fnYyh] 20 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2016-—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप
िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म राज! व िवभाग के क ीय उ$ पाद शु' क और सीमाशु' क बोड+ के अधीन सीमाशु' क आयु. त (अंतद0शीय कंटेनर
िडपो) का काया+लय, पटपड.गंज एवं अ य आईसीडी, नई 4द' ली, िजसके 80 ितशत से अिधक कम+चा8रय ने िह दी का काय+साधक :ान
ा; त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।
[फा. सं. ई-11017/1/2015-एडी (िह दी-2)]
मीमांसक, संयु. त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)
4468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(Department of Revenue)
(HINDI SECTION-2)
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2016
S.O. 2016.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies Office of the Commissioner Customs (Inter State
Container Depot), Patparganj and other ICDs, New Delhi under CBEC, D/o Revenue, where more than 80% staff have
acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]
MIMANSAK, Jt. Director (O.L.)
fons'k ea=kky;
(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2017-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds
[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds mPpk;ksx] fyyksaXos esa Jh uhjt rksej] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad
14 flrEcj] 2016 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016
S.O. 2017.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Neeraj Tomar,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in High Commission of India, Lilongwe to perform the
Consular services with effect from 14 September, 2016.
[No. T-4330/01/2016]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;
(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2018-—क9. सरकार, Sद @ ली िव शेष पुिल स थापना अिध िन यम, 1946 (1946 का अिध िन यम सं. 25) क धारा
6 के साथ पठ त धारा 5 क उप-धारा (1) "ारा द$ शिU त य का योग करते *ए केरल राV य सरकार, गृह िव भाग,
ित Kवंतपुरम क Sद नांक 08.04.2016 क अिध सूचना जीओ (एमएस) संW या 124/2016/होम "ारा दी गई सहमित से एतद्ारा
अपराध सं. 231/2015 रेलवे पुिल स थाना, कोटटायम म9 पंजीकृत तथा अपराध सं. 492/2015 रेलवे पुिल स थाना, एनाकुलम म9
पंजीकृत के मामल ; िब हार, झारखंड, हर याणा, राज थान, पिY च म बंगाल, Sद @ ली जैसे राV य से बZ च का अवैध [ यापार कर
केरल के अनाथालय म9 ले जाने और उससे संबंिध त मामल से जुड़े अपराध के संबंध म9 Sद @ ली िव शेष पुिल स थापना के सद य
क शिU त य एवं Oे]ािध कार का िव तार संपूण केरल राV य पर करती है।
[iQk- la- 228@23@2016&,ohMh&II]
,y- ih- 'kekZ] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4469
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2018.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Kerala, Home Department, Thiruvanananthapuram conveyed vide Notification G.O.(Ms) No.124/2016
Home dated 08.04.2016, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for investigation of the offences of Crime No.231/2015 registered at
Railway Police Station, Kottayam and Crime No.492/2015 of Railway Police Station, Ernakulum registered in connection
with trafficking of children from states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Haryana, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Delhi etc. to orphanages in
Kerala and matters related there to.
[F.No. 228/23/2016-AVD-II]
L. P. SHARMA, Under Secy.
fof/ vkSj U;k; ea=kky;
(fof/ dk;Z foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 7 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2019-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r] 1987)
ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] fof/ vkSj U;k; ea=kky;] fof/ dk;Z foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds v/hu
fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; dks 80% ls vf/d deZpkjhoa`n us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS %
1- vk;dj vihyh; vf/dj.k] vkxjk U;k;ihB] vkxjk
¹iQk- la- bZ&11011(3)@2015&jk-Hkk- (fo-dk-)º
jkek;.k ;kno] vij lfpo
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
(Department of Legal Affairs)
New Delhi, the 7th September, 2016
S.O. 2019.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the
administrative control of the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, where more than 80% staff have
acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra.
[F. No. E-11011(3)/2015-O.L. (L.A.)]
RAMAYAN YADAV, Addl. Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 20 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2020-—jk"Vªifr] U;k;ew£r oh-,l- jfo dks fnukad 12-08-2016 (iwokZg~u) ls 19-05-2019 rd dh vof/ vFkok
vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa tks Hkh igys gks] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] caxykSj ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds
:i esa fu;qDr djrs gSa A
[la- ,&19011@02@2016&lh,y,l&II]
,l- ds- ¯lg] voj lfpo
4470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2016
S.O. 2020.—The President is pleased to appoint Justice V.S. Ravi as Presiding Officer of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore with effect from 12.08.2016 (Forenoon) for a period up
to 19.05.2019 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[No. A-19011/02/2016-CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2021-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 64@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@49@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2016
S.O. 2021.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-17012/49/2013-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of August, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE I.D. 64/2014
Between :
Sri Y. Rambabu
S/o Mutyalu,
D.No.12-6-70, Chinnavedhi,
Samalkot,
Rajahmundry – 533440
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Peddapuram Branch,
Peddapuram,
E.G. District.
2.
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Party in person
For the Respondent
:
Sri K. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Advocate
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4471
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L- 17012/49/2013-IR(M) dated 8.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India, Peddapuram and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri Y. Rambabu, Ex-Temp. Class.IV LIC of India, Peddapuram
Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 64/2014 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of service of notices to the address given in the reference order, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several
opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to
attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner
has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this 22nd day of
August, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2022-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 66@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@51@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2016
S.O. 2022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-17012/51/2013-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
4472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dated the 22nd day of August, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE I.D. 66/2014
Between :
Sri K. Srini Babu
S/o Chandra Rao,
D.No.5-115, Ambedkar Nagar,
Near Water Tank, Mallam,
Pithapuram (M), E.G. Dist.
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Kakinada Main Branch,
E.G. District.
2.
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Party in person
For the Respondent
:
Sri K. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/51/2013-IR(M) dated 8.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India, Kakinada Main branch and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri K. Srini Babu, Ex-Temp. Class.IV LIC of India, Kakinada
Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 66/2014 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of service of notices to the address given in the reference order, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several
opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to
attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner
has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this 22nd day of
August, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4473
ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2023-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 67@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@52@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2016
S.O. 2023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-17012/52/2013-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of August, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 67/2014
Between :
Sri K. Suresh Kumar,
S/o K. Sampath Rao,
Siddartha Nagar,
Amalapuram (M),
E.G. Dist.
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Amalapuram Branch,
Amalapuram, E.G. District.
2.
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Party in person
For the Respondent
:
Sri K. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/52/2013-IR(M) dated 7.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India, Amalapuram and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri K. Suresh Kumar, Ex-Temp. Class.IV LIC of India, Amalapuram
Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
4474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 67/2014 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of service of notices to the address given in the reference order, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several
opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to
attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner
has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this 22nd day of
August, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2024-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 69@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@58@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2016
S.O. 2024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-17012/58/2013-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of August, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 69/2014
Between :
Sri Shaik Nagul Navab,
S/o Jamal,
Flat No.610, D.No.3/83,
Naveen Mittal Colony, Chinakarrimida Road,
Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam
…Petitioner
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4475
AND
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Kennedy Road,
Machilipatnam
…Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Party in person
For the Respondent
:
M/s. K. Ramalingeswara Sarma & B.S.R. Murthy, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/58/2013-IR(M) dated 9.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India, Machilipatnam and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri Shaik Nagul Navab, Ex-Temp. Class.IV LIC of India,
Machilipatnam Divisional Office, w.e.f. 21.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the
workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 69/2014 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of service of notices to the address given in the reference order, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several
opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to
attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner
has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this 22nd day of
August, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2025-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 71@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@63@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2016
S.O. 2025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
4476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-17012/63/2013-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of August, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 71/2014
Between :
Sri S. Chandra Sekhar
S/o Venkateswara Rao,
High School Road,
Gokavaram,
E.G. Dist.-533286
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Gokavaram Branch,
Gokavaram, E.G. District-533286
2.
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry
…Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Party in person
For the Respondent
:
Sri K. Ramalingeswara Sarma & B.S.R. Murthy, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/63/ 2013-IR(M) dated 8.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India, Gokavaram and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, Ex-Temp. Class.IV LIC of India, Gokavaram
Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 71/2014 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of service of notices to the address given in the reference order, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several
opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to
attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner
has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this 22nd day of
August, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4477
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2026-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 74@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@7@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2016
S.O. 2026.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-17012/7/2014-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of August, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 74/2014
Between :
Sri P. Appa Rao
S/o Appanna Sastry,
D.No.1-1-196/1, Eethakota,
Ravulapalem (M),
E.G. Dist.-533286
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Rajahmundri Rural Branch,
E.G. District
2.
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Party in person
For the Respondent
:
Sri K. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Advocate
4478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/7/ 2014-IR(M) dated 8.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India, and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri P. Appa Rao, Ex-Temp. Class.IV LIC of India, Rajahmundry
Rural Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 74/2014 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of service of notices to the address given in the reference order, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several
opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to
attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner
has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this 22nd day of
August, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2027-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 75@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@8@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2016
S.O. 2027.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-17012/8/2014-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of August, 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4479
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 75/2014
Between :
Sri B. Dileep Kumar
S/o Sudharshana Rao,
D.No. 2-7-8/A, 2nd Ward Christanpet,
Kovvuru, W.G. Dist.-534350
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry
2.
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Kovvuru Branch,
Kovvuru, W.B. District-534350
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Party in person
For the Respondent
:
Sri K. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/8/ 2014-IR(M) dated 8.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India, and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri B. Dileep Kumar, Ex-Temp. Class.IV LIC of India, Kovvuru
Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 75/2014 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of service of notices to the address given in the reference order, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several
opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to
attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner
has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this 22nd day of
August, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2028-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
4480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 76@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@9@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2016
S.O. 2028.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-17012/9/2014-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of August, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 76/2014
Between :
Sri N. Madhu Babu
S/o N. Lazar,
D.No.3-103, Arundhathipeta,
Rajahmundry (Rural)
Rajahmundry
…Petitioner
AND
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Party in person
For the Respondent
:
Sri K. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/9/2014-IR(M) dated 7.5.2014 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India, and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri N. Madhu Babu, Ex-Temp. Class.IV LIC of India, Rajahmundry
D.O. w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 76/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of service of notices to the address given in the reference order, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several
opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to
attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner
has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4481
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this 22nd day of
August, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2029-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 77@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@10@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2016
S.O. 2029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-17012/10/2014-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of August, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 77/2014
Between :
Sri D. Chandra Sekhar
S/o D. Bhaskara Rao,
D.No.1-309/1, Muralikonda,
Bommuru, Rajahmundry(Rural),
Rajahmundry
…Petitioner
AND
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Party in person
For the Respondent
:
Sri K. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Advocate
4482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/10/ 2014-IR(M) dated 7.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India, and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri D. Chandra Sekhar, Ex-Temp. Class.IV LIC of India,
Rajahmundry D.O. w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled
to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 77/2014 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of service of notices to the address given in the reference order, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several
opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to
attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner
has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this 22nd day of
August, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2030-—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- 326@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@28@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 326/2004) 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
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30012/28/2000-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4483
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 11th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 326/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad Project, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
2.
M/s Industrial Security Services,
Parichay Shopping Centre, Near ‘D’ Cabin,
IOC Road, Post New Rly. Colony,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
3.
M/s Parishram Labour Co. Op. Society Ltd.,
Shahibaugh, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,
434/36, Gandhivas, Koba Road, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
Shri Santoshben
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/28/2000-
IR (M) dated 18.08.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union, Ahmedabad to declare that the arrangement
through which Shri Jagdish Somabhai Chauhan employed as Electrician in ONGC Ahmedabad Project is sham
and bogus and the concerned workman who has been terminated from service w.e.f. 16.02.1999 is entitled for
reinstatement and absorption is legal and justified? If yes than to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to
and from which date?”
1.
The reference dates back to 18.08.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 5 on 10.07.2001
and first party submitted the written statement Ext. 8 on 22.11.2003. Since then the second party has been absent and
has also refrained to lead his evidence. Today on 11.08.2016, the second party advocate reported to the tribunal that the
second party workman has not been in contact despite informing him by registered post. Therefore the reference may
be disposed of finally for non-appearance of the second party. The advocate for the first party has been present on each
and every date. Thus this tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in non-prosecution of the case by the
second party.
2.
The reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2031-—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
4484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 359@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30011@62@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 359/2004) 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
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30011/62/2000-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 8th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 359/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad Project, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
2.
M/s Industrial Security Services,
Parichay Shopping Centre, Near ‘D’ Colony,
IOC Rd., Post New Rly. Colony,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,
434/36, Gandhivas Koba Road, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party
:
Kum. Santoshben
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/62/2000-
IR (M) dated 08.01.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union, Ahmedabad to declare that the arrangement
through which Shri Patel Vasudev R. employed as Rigger in ONGC, Ahmedabad Project is sham and bogus and
the concerned workman who has been terminated from service w.e.f. 08.08.1999 is entitled for reinstatement and
absorption is legal and justified? If yes, than to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which
date?”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4485
1.
The reference dates back to 08.01.2001.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 7 on 08.08.2001
and the first party submitted the written statement Ext. 16 on 18.09.2002. Since then the second party did not prefer to
lead evidence even after giving dozen of opportunities. A last opportunity was given to second party workman to lead
his evidence on 14.12.2015 but to no result even after giving opportunities on 12.04.2016 and today 08.08.2016. The
second party advocate Kum. Santoshben Shah reported that workman is not available. Thus, in the aforesaid
circumstances, it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case. Thus the tribunal has no option but
to dismiss the case in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2032-—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- 368@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@146@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2032.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 368/2004) 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
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30012/146/2000-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 8th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 368/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad Project, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
2.
M/s Chandlodiya Mazdoor Kamdar Mandli Ltd.,
179, Ambica Krupa Society, Ranip,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,
434/36, Gandhivas Koba Road, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party
:
Kum. Santoshben
4486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
30012/146/2000-IR (M) dated 02.02.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
1.
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., through its contractor M/s Chandlodia Mazdoor Kamdar
Mandli Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Mikim Arvindbhai Desai, Electrician w.e.f. 31.08.1999 is justified? If
not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
“Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union in considering the employee as the employee of
ONGC Ltd., w.e.f. the date of entering into the services is justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled to?”
3.
The reference dates back to 02.02.2001.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 5 on 23.08.2001
and the first party submitted the written statement Ext. 7 on 19.01.2005. Since then the second party did not prefer to
lead evidence even after giving dozen of opportunities. A last opportunity was given to second party workman to lead
his evidence on 14.12.2015 but to no result even after giving opportunities on 12.04.2016 and today 08.08.2016. The
second party advocate Kum. Santoshben Shah reported that workman is not available. Thus, in the aforesaid
circumstances, it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case. Thus the tribunal has no option but
to dismiss the case in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
4.
Thus the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2033-—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- 370@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@48@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2033.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 370/2004) 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
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30012/48/2000-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 8th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 370/2004
1. The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., AvaniBhavan, 5th Floor, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4487
2. Rajdeep Group Mazdoor Kamdar Sahakari Mandli,7
7, Nandasan Society, Nr. Ajay Tenements, Part IV,
Bhage Firdoz, Post Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad.
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,
434/36, Gandhivas Koba Road, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party
:
Kum. Santoshben
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/48/2000-
IR (M) dated 24.01.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union, Ahmedabad to declare that the arrangement
through which Shri Abdul Hafiz employed as Driver (Winch Operator) in ONGC, Ahmedabad Project is sham
and bogus and the concerned workman who has been terminated from service w.e.f. 02.02.1999 is entitled for
reinstatement and absorption is legal and justified? If yes, than to what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to and from which date?”
1.
The reference dates back to 24.01.2001. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 8 on 26.08.2003
and the first party submitted the written statement Ext. 13 on 25.11.2004. Since then the second party did not prefer to
lead evidence even after giving dozen of opportunities. A last opportunity was given to second party workman to lead
his evidence on 14.12.2015 but to no result even after giving opportunities on 12.04.2016 and today 08.08.2016. The
second party advocate Kum. Santoshben Shah reported that workman is not available. Thus, in the aforesaid
circumstances, it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case. Thus the tribunal has no option but
to dismiss the case in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2034-—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 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- 432@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@15@88&Mh&III (ch)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2034.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 432/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. ONGC Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-30012/15/88-D-III (B)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
4488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 4th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 432/2004
The Deputy General Manager,
ONGC Project, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Zinabhai K. Rathod,
558, Ambalal Bhavshar Chawl,
Old Accher,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380005
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party
:
Shri N.K. Trivedi
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/15/88-
D.III (B) dated 05.11.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC, Sabarmati Project, Ahmedabad in terminating the service of
Shri Zinabhai K. Rathod from service justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 05.11.2001. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 5 along with the
vakalatpatra of his advocate Shri N.K. Trivedi. First party submitted the written statement Ext. 10 on 18.02.2003 along
with the vakalatpatra of his advocate Shri C.S. Naidu. Since then the second party has not been leading evidence
despite giving dozen of opportunities. Now on 04.08.2016, Advocate Shri N.K. Trivedi on behalf of the second party
inform the tribunal that he informed the second party by way of sending letter on 19.12.2015, same was received by the
second party but he has refrained to contact him. Thus it appears that the second party has no inclination to prosecute
the case. Therefore the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in default of the second party.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2035-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
dk.Myk iksVZ VªLV 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- 941@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&37011@3@1992&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4489
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2035.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 941/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Kandla Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.09.2016.
[No. L-37011/3/1992-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 2nd August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 941/2004
The Secretary,
Kandla Port Trust, A.O. Builiding,
Gandhidham, Kutch – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport & Dock Workers Union,
26, Mevawala Bazaar, Kandla Port,
Kutch – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
Shri N.H. Rathod
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/3/92-IR
(Misc.) dated 02.03.1993 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 Transport & Dock Workers’ Union, Kandla, for not reviewing the cases of Junior
Assistants promoted in June 1986 for the purpose of re-fixation of pay and recovery is justified? If yes, to what
relief the workmen are entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 02.03.1993. Both the parties namely first party Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham and
second party The General Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers’ Union, Kandla have moved a joint application Ext.
14 stating that the workman has retired and his all admissible terminal dues has been released and same are accepted by
the workman. The workman second party does not also want to pursue the matter. Therefore, the reference in the light
of the aforesaid mutually agreed terms and conditions is decided/disposed of finally.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed as withdrawn by both the parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2036-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
dk.Myk iksVZ VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
4490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 965@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&37012@3@1993&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2036.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 965/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Kandla Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.09.2016.
[No. L-37012/3/1993-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 2nd August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 965/2004
The Secretary,
Kandla Port Trust, A.O. Builiding,
Gandhidham, Kutch – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport & Dock Workers Union,
26, Mevawala Bazaar, Kandla Port,
Kutch – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
Shri N.H. Rathod
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37012/3/93-IR
(Misc.) dated 02.05.1994 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 Transport & Dock Workers’ Union, Kandla, against the management of Kandla Port
Trust, Kandla that the previous service of about 6 years rendered by Shri Narshi A. Maheshwari, in the category
of Fireman should be counted for all purposes and break in service be treated as Dies, justified and legal? If so to
what benefits the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 02.05.1994. Both the parties namely first party Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham and
second party The General Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers’ Union, Kandla have moved a joint application Ext.
20 stating that the workman has retired and his all admissible terminal dues has been released and same are accepted by
the workman.Workman has also been receiving the pension regularly after attaining the age of superannuation. Both
the parties including workman have stated that they did not want to pursue the matter.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed as withdrawn by both the parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4491
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2037-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
dk.Myk iksVZ VªLV 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- 1003@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&37011@33@1995&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2037.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1003/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Kandla Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.09.2016.
[No. L-37011/33/1995-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 2nd August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1003/2004
1.
The Secretary,
Kandla Port Trust, A.O. Builiding,
Gandhidham, Kutch – 370201.
2.
The Deputy Conservator,
Kandla Port Trust, A.O. Building,
Gandhidham, Kutch – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport & Dock Workers Union,
26, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 589, Ward – 12-C,
Gandhidham, Kutch – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
Shri N.H. Rathod
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/33/95-IR
(Misc.) dated 27.03.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
(1)
“Whether the action of the Kandla Port Trust Management through the Deputy Conservator, Marine
Department to change the nature of leave applied for by Shri B.A. Maheswari, Leading Hand, Fire Brigade
section, Marine Department for the period from 03.06.1994 to 07.06.1994 as E.O.L. and deducting the
4492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
salary for the said period just, valid and legal? If not to what benefits the workman is entitled for and what
directions are necessary in the matter?”
(2)
“Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in imposing the punishment of withholding
one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 19.08.1995 on Shri B.A. Maheshwari justified? If
not to what relief the workman is entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 27.03.1996. Both the parties namely first party Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham and
second party The General Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers’ Union, Kandla have moved a joint application Ext.
11 stating that the workman has retired and his all admissible terminal dues has been released and same are accepted by
the workman. The workman has retired in the year 2007 after attaining the age of superannuation and has also receiving
the pension. The workman second party does not also want to pursue the matter. Therefore, the reference in the light of
the aforesaid mutually agreed terms and conditions is decided/disposed of finally.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed as withdrawn by both the parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2038-—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- 1326@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@35@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2038.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1326/2004) 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
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30012/35/2000-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 8th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1326/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2.
The Manager (PSD),
The A.E. Co. Ltd.,
Chinubhai Tower, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009
…First Party
V/s
Shri B.C. Shah and Others
303, Nandanvan Complex, B/h Bhulka Bhavan, Adajan,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395009
…Second Party
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4493
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-30012/35/2000-
IR (M) dated 31.07.2002 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 workman i.e. Shri B.C. Shah and others for payment of bonus at the rate equal to
one month full wages for the year 1998-99 is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief, these workmen are
entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 31.07.2000.Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 5 on 07.11.2002.
Thereafter first party No. 2 submitted the written statement Ext. 10 but first party no. 1 did not prefer to submit the
written statement. Therefore the case was fixed for evidence of the second party but since 14.08.2002, second party has
been absent and has also refrained to lead evidence. On 14.12.2015 none appeared for both the parties therefore a last
opportunity was given to second party to lead evidence in the absence of the first party but even after giving two
opportunities thereafter on 12.04.2016 and today on 08.08.2016, the second party did not lead the evidence. Thus in the
aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case. Thus the tribunal has no
option but to dismiss the case in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2039-—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- 1336@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@133@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2039.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1336/2004) 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
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30012/133/2000-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 8th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1336/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
4494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd.,
Electricity House, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Kishorebhai Govindbhai Pate,
At. Bhatpore, Taluka Choriyasi,
Distt. Surat (Gujart) - 394518
…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-30012/133/2000-IR (M) dated 03.10.2000 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., Hazira Project, Surat and the Contractor The
Ahmedabad Electricity Company, Ahmedabad in respect of the contractual workman Shri Kishorebhai
Govindbhaij Patel is sham & bogus contract?
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Kishorebhai Govindbhaij Patel for treating/declaring him as direct
and regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project from either the date of his initial engagement
with the contractor 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 Kishorebhai
Govindbhaij Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 03.10.2000.Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 5 on 14.02.2001.
Thereafter first party No. 2 submitted the written statement Ext. 19and first party no. 1 submitted the written statement
Ext. 14. Therefore the case was fixed for evidence of the second party but since then second party has been absent and
has also refrained to lead evidence. On 14.12.2015 none appeared for both the parties therefore a last opportunity was
given to second party to lead evidence in the absence of the first party but even after giving two opportunities thereafter
on 12.04.2016 and today on 08.08.2016, the second party did not lead the evidence. Thus in the aforesaid
circumstances, it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case. Thus the tribunal has no option but
to dismiss the case in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2040-—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- 1343@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@153@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2016
S.O. 2040.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1343/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. ONGC Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30012/153/2000-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4495
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 8th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1343/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (Projects),
ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project,
Ankleshwar (Gujarat)
2.
M/s Sagar Construction,
Nr. Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza,
Magdalla ONGC Road,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
…First Party
V/s
Shri Jashubhai Narsibhai Gohil,
R/o village Trankal, Taluka Vagra,
Distt. Bharuch (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri P.F. Zaveri
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/153/2000-IR (M) dated 02.11.2000 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., Ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar and the
Contractor M/s Sagar Construction, Surat in respect of the contractual workman Shri Jashubhai Narsibhai Gohil
is sham & bogus contract?
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Jashubhai Narsibhai Gohil for treating/declaring him as direct and
regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project from either the date of his initial engagement
with the contractor 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 Jashubhai Narsibhai
Gohil is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 02.11.2000. Second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ext. 7 on
14.01.2001. First party submitted the written statement Ext. 8 on 19.02.2001. Since then the second party workman has
been absent. On 01.10.2012, first party advocate moved an applications Ext. 16 and 17 alleging that the second party
has been absent for cross-examination of the second party workman to the affidavit/examination in chief. Therefore the
Presiding Officer/ My Predecessor allowed these applications and closed the cross-examination of the second party
workman on 01.10.2012 and the case was fixed for argument. Since then the second party is absent. It is a case of no
evidence.
2.
Therefore the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2041-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
lsUVªy os;jgkm¯lx dkiksZjs'ku ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
4496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 55@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@2@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2041.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-42012/2/2015-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. 55/2015
Registered on 09.12.2015
Sh. Jitender Sao, S/o Sh. Chote Lal, Dhani Mohalla,
Narwana, Dist.Jind, Haryana-126116
…Applicant
Versus
1.
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation,
Bay No.35-38, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana-134112
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
None.
For the management
:
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on:- 18.08.2016
Vide Order No.L-42012/2/2015-IR(M), dated 24.11.2015 the Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of Central Warehousing Corporation, Narwana, Haryana in terminating
the service w.e.f. 27.01.2011 of the workman Sh. Jitender Sao, S/o Sh. Chote Lal, is justified or not? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
Notice was given to the workman through registered cover but he did not appears and was proceeded against ex
parte vide order dated 18.03.2016.
Since the workman was proceeded against ex parte, no statement of claim has come on the file.
The workman has failed to come present and to file statement of claim and being so, it cannot be said that the
termination of his services by the management is illegal and invalid. Therefore, the reference is decided against the
workman and it is held that he is not entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2042-—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 % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4497
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1344@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@150@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2042.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1344/2004) 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
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30012/150/2000-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 8th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1344/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (Projects),
ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project,
Ankleshwar (Gujarat)
2.
M/s. Sagar Construction,
Nr. Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza,
Magdalla ONGC Road,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
…First Party
V/s
Shri Thakorebhai Ishwarbhai Parmar,
R/o Village Trankal, Taluka Vagra,
Distt. Bharuch (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu, Associates
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
30012/150/2000-IR (M) dated 02.11.2000 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., Ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar and the
Contractor M/s. Sagar Construction, Surat in respect of the contractual workman Shri Thakorebhai Ishwarbhai
Parmaris sham & bogus contract?
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Thakorebhai Ishwarbhai Parmar for treating/declaring him as direct
and regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project from either the date of his initial
engagement with the contractor 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
ThakorebhaiIshwarbhaiParmaris entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?”
4498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
The reference dates back to 02.11.2000.Second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ext. 5 on
15.01.2001. First party submitted the written statement Ext. 7 on 1.07.2002. Since then the second party workman has
been absent. On 01.10.2012, first party advocate moved an applications Ext. 15 and 16 alleging that the second party
has been absent for cross-examination of the second party workman to the affidavit/examination in chief. Therefore the
Presiding Officer/ My Predecessor allowed these applications and closed the cross-examination of the second party
workman on 01.10.2012 and the case was fixed for argument. Since then the second party is absent. It is a case of no
evidence.
2.
Therefore the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2043-—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- 1345@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@154@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2043.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1345/2004) 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
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30012/154/2000-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 8th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1345/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (Projects),
ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project,
Ankleshwar (Gujarat)
2.
M/s. Sagar Construction,
Nr. Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza,
Magdalla ONGC Road,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
…First Party
V/s
Shri Sureshbhai Chaturbhai Vasav,
R/o Village Derwa, Post Mangrol, Taluka Amod,
Distt. Bharuch (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu, Associates
For the Second Party
:
None
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4499
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
30012/154/2000-IR (M) dated 02.11.2000 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., Ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar and the
Contractor M/s. Sagar Construction, Surat in respect of the contractual workman Shri Sureshbhai Chaturbhai
Vasav is sham & bogus contract?
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Sureshbhai Chaturbhai Vasav for treating/declaring him as direct and
regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project from either the date of his initial engagement
with the contractor 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 Sureshbhai
Chaturbhai Vasav is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 02.11.2000.Second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ext. 4 on
14.01.2001. First party submitted the written statement Ext. 6 on 19.02.2001. Since then the second party workman has
been absent. On 01.10.2012, first party advocate moved an applications Ext. 13 and 14 alleging that the second party
has been absent for cross-examination of the second party workman to the affidavit/examination in chief. Therefore the
Presiding Officer/ My Predecessor allowed these applications and closed the cross-examination of the second party
workman on 01.10.2012 and the case was fixed for argument. Since then the second party is absent. It is a case of no
evidence.
2.
Therefore the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2044-—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- 1380@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30011@3@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2044.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1380/2004) 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
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30011/3/2002-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 29th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1380/2004
4500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
M/s. The Ahmedabad Electricity Co.
Cogen Plant, ONGC Ltd.,
Hazira Project, PO- Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2.
M/s. Lloyd Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
Near Cogen Plant, ONGC Ltd.,
Hazira Project, PO- Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
3.
M/s. Samar Construction,
Near M.M. Department, ONGC Ltd.,
Hazira Project, PO- Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
4.
M/s. International Engg. & Marine Works,
Parimal Co-op Housing Society, B/92,
Sant Sabastian, Bandra (Mumbai)
5.
M/s. Lear Insulation,
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project,
PO- Bhatpore, Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
6.
M/s. S.S. Construction,
12/14, Nishant Shopping Centre,
7, Bungalows,
Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400055
7.
M/s. Sagar Construction,
301, Avenue Park, City Light Society,
Opp. Agricultural Farm,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395007
8.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project,
PO- Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
The Gujarat Working Class Union,
A-772, ‘Anand Ganga’Kasak,
Bharuch (East), Gujarat
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri P.M. Rami
For the Second Party
:
Shri S.S. Shevde
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/3/2002-
IR(M) dated 03.01.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union to regularize the services of Sh. Dayabhai Chandubhai Khalasi & 88 others
(list enclosed) as permanent and direct employees of ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, Surat with time scale of pay of
their category of work equivalent to their similar placed regular employees of ONGC Ltd., from first date of their
entry in the Company, by declaring the Contract as ‘sham contract’ is fair and justified? If so, to what relief the
concerned 16 workman are entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 03.01.2002. The second party workmen submitted the statement of claim Ext. 3 on
12.02.2002. The first party no. 1 M/s The Ahmedabad Electricity Co., Cogen Plant, ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, PO-
Bhatpore,Surat submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 7 of his advocate Vinod J. Patel who is also present today and also
submitted the written statement Ext. 5.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4501
2.
On 13.04.2016, workman Dineshbhai Manubhai Parmar and Balwant Nathubhai Khalasi on 04.03.2016,
workman Prakash R. Patel on 29.04.2016 and workmen Babu N. Khalasi, Dinesh Govindbhai Patel & Kantibhai Narain
Patel moved applications Ext. 25, 28 & 31 respectively for their deletion of name from the reference, same were
allowed.
3.
On 30.06.2016, case was fixed for 16.08.2016 when remaining workmen did not turn up and again case was fixed
for 29.08.2016, remaining workmen have not been appearing despite the appearance of first party advocate Dinesh M.
Patel.
4.
Thus it appears that the remaining second party workmen have no willingness to prosecute the case. Therefore
the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in non-prosecution of the case by the remaining second party
workmen.
5.
Thus the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the remaining second party workmen.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2045-—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- 1394@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30011@23@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2045.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1394/2004) 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
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30011/23/2002-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 8th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1394/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2.
The Manager (PSD),
The A.E. Co. Ltd.,
Chinubhai Tower, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009
3.
The Proprieter,
M/s. Essel Engineering Service,
N-13, Jalvayu, Hiranandani Garden, Powai,
Mumbai – 400076
…First Party
4502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
Shri B.C. Shah,
303, Nandanvan Complex, B/h BhulkaBhavan, Adajan,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395009
……….Second Party
For the First Party
:
None
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/23/2002-
IR (M) dated 29.08.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether Shri B.C. Shah, who is working as ‘Boiler Operator’ with two assistance can be termed as
“Workman”? “Whether the notification dated 08.09.1994 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi will be applicable to the technically qualified person like Shri B.C. Shah?” If yes, “Whether the
demand of the workman Shri B.C. Shah contractual workman engaged through various contractors in the
establishment of ONGC Ltd. at M.P. Boilers, Hazira, Surat for treating him as direct and regular employee of the
ONGC Ltd. from the date of his joining is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman
Shri B.C. Shah is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 29.08.2002. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 10 on 22.10.2002.
First party No. 2 submitted the written statement on sometimes in 2003 but first party no. 1 did not prefer to submit the
written statement. Therefore the case was fixed for evidence of the second party but since 14.08.2002, second party has
been absent and has also refrained to lead evidence. On 14.12.2015 none appeared for both the parties therefore a last
opportunity was given to second party to lead evidence in the absence of the first party but even after giving two
opportunities thereafter on 12.04.2016 and today on 08.08.2016, the second party did not lead the evidence. Thus in the
aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case. Thus the tribunal has no
option but to dismiss the case in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2046-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
ts,elh ekb¯ux ,.M Dokjh oDlZ 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- 95@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&29012@5@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2046.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. JMC Mining & Quarry Works Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-29012/5/2009-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4503
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 4th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 95/2010
The Managing Director,
JMC Mining & Quarry Works Ltd.,
B/h Pali Hill Quarry Village,
Sonipur River Bed Side, Tal.Thasra,
Kheda (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Shaikh Y. Rasulmia,
C/o Gujarat Engineering and General Kamdar Union,
Bhalchandra Trivedi Sabha Hall,
208-212, Gayatri Chambers, RC Dutt Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390007
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
None
For the Second Party
:
Shri Atul S. Vyas
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-29012/5/2009
IR (M) dated 27.07.2009 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 JMC Mining and Quarries Ltd., Thasra or their contractor in terminating the
services of Shri Shaikh Y. Rasulmia is just and fair? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 27.07.2009. Both the parties were served by registered post. The advocate for second
party Shri Atul S. Vyas filed the vakalatpatra on behalf of the second party on 17.11.2009. Since then neither of the
parties have been appearing therefore fresh notices Ext. 5 and Ext. 6 repeatedly issued to both the parties to appear on
23.03.2011 and 04.08.2016 respectively but to no result. Despite filing the vakalatpatra on behalf of the second party
by his advocate, he did not bother to submit the statement of claim. Thus it appears that the second party has no
inclination to prosecute the case. Therefore the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in default of the second
party.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2047-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vnkuh xSl 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- 90@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30011@5@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
4504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2047.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Adani Gas Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30011/5/2012-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 10th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 90/2012
1.
The Vice President,
Adani Gas Ltd, 8th Floor, Heritage Building,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 380001
2.
M/s. Securtiy with Differences,
4, Neelkanth Complex, Opp. Maruti Arcade,
Near Jivrajpark Over Bridge, 132 Ft Ring Road,
Jivrajpark Cross Road,
Ahmedabad
…First Party
V/s
Shri Mohanbhai Kalidas Parmar,
C/o General Secretary,
Shram Shakti Labour Union,
66, Janta Nagar, Odhav, Ahmedabad
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
None
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/5/2012-
IR (M) dated 18.05.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Security with Differences a contractor of Adani Gas Limited,
Ahmedabad in terminating the services of ShriMohanbhaiKalidasParmarw.e.f. 18.07.2011 without any notice or
written order and without any service benefits, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference dates back to 18.05.2012. The notice was issued to all the parties on 12.07.2012 by registered post.
Notice appears to have been served to all the parties as the copies of notices to each party have not been received back
as unserved. Thus service on all the parties deems sufficient. Neither of the parties has appeared since then nor have
they filed their statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be. Thus in the said circumstances all the
parties do not appear to be willing to prosecute the case. The tribunal has no option but to give the finding in the
reference as below:
“Thus the action of the management of M/s. Security with Differences a contractor of Adani Gas Limited,
Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Mohanbhai Kalidas Parmar w.e.f. 18.07.2011 without any notice or
written order and without any service benefits, is legal and justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4505
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2048-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vnkuh xSl 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- 93@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30011@8@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2048.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Adani Gas Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30011/8/2012-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 1st August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 93/2012
1.
The Vice President,
Adani Gas Ltd, 8th Floor, Heritage Building,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 380001
2.
M/s. Securtiy with Differences,
4, Neelkanth Complex, Opp. Maruti Arcade,
Near Jivrajpark Over Bridge, 132 Ft Ring Road,
Jivrajpark Cross Road,
Ahmedabad
…First Party
V/s
Shri Govindbhai Merubhai Aahir,
C/o General Secretary,
Shram Shakti Labour Union,
66, Janta Nagar, Odhav,
Ahmedabad
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
None
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/8/2012-
IR (M) dated 18.05.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
4506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Security with Differences a contractor of Adani Gas Ltd,
Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Govindbhai Merubhai Aahir w.e.f. 20.07.2011 without any notice
or written order and without any service benefits, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 18.05.2012. Both the parties were issued notices by registered post on 22.07.2012.
Same were not received as unserved. Thus, the parties are deemed served. But since then neither of the parties have
been present and have not filed their statement of claim or written statement as the case it may be. Thus, it appears that
both the parties are not willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Thus, the reference is dismissed in default of both the parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2049-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vnkuh xSl 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- 94@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30011@9@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2049.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Adani Gas Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.09.2016.
[No. L-30011/9/2012-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 10th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 94/2012
1.
The Vice President,
Adani Gas Ltd, 8th Floor, Heritage Building,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 380001
2.
M/s. Securtiy with Differences,
4, Neelkanth Complex, Opp. Maruti Arcade,
Near Jivrajpark Over Bridge, 132 Ft Ring Road,
Jivrajpark Cross Road,
Ahmedabad
…First Party
V/s
Shri Govindbhai Muljibhai Vaghela,
C/o General Secretary,
Shram Shakti Labour Union,
66, Janta Nagar, Odhav,
Ahmedabad
…Second Party
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4507
For the First Party
:
None
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/9/2012-
IR (M) dated 18.05.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Security with Differences a contractor of Adani Gas Limited,
Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Govindbhai Muljibhai Vaghelaw.e.f. 20.07.2011 without any
notice or written order and without any service benefits, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?”
The reference dates back to 18.05.2012. The notice was issued to all the parties on 12.07.2012 by registered post.
Notice appears to have been served to all the parties as the copies of notices to each party have not been received back
as unserved. Thus service on all the parties deems sufficient. Neither of the parties has appeared since then nor have
they filed their statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be. Thus in the said circumstances all the
parties do not appear to be willing to prosecute the case. The tribunal has no option but to give the finding in the
reference as below:
“Thus the action of the management of M/s Security with Differences a contractor of Adani Gas Limited,
Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Govindbhai Muljibhai Vaghela w.e.f. 20.07.2011 without any notice or
written order and without any service benefits, is legal and justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2050-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku 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- 100@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@40@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2050.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-30012/40/2011-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 9th August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 100/2012
The Chairman and Managing Director,
HPCL, 17, Jamshedji Tata Raod,
Post Box No. 11041, Mumbai – 400020
...First Party
4508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
The General Secretary,
Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh,
5, Navalkar Lane, 1st floor, Prathana Samaj,
Girgaon, Mumbai – 400020
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri D.C. Gandhi Associates
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/40/2011-
IR (M) dated 24.04.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
(i)
“Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., in depriving Shri B.D.
Rathod from the post of Weigh Bridge Operator at Kandla which is not in cluster C is legal and justified?
What relief the workman is entitled to?”
(ii)
“Whether the action of the management of HPCL in giving promotion to S/Shri D.N. Rajwani, Kishore
D’souza and K.D. Mala from cluster A to cluster C without giving change to the seniors as per the
provisions of Career Development Policy of the Company is legal and justified? What relief the concerned
workmen are entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 24.04.2012. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 6 on 12.02.2013
along with the vakalapatra Ext. 7 of his advocate Yogen Pandya.
2.
Before filing written statement, the second party workman vide application Ext. 9 & 10 requested the tribunal to
withdraw the statement of claim in the reference stating that he has settled the dispute with the first party and Under the
early retirement Scheme by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation vide Circular Reference HR-NK-APY-CM dated
01.09.2014, he has wished to be relieved under the aforesaid scheme for early retirement with effect from 01.10.2016
(annexure 1).
3.
Thus in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the reference is dismissed as withdrawn.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2051-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
xqtjkr feujy MsoyiesaV dkiksZjs'ku 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- 167@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&29012@37@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2051.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 167/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and others and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 19.09.2016.
[No. L-29012/37/2012-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4509
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 1st August, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 167/2012
The Managing Director,
Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,
Khanij Bhavan, Ahmedabad
...First Party
V/s
Shri Bhil Ramsinghbhai Dhaniyabhai,
Nr. Shiv Mandir, At & Post Kadipani, Sub. Distt. Kawant,
Vadodara (Gujarat)
... Second Party
For the First Party
:
None
For the Second Party
:
Advocate Prashant
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-29012/37/2012-
IR (M) dated 10.12.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Gujarat Mineral Development Limited, Ahmedabad, by retiring the
services of Shri Bhil Ramsinghbhai Dhaniyabhai w.e.f. 11.03.2011 before attaining the age of retirement i.e.
60 (sixty) years is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 10.12.2012. All the parties were issued notices by registered post on 05.02.2013.
Acknowledgements of service on all the parties are received as Ext. 3 and 4 on 11.02.2013. The second party submitted
the vakalatpatra Ext. 5 of his advocate on 01.04.2013 but since then second party has not been appearing in the court
and has also not been filing the statement of claim. Thus, it appears that both the parties are not willing to prosecute the
case. The tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in default of both the parties.
2.
Thus, the reference is dismissed in default of both the parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2052-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
[ksrM+h dkWij dkWEiySDl 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 12@1995) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
21-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&43011@7@1994&vkbZvkj (,e)]
lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2052.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Khetri Copper Complex and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
21.09.2016.
[No. L-43011/7/1994-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
4510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj
dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj
dsl ua0 lh
dsl ua0 lh
dsl ua0 lh
dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ
vkbZ
vkbZ
vkbZ-VhVhVhVh- 12@95
12@95
12@95
12@95
jSQjSal%
jSQjSal%
jSQjSal%
jSQjSal% dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns’k
Øekad ,y-&43011@7@94&vkbZ-vkj-¼fofo/k½ fn- 2-3-95
[ksrM+h dkWij et+nwj la?k] [ksrM+h uxj] >qU>uw
---izkFkhZ
cuk
cuk
cuk
cuke
ifj;kstuk izcU/kd] [ksrM+h dkWij dkEiySDl] [ksrM+h uxj] >qa>uw
---vizkFkhZ
mifLFkr
mifLFkr
mifLFkr
mifLFkr %
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % fo/kk lkxj Vkad] vkj-,p-ts-,l-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh vkj- lh- tSu]
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh v'kksd oekZ]
fnukad vokMZ % 14-5-2002
vok
vok
vok
vokMZMZMZMZ
1-
dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky; ubZ fnYyh }kjk fuEu fookn bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ iszf"kr fd;k x;k gS%
“Whether the action of the management of Khetri Copper Complex, Khetri Nagar, in not granting higher pay
scale of Sr. Ropewaymen to s/shri Kesher Deo Sharma code No. 20346, Phool Chand code No. 20440, Devaram Saini
code No. 13219, Pratap Chand code No. 25425, Conveyer operators, doing the job of Sr. Ropewayman, is justified? If
not to what relief the workman are entitled?"
2-
izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is’k dj dFku fd;k fd [ksrM+h dkWij dkEiySDl esa nks i`Fkd vuqHkkx gSa] ekbUl o IykUV~lA
,fj;y jksios ekbUl vuqHkkx esa gksus okys dk;Z dk ,d fgLlk gSA ,fj;y jksios esa fofHkUu Js.kh ds Jfed dk;Zjr gSa] ftuesa vuyksfMax
lSD'ku esa dk;Zjr dUos;j vkWijsVlZ Hkh gSaA ;wfu;u dk dFku gS fd foi{kh laLFkku ds izcU/kdksa o rRdkyhu ;wfu;u ds chp Jfedksa dh
fofHkUu Jsf.k;ksa ds dk;Z dk ewY;kadu fd;s tkus dk le>kSrk gqvk Fkk fdUrq tkucw>dj dUos;j vkijsVj ds dk;Z dk ewY;kadu ugha
fd;k x;k vkSj mUgsa mPp in@osru J`a[kyk ds ykHk ls oafpr j[kk x;k D;ksafd foi{kh laLFkku dh [kkuksa ij pyus okys ,fj;y jksios
ij dk;Zjr pkjksa dUos;j izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL; FksA ;wfu;u dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZx.k dUos;lZ vkijsVlZ dk dk;Z vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa
dk;Zjr lhfu;j jksios eSu ds u dsoy leku gS cfYd dbZ dk;Z ,sls gSa tks lhfu;j jksioseSau ugha djrs dsoy dUos;j vkWijsVlZ djrs
gSaA DySe ds iSjk la0 5 esa ;wfu;u us dUos;j vkijsVlZ }kjk lEikfnr fd;s x;s dk;ksZa dk foLr`r mYys[k fd;k gS vkSj mudk dFku gS
fd dk;Z ewY;kadu ds uke ij lhfu;j jksioseSu dks Vh&8 dh Ldsy esa osru J`a[kyk dk ykHk ns fn;kA ;wfu;u dk dFku gS fd fookn
ls lacaf/kr Js.kh ds Jfedksa dks Vh&4 dh Ldsy nh xbZ tks fd muls de Lrj dk dk;Z djus okys Jfedksa ls Hkh uhph Ldsy gSA
;wfu;u dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd le>kSrk okrkZ ds nkSjku foi{kh izfrfuf/k us Lohdkj fd;k dUos;j vkWijsVj ds dk;Z dh izd`fr dks ns[krs
gq, mudks mPp osru J`a[kyk nh tkuh pkfg,] blls tkfgj gS fd lacaf/kr Jfed mPp Js.kh ¼Vh&8½ dh osru J`a[kyk izkIr djus ds
vf/kdkjh gSaA fdUrq rRdkyhu ekU;rk izkIr ;wfu;u ds ncko esa vkdj fookn ls lacaf/kr Jfedksa dks mUgsa feyus okyk ykHk ugha fn;k
x;kA ;wfu;u dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd lsok fu;eksa@LFkkbZ vkns'kksa esa dUos;j vkijsVj dk in gh ugha j[kk x;kA ;wfu;u dk dFku gS
fd lacaf/kr pkjksa Jfed u dsoy lhfu;j jksioseSu dk dk;Z djrs gSa oju~ mu dk;ksZa ds vfrfjDr Hkh vU; dk;Z djrs gSa vkSj bl vk/kkj
ij ;s pkjksa Jfed mlh frfFk ls Vh&8 osru J`a[kyk esa osru o HkRrs rFkk ,fj;j izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa ftl frfFk ls lhfu;j jksios
eSau dks Vh&8 osru J`a[kyk nh xbZA ;wfu;u dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd leku dk;Z ds fy, leku osru ds fl)kUr ij Hkh ;s Jfed Vh&8
dh osru J`a[kyk o HkRrs izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd ftl le>kSrs dks vk/kkj ekudj Vh&4 dh
osru J`a[kyk j[kh xbZ] og le>kSrk gh vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr rFkk vuqfpr ,oa voS| gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd ml
le>kSrs ls fu;kstdksa o rRdkyhu ekU;rk izkIr ;wfu;u dks ;g vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gks tkrk fd pkgs ftl Js.kh ds dk;Z dk ewY;kadu
djs vkSj pkgs ftldk ugha djsA ;wfu;u dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd rRdkyhu ;wfu;u ls lkaB xkaB djds gh ;g dk;Zokgh izkFkhZ ;wfu;u
ds lnL;ksa ds lkFk nqHkkZouko'k mUgsa foDVhekbZt+ djus ds m)s'; ls dh xbZ gSA vr% ;wfu;u dh izkFkZuk gS fd fookn ls lacaf/kr pkjksa
Jfedx.k@lhfu;j dks jksios eSu gsrq fu/kkZfjr Vh&8 osru J`a[kyk mlh frfFk ls fnykbZ tkos ftl frfFk ls ;g osru J`a[kyk lhfu;j
jksioseSu dks nh xbZ rFkk mlh ds vuqlkj leLr ykHk vkfFkZd o ofj"Brk laca/kh Hkh fnyk;s tk;saA
3-
vizkFkhZ us DySe dk tokc is'k fd;k gS vkSj mudk dFku gS fd ;wfu;u us ;g cyr dFku fd;k gS fd dk;Z ewY;kadu ls ek=
mPp osru feyrk gks cfYd cgqr lh dSVsxjht+ esa ;Fkkor osrueku fey jgk gS o dqN Jsf.k;ksa ls osrueku de Hkh gqvk gSA mUgksaus bl
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4511
ckr dks vLohdkj fd;k gS fd fdlh fof'k"V deZdkj ds fdlh fo'ks"k laxBu ls tqMs+ jgus ds laca/k esa lwpuk izcU/kd dks gksrh gSA
vizkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd dUos;j vkijsVj dk dk;Z lhfu;j jksi&os&eSu ds leku o led{k ugha gSA dk;Z ds ewY;kadu ds fy,
fo'ks"k desVh cukbZ xbZ gS tks dk;Z ds LFkku] izdkj ,oa fu"iknu gsrq deZdkj dh ;ksX;rk] {kerk o mRrjnkf;Ro dh lhek dks ns[krs gq,
osru fu/kkZj.k dh flQkfj'k djrh gSA bl izdkj dh lfefr dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij gh le>kSrk fnukad 2-7-91 fd;k x;k Fkk ftlus
lhfu;j jksioseSu Js.kh dk dk;Z ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij osrueku r; fd;k FkkA vizkFkhZ us ;wfu;u ds bl dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k gS
fd lhfu;j jksi os eSu dks Vh&8 Js.kh fcuk fdlh ewY;kadu ds nh xbZ gSA mudk dFku gS fd dUos;lZ vkWijsVlZ dks dk;Z ewY;kadu
lfefr }kjk 4-8-83 dks gh Vh&4 Ldsy iznku dh xbZ Fkh vkSj vc Js.kh dh lekurk dk fu/kkZj.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd leku
dk;Z ds ewY;kadu ds fy, vusd rduhdh o fof/k fcUnq fuf.kZr fd;s tkrs gSa ftUgsa ek= rduhdh ;ksX;rk izkIr fo'ks"kK lfefr gh dj
ldrh gSA vizkFkhZ ds tokc ds vuqlkj u rks dUos;j vkWijsVj Js.kh] lhfu;j jksioseSu dh Js.kh ds led{k gS vkSj uk gh izkFkhZ bl
vk/kkj ij dksbZ jkgr ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA vr% izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk izLrqr DySe lkjghu o vk/kkjghu gS vkSj DySe [kkfjt fd;k tkosA
4-
;wfu;u dh vksj ls DySe ds leFkZu esa Jh dujSy flag] egkea=h Jh QwypUn] dUos;j vkijsVj ds 'kiFk i= izLrqr gq, gSa ftuls
vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us ftjg dh gSA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls Jh ch-ih- HkV~Vkpk;Z eSustj liZuy ¼vkbZ-vkj-½ dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk gS
ftlls izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us ftjg dh gSA dqN nLrkost+kn Hkh izdj.k esa izLrqr gq, gSa ftudk foospu ;FkkLFkku fd;k tk;sxkA
5-
eSaus nksuksa i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh] i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA
6-
izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk eq[; rdZ gS fd fnukad 22-1-80 dks vizkFkhZ ,oa ;wfu;u ds e/; ,d le>kSrk gqvk] tks fd izn'kZ
McY;w&6 gSA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd dUos;j vkWijsVj dk dk;Z lhfu;j jksios eSu ds dk;Z ds led{k gS cfYd mlls
Hkh T+;knk gSA mudk dFku gS fd dqN dk;Z rks dUos;j vkWijsVj ds ,sls gSa tks jksios eSu ugha djrs gSa dsoy dUos;j vkWijsVj gh djrs
gSa vkSj fQj Hkh mudh osru J`a[kyk Vh&4 j[kh xbZ gS tks fd lhfu;j jksioseSau dh osru J`a[kyk Vh&8 ls cgqr de gSA bl izdkj
leku dk;Z ds fy, leku osru izkFkhZx.k dks ugha nsuk vuqfpr Je O;ogkj gS] vr% mUgsa Vh&8 osru J`a[kyk fnykbZ tkosA
7-
nwljh vksj vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk ;g rdZ gS fd tks Jfed dUos;j vkWijsVj gSa os t+ehu ds Åij vFkkZr ljQsl ij
dke djrs gSa vkSj ftudks Vh&8 Ldsy nh xbZ gS os ekbUl ds vUnj dk;Z djrs gSa] vr% mudk dk;Z T+;knk tksf[ke okyk gSA bl izdkj
nks rjg ds jksioseSu gksrs gSa vkSj tks t+ehu ds vUnj dk;Z djrs gSa mudk osru Vh&8 Ldsy dk gS vr% izkFkhZx.k dks tks Ldsy nh tk
jgh gS og lgh ,oa mfpr gSA
8-
eSaus nksuksa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k o i=koyh ij vkbZ lk{; dk v/;;u fd;k ,oa nLrkost+kr dk Hkh voyksdu
fd;kA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls tks nks xokg lk{; esa izLrqr gq, gSa mUgksaus ,d vkokt+ esa ;g c;ku fd;k gS fd [ksrM+h dkWij
dkEiySDl esa nks i`Fkd vuqHkkx gSa] ekbUl o IYkkUV~l ,fj;y jksios ekbUl vuqHkkx esa gksus okys dk;Z dk ,d fgLlk gSA ,fj;y jksi os
esa fofHkUu Js.kh ds Jfed dk;Zjr gSa ftuesa vuyksfMax lSD'ku esa dUos;j vkWijsVj Hkh gSa vkSj os pkjksa fookn ls lEcf/kar Jfed gSaA
mudk lk{; esa ;g Hkh dFku gS fd fnukad 2-7-91 dks foi{kh laLFkku ds izcU/kdksa o rRdkyhu ekU;rk izkIr ;wfu;u ds chp laLFkku esa
dk;Zjr Jfedksa dk fofHkUu Js.kh ds dk;Z dk ewY;kadu fd;s tkus dk le>kSrk gqvk vkSj mlesa fookn ls lacaf/kr Jfedksa ds dk;Z dk Hkh
ewY;kadu fd;k tkdj lhfu;j jksioseSu ds in o Vh&8 osru J`a[kyk dk dk;Z fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fdUrq tkucw>dj rRdkyhu foi{kh
laLFkku ds izcU/kdksa o ekU;rk izkIr ;wfu;u ds rRdkyhu inkf/kdkfj;ksa us dUos;j vkijsVlZ ds dk;Z ewY;kadu dks ugha ekuk vkSj bl
ykHk ls mUgsa oafpr j[kk D;ksafd ;s pkjksa izkFkhZ la?k ds lnL; FksA nksuksa gh xokgksa us vius 'kiFk i= esa duos;j vkijsVlZ }kjk fd;s
tkus okys dk;ksZa dk fooj.k vafdr fd;k gS vkSj mudk dFku gS fd ;gh dk;Z lhfu;j jksioseSu }kjk Hkh lEikfnr fd;s tkrs gSa vkSj
dUos;j vkijsVlZ }kjk dqN vfrfjDr dk;Z Hkh lEikfnr fd;s tkrs gSa tks fd lhfu;j jksioseSu ugha djrs gSaA bl izdkj leku dk;Z
leku osru ds fl)kUr@vk/kkj ij izkFkhZx.k Hkh lhfu;j jksioseSu ds in dh osru J`a[kyk Vh&8 ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA nksuksa gh xokgksa
dk ;g Hkh l'kiFk c;ku gS fd le>kSrk okrkZ ds nkSjku Lo;a fu;kstd izfrfuf/k us ;g ckr Lohdkj dh fd dUos;j vkijsVj ds dk;Z
dh izd`fr dks ns[krs gq, mudks mPp osru nsuk pkfg;s FkkA
9-
;wfu;u ds nksuksa gh xokgksa ls ftjg esa ,slh dksbZ ckr ugha vkbZ gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gks lds fd dUos;j vkWijsVj dk dk;Z
lhfu;j jksioseSu ds dk;Z ls fuEu in dk gks ;k os lhfu;j jksi os eSu }kjk fd;s x;s dk;ksZa dks ugha djrs gksa cfYd Jh djuSy flag
dh ftjg esa ;g vk;k gS fd tks dk;Z ;s pkjksa dUos;j vkijsVj dj jgs gSa] mlds vuq:i mUgsa osru J`a[kyk ugha nh tk jgh gSA Jh
QwypUn us ftjg esa ;g dgk gS fd ftu Jfedksa dks dk;Z ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij mPp J`a[kyk dk ykHk fn;k x;k gS os Hkh gekjs lkFk
ekbUl ds ckgj gh dk;Z dj jgs gSaA
10- vizkFkhZ ds lkFkh Jh ch- ih- HkV~Vkpk;Z us ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd lhfu;j jksioseSu dk le>kSrk tks tkWc bosY;w,'kau ds
ckjs esa gS] og U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA ftjg esa bl lk{kh us bl ckr ls Hkh vufHkKrk t+kfgj dh gS fd jksios vuyksfMax
lSD'ku esa lhfu;j jksios eSu dh rSukrh gS ;k ugha rFkk mudk dk;Z dUos;j vkijsVlZ gh djrs gSaA
11- mijksDr lk{; ds foospu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk bl lk{; dk dksbZ [k.Mu ugha fd;k x;k gS fd tks dk;Z
lhfu;j jksioseSu }kjk fd;s tkrs gSa ogh dk;Z cfYd mlls Hkh T+;knk dk;Z dUos;j vkijsVlZ }kjk fd;s tkrs gSa vFkkZr nksuksa ds dk;Z
leku gSa bl ckr dk [k.Mu vizkFkhZ dh lk{; ls ugha gksrkA nwljs vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls bl ckr dh Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS fd jksioseSu
ekbUl ds vUnj dk;Z djrs gSaA tcfd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lk{kh us Li"V fd;k gS fd lhfu;j jksioseSu Hkh ljQsl ij dk;Z djrs gSaA
4512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls ,slh Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS ftlls ;g izekf.kr gks fd lhfu;j jksios eSu dk dk;Z dUos;j vkijsVj ls T+;knk ;k
fHkUu izdkj dk gksA vizkFkhZ ;g Hkh izekf.kr djus esa vleFkZ jgs gSa fd lhfu;j jksioseSau dk tks dk;Z gS og dUos;j vkWijsVj ls T+;knk
gS rFkk mlesa tksf[ke Hkh dUos;j vkWijsVj ds dk;Z ls T+;knk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh lk{; ls ;g Hkyh Hkkafr izekf.kr gksrk gS
fd dUos;j vkWijsVj tks dk;Z djrs gSa ogh dk;Z lhfu;j jksioseSu }kjk Hkh fd;k tkrk gS fdUrq nksuksa dh osru J`a[kyk esa vlekurk gS
tks U;k;kf/kdj.k dh fouez jk; esa vuqfpr Je O;ogkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA leku dk;Z leku osru ds fl)kUr ds vk/kkj ij
izkFkhZx.k] tks fd dUos;j vkijsVlZ dk dk;Z dj jgs gSa] Hkh lhfu;j jksioseSu dh Hkkafr Vh&8 osru J`a[kyk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA
12- mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS%
^^[ksrM+h dkWij dkEiySDl ds izcU/kra= }kjk loZJh ds'kj nso 'kekZ dksM ua0 20346] QwypUn] dksM ua0 20440] nsok jke lSuh]
dksM ua0 13239 o izrki pUn] dksM ua0 25425] duos;j vkijsVlZ] tks fd lhfu;j jksioseSu dk dk;Z dj jgs gSa] dks lhfu;j
jksioseSu dh osru J`a[kyk u fn;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS| ugha gSA izkFkhZx.k mlh frfFk ls ;g osru J`a[kyk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh
gSa] ftl frfFk ls ;g osru J`a[kyk lhfu;j] jksioseSu dks nh xbZA**
13- vokMZ vkt fnukad 14-5-2002 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk’kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj
Hkstk tkosA
fo|k lkxj Vkd] U;k;k/kh’k
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2053-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jktLFkku
,VkWfed ikoj LVs'ku ,aM vnlZ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- 65@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 26-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@51@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2053.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 65/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station & others and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 26.09.2016.
[No. L-42011/51/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 65/2015
Reference No. L-42011/51/2015-IR(DU) dated: 18.6.2015
The General Secretary
Hindustan Construction Workers
Union-7 & 8,CITU Union Office, Phase-II,
Rawatbhata (Kota)-323307.
V/s
1.
The Site Director
Rajasthan Atomic Power Station
R.R.Site, PO- Anushakti
Rawatbhata (Kota)-323303.
2.
The Project Manager
M/s Hindustan construction Company
Rajasthan Atomic Power Project 7 & 8
R.R. Site, Rawatbhata (Kota)-323307.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4513
AWARD
30.8.2016
1.
The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
**D;k izca/ku Jheku~ ifj;kstuk izcU/kd] fgUnqLrku dULVªD'ku dEiuh] jktLFkku ijek.kq ikoj izkstsDV 7 o 8] vkj vkj lkbZV]
jkorHkkVk ok;k dksVk ¼jkt-½ }kjk ;wfu;u ds ekax i= fnukad 21-12-2013 esa of.kZr 20 ekaxksa ij dk;Zokgh ugha fd;k tkuk
oS/kkfud ,oa U;k;laxr gS] ;fn ugha rks izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ¼deZdkj½ fdl jkgr ds vkSj dc ls ikus ds gdnkj gS\**
2.
Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, registered notices were sent to the parties as per order of the
tribunal fixing 12.1.2016 for filing statement of claim. On 12.1.2016 none appeared on behalf of applicant & opposite
party no.1, the Site Director. Sh. Satish Pachori appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2, the Project Director,
Hindustan Construction Company & alleged to file authority on next date. The case was adjourned in interest of justice
fixing 15.3.2016 for filing statement of claim. On 15.3.2016 neither anyone appeared on behalf of applicant nor
statement of claim was filed. Learned representative on behalf of opposite party came in appearance. Case was again
adjourned in the interest of justice fixing 12.5.2016 for filing statement of claim. On 15.3.2016 authority was filed on
behalf of M/s. Hindustan Construction Company.
3.
On 12.5.2016 Sh. Rajendra Gupta, learned Advocate alleged that Sh. Dharmendra Jain, Advocate is the learned
representative for opposite party & will not come today. Sh. Vinay Mishra, Chief Personnel Manager, appeared for the
Project Manager, M/s. Hindustan Construction Company. None appeared on behalf of applicant in spite of service
against the applicant. It was observed that despite service none is appearing on behalf of applicant since past dates
although applicant have been served for the first date 12.1.2016. It was objected by opposite party that opportunities are
suo-moto extended to the applicant by tribunal although none is appearing for applicant. Accordingly, last opportunity
was given to the applicant for filing statement of claim on 16.6.2016. On 16.6.2016 neither anyone appeared on behalf
of applicant nor statement of claim was filed. Sh. Vinay Mishra, Chief Personnel Manager, appeared on behalf of M/s
Hindustan Construction Company & none appeared for remaining opposite party. Again case was adjourned furnishing
one opportunity to the applicant for filing statement of claim on 14.7.2016 with observation that in absence of
statement of claim further proceeding will be closed against the applicant.
4.
On 14.7.2016 none appeared on behalf of applicant & statement of claim was not filed. Sh. Vinay Mishra, Chief
Personnel Manager, appeared on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Construction Company. None appeared for Site Director.
30.8.2016 was next date fixed for filing statement of claim providing further one more opportunity to the applicant. On
30.8.2016 neither applicant appeared nor filed statement of claim. Sh. Vinay Mishra, Chief Personnel Manager,
appeared on behalf of M/s Hindustan Construction Company & objected further extension of opportunity to the
applicant. None appeared on behalf of remaining opposite party. It was observed by tribunal that applicant does not
appear to be interested in filing statement of claim & objection raised by opposite party is sustainable. Further
proceeding for filing statement of claim was accordingly closed & case was reserved for award.
5.
It is pertinent to note that reference order dated 18.6.2015 was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction to
file statement of claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement of
claim on the direction of Ministry nor on notice & knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal. It appears
that applicant is not interested & willing in submitting the claim for adjudication. In the circumstances & in the absence
of material evidence brought on record, tribunal is unable to record the finding on the issues referred to it on merit.
Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2054-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
VsyhdkWe fMikVZesaV] tks/iqj 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- 10@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 26-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@39@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
4514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2016
S.O. 2054.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Telecom Department, Jodhpur and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 26.09.2016.
[No. L-40012/39/2001-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lhlhlhlh-thththth-vkbZ
vkbZ
vkbZ
vkbZ-VhVhVhVh- izdj.k la
izdj.k la
izdj.k la
izdj.k la- 10@
10@
10@
10@2006
2006
2006
2006
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua-&,y&41012@39@2001&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½ fnukad 05@12@2005
Shri Rajendra Kumar S/o. Shri Bijai Singh,
Plot No. 10-A, Behind Poka,
Distt.- JODHPUR (Raj.) (Dead on 17-09-2012)
successors- in- interest,
1.
Smt. Urmila Dodia W/o. Late Sh. Rajendra Kumar
2.
Ravindr Singh Dodia S/o. Late Sh. Rajendra Kumar
3.
Nisha Dodia D/o. Late Sh. Rajendra Kumar
v/s
The General Manager,
Telecom Department,
Kamla Nehru Nagar, Near P & T Colony,
JODHPUR (Rajasthan)
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh fd'kksj dqekj O;kl & ,MoksdsV
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh nsohyky O;kl & ,MoksdsV
iapkV
iapkV
iapkV
iapkV
fnukad % 02- 08- 2016
1-
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 05-12-2005
ds vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS %&
2.
“Whether the management of General Manager, Telecom Jodhpur in terminating the services of
Shri Rajendra Kumar from August,1984 is just and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and from
which date?”
3-
;kfpdk esa izLrqr rF; ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% ;kph dk dFku gS fd p;uksijkUr foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks vkns'k la[;k 3993
fnukafdr 15-3-84 }kjk 9@&¼ukS :i;s½ nSfud etnwjh ij fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa ;kph fnukad 26-3-84 dks lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k
x;kA mDr vkns'k fnukad 15-3-84 ds ek/;e ls lkr vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks fu;qfDr iznku dh x;h Fkh ftlesa ;kph dk uke dzekad nks ij
vafdr gSA
4-
fu;qfDRk ds ckn ;kph us fnukad 27-8-84 rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;k ijUrq fnukad 27-8-84 ds dk;ksZijkUr ekSf[kd vkns'k ls izkFkhZ
dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus ds lEcU/k esa fnukad 27-8-84 dks gh foi{k }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;kA foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDRk vdkj.k]
vuqfpr ,oa fu;e fo:) gSA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4515
5-
foi{k us fnukad 27-8-84 ds dk;kZsijkUr izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDRk ds iwoZ dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugha rS;kj dhA foi{k }kjk **vfUre
vkod & izFke tkod** ds fl)kUr dk ikyu u dj /kkjk 25 ¼th½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku dk mYya?ku fd;k
x;k] ftlds dkj.k izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDRk 'kwU; ,oa fu"izHkkoh gS D;ksafd vkns'k fnukad 15-3-84 ds dzekd 5 ,oa 7 ij vafdr dze'k%
Jh t;flag vkSj ;quql csx dks fujUrj lsok esa cuk;s j[kk x;k tks ;kfpdk izLrqfr dh frfFk dks Hkh dk;Zjr gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr
ds ckn vusd u;s vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks fu;qfDRk iznku dh x;h tks vkt Hkh foHkkx ds v/khu dk;Zjr gS tcfd u;s vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks fu;kstu ds
iwoZ foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dks fu;kstu dk volj iznku djuk pkfg,] bl izdkj foi{k }kjk /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ dk Hkh mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA
foi{kh foHkkx ds v/khu dk;Z ds fujUrj tkjh jgrs gq, izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr dkuwuh :Ik ls vuqfpr gSA
6-
izkFkhZ us foi{k ls vusd ckj fuosnu fd;k ,oa izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k fd foi{k izkFkhZ dks iqu% fu;ksftr dj ys ijUrq ,slk
ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk lsok ds nkSjku foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dh fu;fer mifLFkfr ntZ dh tkrh Fkh ,oa izfrekg osru nh tkrh FkhA
izkFkhZ lsokeqfDRk dh frfFk ls csjkstxkj gSA izkFkhZ us fuosnu fd;k gS fd mldh fnukad 27-8-84 dks lsokeqfDRk dks voS/k ?kksf"kr dj lsok
dh fujUrjrk ,oa vuqxkeh lfgr mls lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;A
7-
oknksRrj esa foi{k }kjk ;kfpdk ds izLrj 1 yxk;r 9 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd of.kZr rF; xyr gksus ds dkj.k
vLohdkj gSA vfrfjDr dFku esa foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk dk tokc izLrqr dj Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd foi{k dh ekax ij
fu;kstu dk;kZy; ls izkIr lwph esa ;kph dk uke Hkh lfEefyr Fkk vkSj ;kph dks ekpZ 1984 esa nSfud etnwjh ij dk;Z ij j[kk x;k Fkk
,oa izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDRk i= fuxZr fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa mYys[k fd;k x;k Fkk]
"This is made clear to the candidates that the employment is not guaranteed as regular and no claim shall be entertained
for regular absorption what so ever."
8-
vkxs ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr gS fd ekpZ 1984 ls vxLr 1984 rd lsok ysus ds i'pkr fcuk dksbZ dkj.k
crk,a vxys dk;Z fnol dks izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij ugha fy;k x;k ,oa lgh fLFkfr ;g gS fd izkFkhZ us ekpZ 1984 ls vxLr 1984 rd izkFkhZ
us dsoy 130 fnu rd dk;Z fd;k vkSj LosPNk ls ukSdjh NksM+dj pyk x;k blfy;s izkFkhZ vuqxkeh ykHkksa lfgr iqu% fu;ksftr gksus dk
gdnkj ugha gSA
9-
izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr gS fd mlls dfu"B deZpkjhx.k Jh t;flag vkSj Jh ;quql csx dks fujUrj lsok esa foi{k }kjk
cuk;s j[kk x;k cfYd bl lEcU/k esa fuosnu gS fd Jh t;flag ,-bZ-,e@MCY;w izkstsDV tks/kiqj ds v/khu rFkk Jh ;quql csx mi e.My
vf/kdkjh QksUl tks/kiqj ds dk;kZy;ksa esa dk;Zjr gksus ,oa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z djus ls fu;fer dj mudks fu;qfDr nh x;h Fkh tks
fd izkFkhZ ds foHkkx] v/kh{kd rkj?kj tks/kiqj ls vyx ;qfuVs FkhA fnukad 01-01-1995 ls iwoZ v/kh{kd rkj?kj tks/kiqj dk;kZy; vizkFkhZ
¼egkizcU/kd nwjlapkj ftyk tks/kiqj½ ds v/khu ugha vkrk FkkA izkFkhZ us ekpZ 1984 ls vxLr 1984 rd dsoy 130 fnu rd gh rkj?kj
tks/kiqj esa dk;Z fd;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ foHkkx ls fdlh izdkj ds fujUrj ekus tkus o leku :i ls lHkh ykHkksa ls iqu%
fu;ksftr gksus ls dkuwuh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
10-
vkxs ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ us nSfud etnwjh dk dk;Z LosPN;k NksM+k Fkk ,oa foi{k us fdlh izdkj izkFkhZ dks euekus rjhds ls
dkuwuh vf/kdkj ls oafpr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us dsoy 130 fnu nSfud etnwjh dk dk;Z fd;k vkSj mlds ckn LosPN;k dk;Z NksM+dj
pyk x;k blfy, izkFkhZ leLr vuqxkeh ykHk lfgr iqu% fu;ksftr gksus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS ,oa foHkkx }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:) dksbZ
neukRed dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h gSA
11-
;kfpdk ds izLrj 7 ds tokc esa dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{k us ekSf[kd vkns'k ls ugha fudkyk cfYd izkFkhZ Loa; LosPN;k
dk;Z NksM+dj pyk x;kA izkFkhZ us ckn esa v/kh{kd] rkj?kj tks/kiqj ls dksbZ i=kpkj ugha fd;k vkSj ukSdjh NksM+us ds 16 o"kZ ckn flrEcj
2000 esa foi{kh foHkkx esa fcuk fdlh dkuwuh vk/kkj ds lsok dh ekax dh tks fdlh Hkh izdkj dkuwuu U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA Jh t;flag ,oa
;quql csx ds lEcU/k esa fof'k"V :i ls mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd ;s nksuksa O;fDr nks fHkUu ;wfuVksa esa dk;Zjr Fks ,oa dsUnzh; rkj?kj]
tks/kiqj esa dk;Zjr ugha FksA foi{k us izkFkhZ }kjk lsok NksM+us ds ckn u;h fu;qfDr;ka djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS ftlds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k
gS fd ebZ lu~ 1997 esa vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh cSDykax fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) 24 vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh fu;qfDr dh x;h Fkh ijUrq
blls vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds fdlh cU/kudkjh izkfo/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gSA
12-
izLrj 9 ds dFku dk izcy [k.Mu djrs gq, ;g dgk x;k gS fd LosPN;k dk;Z NksMdj tkus ds ckn izkFkhZ us dHkh Hkh
rkj?kj] tks/kiqj ls u dksbZ i=kpkj fd;k u lEidZ fd;k vr% izkFkhZ fdlh izdkj ds vuqrks"k dk gdnkj ugha gS ,oa LosPN;k dk;Z
NksMdj izkFkhZ dk tkuk vkSj 16 o"kZ ds vUrjky ds ckn dk;Z ekaxuk ;g n'kkZrk gS fd dk;Z NksM+dj tkrs le; izkFkhZ dks dk;Z dh
vko';drk ugha FkhA vr% izkFkhZ fdlh izdkj dk vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA
13-
tokcqytokc esa ;kfpdk ds dFku dh iqujko`fRr dj ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk Lor% lsok NksM+dj pys tkus dh ckr
diksy dfYir gS ,oa izkFkhZ dks foHkkx us ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fnukad 27-8-84 dks dk;ksZijkUr lsok ls i`Fkd fd;kA oknksRrj ds izLrj 9 ds
tokc esa dgk x;k gS fd lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ds ckn tokcqytokc izLrqr djus dh frfFk rd izkFkhZ fujUrj iqufuZ;qfDr gsrq foi{kh
foHkkx dk pDdj yxkrk jgk gS ftlesa dsoy ekSf[kd vk'oklu fn;k x;k ijUrq dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;hA
4516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14-
;kph dh rjQ ls ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa 'kiFk&i= lk{; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftudh izfrijh{kk foi{k }kjk 27-7-12 dks
dh x;h gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls izys[kh; lk{; esa vfHkys[k izn’kZ MCY;w&1 yxk;r izn’kZ MCY;w&15 izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
15-
foi{k dh rjQ ls vfHkysf[k; lk{; ds :i esa vfHkys[k Ex. M-1 izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA dksbZ 'kiFk&i= foi{k dh rjQ ls
lk{; esa ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
16-
foi{k ds fo:) fnukad 17-6-2014 dks ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA eSuas ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh
,di{kh; cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;kA
17-
;kph i{k dh rjQ ls cgl ds leFkZu esa fuEu fof/kd n~`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s x;s gS %&
1.
(2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 192, Harjinder Singh Appellant v/s. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
...... Respondent
18-
tgka rd izkFkhZ Jh jktsUnz dqekj dh foi{k }kjk lsok lekfIr dh dk;Zokgh mfpr ,oa fof/klaxr ik;stkus dk iz'u gS bl
lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr nSfud etnwj ds :i esa fnukad 26-3-84 dks gksuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj
foi{k us izkFkhZ }kjk 130 fnu lsok djuk Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS ftldh iqf"V izn'kZ W-1 ls gksrh gSA ;kph us izn'kZ W-1 }kjk
fu;qfDr ds rF; dks fl} fd;k gSA izn'kZ W-1 iksLV ,oa VsfyxzkQ foHkkx }kjk fuxZr p;u lfefr dh laLrqfr gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dks
dzekad nks ij n'kkZ;k x;k gSA dqy lkr O;fDr;ksa dk p;u nSfud osru Hkksxh etnwj ds in ij fd;k x;k gSA mDr fLFkfr ls izkFkhZ
dh fu;qfDr ,oa lsok esa lfEefyr gksus dk rF; rFkk 130 fnu rd dh lsok djuk lkfcr gSA mDr rF; ls ;g izdV gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk
240 fnu dh lsok] lsok lekfIr ds Bhd iwoZ ugha dh x;h gS vr% /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku dk mYya?ku
fl) ugha gksrk gSA
19-
tgka rd foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dh voS/k :i ls lsok lekfIr fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ ds
fo:) foi{k dk ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ Loa; lsok NksM+dj pyk x;k blds fo:) izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd 27-8-84 rd mlus dk;Z fd;k
vkSj vxys fnu mls dk;Z ij ugha fy;k x;kA 'kiFk&i= esa izkFkhZ us dgk gS fd fcuk fdlh okftc dkj.k vxys fnu mls M;wVh ij
ugha fy;k x;k ,oa ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok ls i`Fkd djus ds lEcU/k esa lwfpr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us bl rF; dk mYys[k ugha fd;k gS
fd fdl O;fDr us mls ekSf[kd vkns'k fn;kA foi{k }kjk bl fcUnq ij dksbZ ekSf[kd ;k izys[kh; lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlls
bl rF; dks leFkZu feys fd izkFkhZ Lo;a lsok NksM+dj pyk x;kA izfrijh{kk esa ;kph us ;g dgk gS fd ;g lgh ugha gS fd fnukad
27-3-84 dks mlus Loa; dke djuk NksM fn;kA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mlus ukSdjh esa okil fy;s tkus gsrq foHkkx ls i=kpkj fd;k Fkk tks
vfHkys[k izn’kZ MCY;w&2 yxk;r izn’kZ MCY;w&7 i=koyh ij gS ijUrq foHkkx dks bldh izkfIr dh jlhn i=koyh ij ugha gS ysfdu
iksLV vkfQl dh jlhn (certificate of posting) izkFkhZ us i=koyh ij izLrqr dh gSA i= fnukad 28-12-84 vkSj 23-12-85 ¼izn’kZ
MCY;w&4½ ,oa fnukad 14-5-86 ¼izn’kZ MCY;w&5½ dh (certificate of posting) izkFkhZ us i=koyh ij izLrqr dh gSA i=koyh ij i=kpkj
ls lEcfU/kr miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd Ex-W 8, Ex-W 9, Ex-W 10 ,oa Ex-W 11 dks iathd`r Mkd ls
Hkstus dh jlhn Hkh izkFkhZ us i=koyh ij izLrqr dh gSA ;s i= v/kh{kd dsUnzh; rkj?kj] tks/kiqj lfgr foHkkx ds fofHkUu inkf/kdkjhx.k
dks lEcksf/kr gS ,oa fofHkUu rkjh[kksa ls lEcfU/kr gSA ;g lgh gS fd fofHkUu Lrjksa ij lEcksf/kr ,oa izsf"kr i= mu yksxksa dks feys ftUgs
lEcksf/kr Fks] blls lEcfU/kr dksbZ ikorh i=koyh ij ugha gS ijUrq blls ,d rF; dk leFkZu ,oa iqf"V gksrh gS fd ;fn izkFkhZ dks
LosPNk lsok NksM+uh gksrh rks og lsok dks ikus ds fy, fofHkUu le;kas ij i= u fy[krk ,oa iz;kljr u jgrkA blls izkFkhZ ds dFku dks
leFkZu feyrk gS fd og lsok esa jguk pkgrk Fkk ,oa mlus lsok LosPNk ls ugha NksM+hA blds fo:) foi{k ds dFku dh iqf"V ugha gksrh
gS fd izkFkhZ LosPN;k lsok NksMdj pyk x;kA ;gka ij bl rF; dk mYys[k egRoiw.kZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsok esa 'kkfey gksus ds fy, ,d
i= fnukafdr 15-2-84 lgk;d v/kh{kd izHkkjh] rkj?kj] vkS|ksfxd {ks=] tks/kiqj }kjk fy[kk x;k gS ftleas mls i= dh izkfIr ls lkr
fnu ds vUnj lsok esa **vkdfLed etnwj** ds :Ik 'kkfey gksus ds fy, dgk x;k gSA mDr i= dh QksVksizfr i=koyh ij gSA blh i=
dh Hkkafr izkFkhZ us vxj lsok LosPN;k ls NksM+h Fkh rks mls foHkkx }kjk lsok lekfIr dk fyf[kr vkns'k Hkstuk pkfg, Fkk fd fujUrj
fcuk vuqefr vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k mldh lsok,a lekIr dh tkrh gSA ,slk djus ij izkFkhZ dks ;g dgus dk volj ugha gksrk fd mlus
lsok LosPN;k ugha NksM+h cfYd mls dke ij 28-3-84 ls 'kkfey ugha gksus fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk ds dFku mlds leFkZu esa
izLrqr 'kiFk ds dFku] izfrijh{kk] ,oa izkFkhZ }kjk lsok esa okil vkus ds iz;kl esa fujUrj fy[ks i=ksa ds lE;d voyksdu ,oa lEcfU/kr
rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds voyksdu ,oa fo'ys"k.k ls eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gWw fd izkFkhZ gh Loa; lsok NksM+dj pyk x;k] foi{k dh bl dFku
dh iqf"V ugha gksrh gS vkSj izkFkhZ ;g rF; fl) djus esa lQy gS fd mlus lsok Lor% ugha NksM+hA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDRk
vuqfpr ,oa fof/k fo:) gSA
20-
izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us cgl dh gS fd izkFkhZ dh p;u&lwph esa izkFkhZ nwljs uEcj ij gS rFkk dqy lkr O;fDr;ksa dk
p;u gqvk Fkk blfy, izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDRk esa /kkjk 25 ¼th½ dk mYya?ku gqvk gSA blh izdkj ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsok
ls i`Fkd djus ds ckn foi{k us vU; yksxksa dh fu;qfDRk dh ijUrq izkFkhZ dks volj ugha fn;k x;k vr% foi{k }kjk /kkjk 25 ¼,p½
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku dk Hkh mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4517
21-
izkFkhZ ds /kkjk 25 ¼th½ ds mYya?ku ds dFku ds fo:) foi{k us tokc esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us 130 fnu dk;Z djus ds
ckn Lor% ukSdjh NksM+dj pyk x;k blfy, og vuqxkeh ykHkksa lfgr iqu% fu;kstu dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 25 ¼th½ fuEu izkfo/kku iznku djrh gS %&
**/kkjk 25 N- NaVuh ds fy, izfdz;k & tgka fd fdlh vkS|ksfxd LFkkiu ds fdlh ,sls deZdkj dh] tks Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gS
NaVuh dh tkuh gks vkSj ;g ml LFkkiu ds deZdkjksa ds fdlh fof'k"V izoxZ dk gks] ogka] rc ds flok; tcfd fu;kstd ,sls
dkj.kksa ls] ftUgsa vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tk,xk] fdlh vU; deZdkj dh NaVuh djrk gS] fu;kstd vkSj deZdkj ds chp bl fufer
gq, fdlh djkj ds vHkko esa fu;kstd] ekewyh rkSj ls vkSj ml deZdkj dh NaVuh djsxk] tks ml izoXkZ esa fu;ksftr fd;k
tkus okyk vfUre O;fDr gksA**
22-
izkFkhZ ds 'kiFk&i= ds izLrj rhu esa /kkjk 25 ¼th½ ds mYya?ku dk mYys[k fd;k gSA ;kph ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls
cgl dh x;h gS fd ;kph us lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ds Bhd iwoZ 240 fnu rd yxkrkj lsok ugha dh gS blds ckotwn izkFkhZ ds ekeys
esa /kkjk 25 ¼th½ ,oa /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku ykxw gksrs gSA bl lUnHkZ esa ;kph dh rjQ ls fof/kd
n`"VkUr (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 192, Harjinder Singh Appellant v/s. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
...... Respondent voyEc fy;k x;k gSA eSaus mDr n`"VkUr dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;k gS vkSj izkFkhZ i{k dh cgl esa /kkjk 25 ¼th½
ds lUnHkZ esa orZeku ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, cy gSA bl lUnHkZ esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dk
izLrj 16 izklafxd gS tks fuEuor~ gS %&
''16. It is true that in the writ petition filed by it, the Corporation did plead that the dispute raised by the
appellant was not an industrial dispute because he had not worked continuously for a period of 240 days, the learned
Single Judge rightly refused to entertain the same because no such argument was advanced before him and also because
that plea is falsified by the averments contained in Para 2 of the reply filed on behalf of the Corporation to the
statement of claim wherein it was admitted that the appellant was engaged as work-charge motor mate for construction
work on 5-3-1986 and he worked in that capacity and also as work munshi from 3-10-1986 and as mentioned above,
even after expiry of the period of three months specified in the order dated 5-2-1987, the appellant continued to work
till 5-7-1988 when the first notice of retrenchment was issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation. Therefore,
it was not open for the Corporation to contend that the appellant had not completed 240 days' service. Moreover, it is
settled law that for attracting the applicability of Section 25-G of the Act, the workman is not required to prove that he
had worked for a period of 240 days during twelve calendar months preceding the termination of his service and it is
sufficient for him to plead and prove that while effecting retrenchment, the employer violated the rule of "last come
first go" without any tangible reason.
23-
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu.kZ; ds izLrj 16 esa iznr mDr fof/k O;oLFkk ls ;g Li"V gS fd /kkjk 25 ¼th½ dk izkfo/kku
orZeku ekeys esa vkdf"kZr gksrk gSA
/kkjk 25 ¼th½ ds mYya?ku ds vk{ksi ls cpus ds fy, foi{k dh rjQ ls ;g vk/kkj Hkh fy;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ ls dfu"d
deZpkjh Jh t;flag ,oa Jh ;quql csx ds dze'k% ,-bZ-,e@MCyw izkstsDV] tks/kiqj rFkk mi e.My vf/kdkjh] QksUl] tks/kiqj ds dk;kZy;ksa
esa dk;Zjr gksus ds dkj.k ,oa muds }kjk 240 fnu ls vf/kd fnu dk;Z djus ds dkj.k mUgsa fu;fer dj fu;qfDr nh x;h Fkh rFkk bu
nksuksa dh lsok bdkb;kWa izkFkhZ Jh jktsUnz dqekj dh lsok bdkbZ ls fHkUu Fkh rFkk fnukad 01-10-1995 ds iwoZ v/kh{kd rkj?kj] tks/kiqj dk
dk;kZy; egkizcU/kd nwjlapkj] tks/kiqj ds v/khu ugha vkrk FkkA bl lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd Jh jktsUnz dqekj ds orZeku ekeys esa
izklafxd frfFk 28-8-84 gS u fd 1-10-95 dh frfFk izklafxd gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd dfFkr lsok lekfIr dh frfFk fnukad 28-8-84
dks Jh ;quql csx rFkk Jh t;flag izkFkhZ Jh jktsUnz dqekj ls dfu"d Fks rFkk fu;fer fu;qDr ugha Fks ,oa lHkh dh ofj"Brk lwph ,d gh
FkhA vr% mDr vk/kkjksa dks foi{kh ds fgr esa /kkjk 25 ¼th½ ds izkfo/kku ds fo:) cpko dk vk/kkj ugha cuk;k tk ldrk gS vkSj u gh
Jh jktsUnz dqekj dks /kkjk 25 ¼th½ ds mYya?ku ds ykHk ls oafpr j[kk tk ldrk gSA
24- tgkW rd /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ ds izkfo/kku ds ykxw gksus dk iz'u gS bl /kkjk esa iznRr izkfo/kku fu;kstu }kjk **NVuh** ds ckn u;s
deZpkfj;ksa ds fu;kstu ds le; NVuh'kqnk deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;kstu esa ojh;rk dk izkfo/kku iznku djrh gSA lqyHk lUnHkZ gsrq /kkjk 25
,p dk izkfo/kku vafdr fd;k tk jgk gS tks fuEuor gS %&
**/kkjk 25&t
**/kkjk 25&t
**/kkjk 25&t
**/kkjk 25&t- NaVuh fd, x, deZdkjksa dk iqu% fu;kstu &
NaVuh fd, x, deZdkjksa dk iqu% fu;kstu &
NaVuh fd, x, deZdkjksa dk iqu% fu;kstu &
NaVuh fd, x, deZdkjksa dk iqu% fu;kstu &
tgka fd fdUgha deZdkjksa dh NaVuh dh tkrh gS vkSj fu;kstd fdUgha O;fDr;ksa dks vius fu;kstu esa j[kus dh izLFkkiuk
djrk gS] ogka og mu NaVuh fd, x, deZdkjksa dks] tks Hkkjr ds ukxfjd gSa] ,slh jhfr ls] tSlh fofgr dh tk,] ;g volj nsxk fd
iqu% fu;kstu ds fy, vius dks izLFkkfir djsa vkSj NaVuh fd, x, mu deZdkjksa dks tks iqu% fu;kstu ds fy, vius dks izLFkkfir djsa
vU; O;fDr;ksa ij vf/keku feysxkA**
4518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
25-
mDr izkfo/kku esa ;g O;oLFkk gS fd ;fn fdlh deZdkj dh NaVuh dh tkrh gS vkSj mlds ckn fu;kstd fdUgha O;fDr;ksa dks
vius fu;kstu esa j[kuk pkgrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa NaVuh fd;s x;s deZdkj dks iqu% fu;kstu dk volj iznku fd;k tkosxk vkSj ;fn
NVuh fd;k x;k deZdkj iqufuZ;kstu dk bPNqd gS rks mls vU; O;fDr;ksa dh rqyuk esa ojh;rk nh tk;sxhA
26-
orZeku ekeys esa foi{kh fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ dh Js.kh ds fdlh deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr ugha dh x;h gS cfYd vuqlwfpr tkfr
,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh backlog fjfDr ij fu;qfDr dh x;h gSA izkFkhZ mDr Js.kh dk deZpkjh ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ dh Js.kh dk dksbZ
deZpkjh foi{k }kjk ugha fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA
vr% eSa bl er dk gwWa fd izkFkhZ ds ekeys dh rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g Li"V gS
fd /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ ds izkfo/kku dk mYya?ku ugha gqvk gSA
27-
mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwW fd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDRk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA
28-
tgka rd izkFkhZ dh voS/k lsok lekfIr ds dkj.k lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk iz'u gS bl lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS izkFkhZ dh bl
ekeys ds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku fnukad 17-9-2012 dks e`R;q gks x;h gSA eqdnes ds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku ;kph dh e`R;q dh n'kk esa
ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2001 (2)] 128 western Law cases (Raj.), Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) D.B., M/s.
Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. .......Appellant v/s The Judge Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court,
Bikaner....... Respondents. esa nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk izklafxd gSA m)r ekeys esa izR;FkhZ Jh dj.kh flag ¼e`rd nkSjku eqdnek½ us
viuh lsok lekfIr ds fo:) /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ,oa /kkjk 25 ¼th½ ds mYya?ku ds vk/kkj ij vkS|ksfxd fookn mBk;kA vihykFkhZ dk ;g
dFku Fkk fd e`rd vihykFkhZ dh lEifRr dh lqj{kk ds fy, Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk mldh fu;qfDr vihykFkZhZ }kjk
ugha dh x;h Fkh blfy, vihykFkhZ dj.kh flag dh lsok lekfIr ls mRiUu ifj.kke ds fy, mRrjnk;h ugha gS] pkgs dj.kh flag dh lsok
lekfIr voS/kkfud gh D;ksa u gks D;ksafd lsok lekfIr Bsdnkj }kjk dh x;h gSA Je U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ ds mDr vk/kkj dks vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ esa jktLFkku jkT; }kjk fd;s x;s la'kks/ku ds vk/kkj ij vekU; dj fn;k tks la'kks/ku dk
vk/kkj izkFkhZ Jh dj.kh flag dh rjQ ls mBk;k x;k FkkA eqdnes ds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku Jh dj.kh flag dh e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k
U;k;kf/kdj.k us ,deq'r {kfriwfrZ eq- 28]600 :i;s iznku dhA U;k;kf/kdj.k ds mDr iapkV ls {kqC/k gksdj vihykFkhZ us ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; ds le{k Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ,oa 227 ds vUrXkZr fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dh ftls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh
,dyihB us fujLr dhA vihykFkhZ us ekuuh; ,dyihB ds fu.k;Z ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh ftls
ekuuh; [k.MihB us fujLr dhA fu.k;Z ds izLrj 10 ,oa 11 esa ekuuh; [k.MihB us fuEu mYys[k fd;k %& ''10.Apart from the fact
that we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that while exercising the descretion under articles 226 & 227 in
entertaining the writ petition to keep the interest of substantial justice as paramount consideration for invoking the
exraordinary jurisdiction and discretion has appropriately not been exercised in favour of the petitioner, we do not find
any substance on merit of the contention.
11. So far as the Rajasthan is concerned the definition of 'workman' as provide in Section 2(s) of the Act of
1947 was amended by the Rajasthan Act No. 34 of 1958 through its Section 3 w.e.f. 1.7.1960. The definition of
workman u/s 2 (s) of the Act of 1947 as applicable in the state of Rajasthan since said amendment included any person
employyed in any industry by a employer or by a contractor in relation to the execution of his contract with such
employer. The case of the appellant is that deceased Karni Singh was employed by a contractor in relation to execution
of his contract for maintaining security of the federation's property which contract was between the federation and the
contrctor. The definition as amended in Rajasthan is clearly to include within the ambit of employees of the
establishment also the workman employed by the contractor in execution of the contract undertaken by the contractor
for the employer in which category even on the contention of the management, case of Karni Singh would fall."
mDr fof/kd fLFkfr ls ;g Li"V gS fd jktLFkku jkT; }kjk /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ esa la'kks/ku ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dj.kh flag dks vihykFkhZ dh
lsok esa ekuk x;k rFkk vihy fujLr dh x;hA lsok lekfIr ds vkns'k ds voS/k ik;s tkus dh voLFkk esa lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk lkekU;
vuqxkeh vuqrks"k gS ijUrq Jh jktsUnz dqekj dh eqdnek yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku e`R;q gksus ds dkj.k lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vuqrks"k iznku
djuk O;ogkfjd ugha gSA mDr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa esjh jk; esa Jh dj.kh flag ds vuq:i vuqrks"k ds :i esa leqfpr {kfriwfrZ dh
vnk;xh mfpr ,oa fof/klaxr gksxhA
29-
tgka rd {kfriwfrZ dh ek=k ds fu/kkZj.k dk iz'u gS ;kph nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkjh Fks ftUgsa 9@& :i;k izfrfnu dh nj ls
etnwjh nh tkrh Fkh vkSj 23 ekpZ 84 rFkk vxLr 1984 ds e/; mUgksuas 130 fnu dh lsok dh gSA ;kph dks fnukad 28-3-84 ls foi{k
}kjk lsok esa lfEefyr gksus ls jksdk x;k gS vr% ;kph fnukad 28-3-84 ls vuqrks"k dk gdnkj gSA {kfriwfrZ ds en esa ;kph dks ;fn ,d
eq'r :i;s 40]000@& ¼pkyhl gtkj :i;s½ dh vnk;xh foi{kh }kjk dh tk; rks bl ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g {kfriwfrZ
dh i;kZIr ek=k gksxh rFkk blls U;kf;d mn~ns'; dh iwfrZ gks ldsxhA mDr O;k[;k o fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwWa fd
tujy eSustj VsfydkWe] tks/kiqj ds izcU/ku }kjk ekg vxLr lu~ 1984 ls izkFkhZ Jh jktsUnz dqekj dh lsok lekfIr vuqfpr ,oa voS/k
gSA ;kph i{k fnukad 28-8-84 ls {kfriwfrZ dh /kujkf'k :i;s 40]000@& ¼pkyhl gtkj :i;s½ foi{kh ls vuqrks"k ds :i esa ikus dk
gdnkj gSA iapkV dh vf/klwpuk dh izkfIr ds nks ekg ds vUnj foi{kh }kjk {kfriwfrZ dh /kujkf'k dh vnk;xh ;kph dks dh tk;sxh vkSj
,slk u djus ij ;kph i{k iapkV dh vf/klwpuk dh frfFk ls 11 izfr'kr lk/kkj.k okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls C;kt lfgr {kfriwfrZ dh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4519
/kujkf'k izkIr djus dk gdnkj gksxkA 'ks"k ;kfpr vuqrks"k vLohdkj fd;s tkrs gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr funsZ’k dk mRrj mDr izdkj
fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
30-
iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh
tk;sA
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2055-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p,eVh
e'khu Vwy fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 10@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-09-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@217@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2016
S.O. 2055.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 10/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the HMT Machine Tool Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 26.09.2016.
[No. L-42011/217/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 29th day of August, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE I.D. 10/2016
Between:
The General Secretary,
HMT Praga Employees Union,
Regd.No.B-1931, D.No.60-010,
C.I.E. Gandhi Nagar,
Opp IDPL Colony, Balanagar,
Hyderabad – 500 037
…Petitioner
AND
The General Technical Manager (PTH),
HMT Machine Tool Limited, Praga Division,
Hyderabad – 500 37
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent
:
M/s. K. Udaya Sri & P. Sudheer Rao, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42011/217/2015-IR(DU) dated 4.1.2016
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of HMT Machine Tools Limited and their workmen. The reference is,
4520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of HMT Machine Tools Limited Praga Division, Hyderabad by
reducing the Transport Allowance from Rs.905/- per month to Rs.800/- per month to the Praga Tools employees
is legal and justified? If not to what relief the Praga Tools employees are entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 10/2016 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case is posted to 7.9.2016 for filing of Claim Statement by the Petitioner union.
3.
On 26.8.2016, the case record was advanced on the submission of the counsels for both the sides. The
Respondent through his counsel filed a memo stating to pass appropriate Award, in view of the memo filed on behalf
of the Respondent.
4.
Perused the memo wherein it has been stated that the Petitioner union has raised the dispute challenging the
action on the part of the Respondent by reducing the Conveyance/Transport Allowance from Rs. 905/-(Rupees Nine
Hundred and Five only) to Rs.800/- (Rupees Eight Hundred only) per month per employee. During pendency of the
above proceeding, on 31.7.2016 the Respondent has issued a letter to the General Secretary, Praga Tools Engineering
Workers Union (Regd.No. B-6) HMT Machine Tools Limited, Praga Division, Hyderabad (the present recognized
union) stating that the competent authority has accorded approval for payment of Rs. 905/-(Rupees Nine Hundred and
Five only) per month to all the employees towards Conveyance/Transport Allowance in place of Rs.800/- (Rupees
Eight Hundred only) per month, as a special case subject to withdrawal of the pending dispute in ID No.10/2016 before
this court. It is stated that in view of the above memo appropriate order be passed recording that the cause of dispute
do not survive at present. Copy of the above memo has already been served to the counsel for the Respondent union
who received the same without objection.
5.
Perused the memo along with the claim statement. Heard both the sides. The case was posted to 29.8.2016 for
further orders.
6.
The matter was heard in presence of the General Secretary of the Petitioner’s Union and his advocate, so also
the representative of the Respondent Sri Neeli Anand, the Dy. Manager HR & S, along with his advocate. The contents
of the memo filed by the Respondent dated 26.8.2016 was read over and explained to both the parties, to which they
admitted the same to be correct. The Petitioner union filed a memo praying to pass an award considering the memo
filed by the Respondent.
7.
Both the memos are accepted. In view of the memos filed by both the sides, no dispute is pending between the
parties and as such a no dispute Award is passed. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 29th day
of August, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2056-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV
vkWiQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@22@2001) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@405@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4521
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2016
S.O. 2056.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/22/2001) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Department of Telecommunication and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 26.09.2016.
[No. L-40012/405/2000-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/22/2001
Shri Madanlal S/o Kanhaiyalal,
PO Gavri, Janjali Chouraha,
Govindpura,
Tehsil Raghogarh,
Guna
…Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road,
MP Circle,
Bhopal
Telecom District Engineer,
Guna (MP)
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 31st day of August, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 27-12-00 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-
40012/405/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Engineer, Guna in terminating Shri Madanlal S/o
Kanhaiyalal in the year 1999 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1 to
2/7. Case of Ist party is that he was initially appointed as labour by 2nd party on 23-10-90. He continuously worked as
daily wage labour till 31-3-99. His services were terminated without notice. Pay in lieu of notice was also paid to him.
He was not paid retrenchment compensation. He worked more than 10 years 5 months. He completed more than 240
days working during each of the calendar year. The seniority list as per Rule 77 was not displayed on notice board by
2nd party. Principle of last come first go was not followed by 2nd party. Termination of his service is illegal.
3.
Ist party further submits that since his initial appointment, he completed long service till10-9-93 as per circular
dated 1-11-95 issued by Post and Telegraph Department as per Supreme Court Judgment reported in AIR-1987-SC-
2342. He was not absorbed in service. he had requested 2nd party No.2 for regular service. on 23-2-92, he was
recommended for regularization in service. 2nd party has not regularized him. Termination of his service by 2nd party is
in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. On such ground, he prays for reinstatement with backwages.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/4 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2nd party submits that
Ist party workman was not appointed by 2nd party. Appointing Authority is SDO Telephones. That management of 2nd
party has banned appointment of casual labours since 1985. Workman was not appointed on daily wages or muster roll.
Workman has not completed 240 days continuous service for petty works, labours on daily wages used to be engaged.
They were paid wages as the rate fixed by District Magistrate, Guna. Workman did not work more than 240 days.
Violation of Section 25-F,G, H is denied. Compliance of policy of last come first go was not involved for consideration
Ist party workman was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. On all such contentions, 2nd party prays that
reference be answered in its favour.
4522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My
findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the management of
Telecom District Engineer, Guna in terminating
Shri Madanlal S/o Kanhaiyalal in the year 1999 is
justified?
Ist party workman failed to prove his termination is
illegal
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6.
The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. In his statement of claim,
workman has alleged violation of Section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, Rule 77 ID Rules 1957 . Though workman filed
affidavit of his evidence, he failed to appear for his cross-examination. Workman died during pendency of proceeding,
his LR Shri Govindram is brought on record. He filed affidavit of evidence but he also remained absent for cross
examination. His evidence cannot be considered.
7.
Management filed affidavit of Shri Gajendra Singh Senger denying workman was engaged by the department or
workman completed 240 days continuous service. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says presently he
is working in BSNL Guna as AGM. Presently he was not acquainted with Ist party. He was not posted at Guna during
1990. As workman has failed to adduce evidence, workman and his LR remained absent for cross-examination, their
evidence cannot be considered.
8.
Written notes of argument submitted by ist party along with citations in case between Ashok Kumar Sharma
versus Oberoi Flight Services reported in 2010(1)SCC-142 and copies of Award in R/25/01, 26/01 & 42/01 cannot be
beneficially applied to present case at hand as there is absolutely no evidence to support claim of Ist party.
9.
Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.S.Khare also submitted bunch of citations. As workman has not adduced
evidence in support of his claim, ratio held in 2013(2)Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 369, 2016(1) Supreme Court Cases
(L&S)-186, 2006(4)SCC-1 needs no discussion. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 that workman
has failed to prove that termination of his service is illegal.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
Workman has failed to prove that termination of his service is illegal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2057-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV
vkWiQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@176@2001) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@260@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2016
S.O. 2057.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/176/2001) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Department of Telecommunication and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 26.09.2016.
[No. L-40012/260/2001-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4523
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/176/2001
Shri Ramprasad Dhakad,
S/o Shri Daulatsingh Dhakar,
R/o Mahavirpura,
Guna
…Workman
Versus
Telecom District Engineer(Phones),
Guna, Distt. Guna,
MP.
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of August 2016
1.
As per letter dated 20-11-01 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-
40012/260/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of TDE(Phones), Distt. Guna in terminating the services of Shri
Ramprasad Dhakad S/o Shri Daulatsingh Dhakad w.e.f. February 1997 is justified? If not to what relief the
workman is entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1to 2/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially appointed by Guna in June 1991 as labour on daily
wages. He was continuously working till February 1997 without any break. His services were terminated without
notice. Salary in lieu of notice was not paid to him, he was also not paid retrenchment compensation, termination of his
service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. 2nd party did not obtain permission before termination of his services
thereby violated Section 25 N of ID Act. It is further contended that 2nd party had not published seniority list as per
Rule 77 Central ID Rules 1957. On such ground, Ist party is praying for reinstatement with backwages.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/ to 5/2 opposing claim of workman.2nd party contends that Ist party
was not appointed nor terminated by District Engineer, Guna. He was not appointed in June 1991 as labour on daily
wages by 2nd party. 2nd party submits factual position that it is not employing labours, drivers etc from 1986 as per
policy of the department. No appointment made during the year 1991 to 1997 as per the official record. For petty
works, for time being if required non-skilled workers were assigned work for limited period. Ist party must have been
engaged for such work. After completion of work, labour was not engaged. Ist party had not completed 240 days
service during the year. It is reiterated that as Ist party was not appointed, there is no question of his termination or
retrenchment by 2nd party. There is also no question of displaying seniority list as per Rule 77 ID Rules 1957. It is
submitted that Isty party is not entitled to any reliefs.
4.
Workman died during pendency. His LRs Daulat Ram is brought on record.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) “Whether the action of the management of
TDE(Phones), Distt. Guna in terminating the
services of Shri Ramprasad Dhakad S/o Shri
Daulatsingh Dhakad w.e.f. February 1997 is
justified?
Illegal termination of Shri Ram Prasad is not
established.
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Deceased workman is not entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6.
The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of deceased workman in contravention of Section 25-F
of ID Act. Workman died during pendency of reference proceeding. Shri Daulat ram Father of deceased workman filed
4524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim. That deceased Ramprasad was his son. In
terms of reference, name of deceased workman is written Ram Prasad. Said defect was not pointed out earlier but only
at the time of argument. Daulatram in his affidavit further says that his son completed more than 240 days continuous
service. service of deceased son was terminated in February 2000 without notice. The term of reference pertains to
termination of Shri RamPrasad in February 1997. That deceased workman was not having any source of coming. He
was dependent on mercy of relatives and friends. In his cross-examination, he says that Ram Prasad is his son, he died
about 4 years back. He was working in telephone exchange, Guna. He further says he doesnot know under which
officer, he was working., his son was working since 1971 after intervention by Advocate Salunke, he corrected year as
1991. He claims ignorance whether appointment letter was issued by the department. His son was working as labour
since work of laying cable was continued. He was paid at end of month. Evidence on affidavit of Daulatram is not
consistent with terms of reference. His evidence is not cogent about in which department, deceased workman was
working, appointment letter was not given to him.
7.
Management’s witness Shri Gajendra Singh Senger filed affidavit denying engagement of deceased workman
Ram Prakash in telephone exchange neither he completed 240 days continuous service during any calendar year.
Appointment letter was not given to him. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says that during year 1991
to 1997, he was posted at GTO at Gwalior. Distance between Gwalior and Guna is 215 Kms. Personally he is not
acquainted with workman. Any daily wagers are not engaged at present. Daily wagers were not engaged in department
during 1991 to 1997. For work of laying cables, the ditches were made by regular employee of the department.
Management’s witness further added that such work was carried through contractor’s labour as petty work. Officers
used to give advance for such work. Attendance register of daily wage employee was maintained till 1985. Muster of
daily wager employee was stopped in 1985. He had not seen muster roll. He is not acquainted with Kashiram working
in Guna office. He was not posted at Guna office during 1991 to 1997. Evidence of witness of Ist party is not
corroborated by any documents, no co-employee is examined as witness.
8.
Learned counsel, for Ist party Shri Salunke submitted written notes of argument narrating the facts raising the
dispute. Copies of award in R/25/01, R/26/0 are also submitted for consideration. I have carefully gone through both
the copies of awards. The evidence of workman was corroborated by evidence and other witness and documents. In
present case, workman died during pendency of reference. The affidavit of evidence is filed by his father is absolutely
not corroborated by any kind of evidence. Ist party failed to establish that deceased workman was illegally terminated.
For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
Ist party failed to prove that deceased workman was illegally terminated.
(2)
Ist party is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2058-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV
vkWiQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@94@2000) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@54@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2016
S.O. 2058.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/94/2000) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Department of Telecommunication and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 26.09.2016.
[No. L-40012/54/2000-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4525
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/94/2000
Shri Rajusingh Kushwah,
Vill & PO Jagar Check, Police Station,
Sathora, Tehsil Ashok Nagar,
Guna
…Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. Of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,
Bhopal
DET, Deptt. Of Telecom,
Near Gayathri Mandir, Hanuman Mandir,
Chouraha, Guna
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of August, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 30-5-00 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-40012/54/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of Shri
Rajusingh Kushwah S/o Shri Phool Singh Kushwah w.e.f. December 1998 is justified? If not to what relief the
workman is entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially appointed in 1989 as Telephone Mechanic on daily
wages. He was continuously working till December 1998 without any break. His services were terminated without
notice. Salary in lieu of notice was not paid to him, he was also not paid retrenchment compensation, termination of his
service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Seniority list was not displayed on notice board before termination of
his services. Principles of last come first go was not followed. That employees engaged subsequent to Ist party were
retained in service. that 2nd party not considered case of workman under the scheme bestowing temporary status on
casual labours who have completed long service and who have been initially appointed before 10-9-93. Circular dated
1-11-95 issued by department as per the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR-1987-SC-2342. Government
should not engage casual employees for long period. 2nd party did not obtain permission before termination of his
services thereby violated Section 25 N of ID Act. That by amendment, workman claimed after termination of his
service, he is unemployed. He has borrowed money from his friends and relatives for his survival. On such ground, Ist
party is praying for reinstatement with backwages.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/3 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party contends that Ist party
was not appointed nor terminated by District Engineer, Guna. He was not appointed in any post in any department in
1989 by 2nd party. 2nd party submits factual position that it is not employing labours, drivers etc from 1986 as per policy
of the department. No appointment made during the year 1985 to 1997 as per the official record. DE, Telephone was
the Appointing Authority in 1989. Said post was not created at Guna, no vacancy was published on the workman in
1989. For petty works, department engaged 2 labours after completion of satisfied petty work., their engagement
automatically ended. For new work again local office engaged about as per requirement in different stations. The
officers made payment to such labours. The rates was fixed by District Magistrate Puna time to time. After completion
of work, such labours were not continued. Muster roll was totally stopped since 1985. Any of the labours did not work
more than 240 days since 1985. Workman was not appointed by department. There was no question of payment of
compensation or issuing notice. There was no question of following principles of last come first go policy. Judgment in
AIR-1987-SC-2342 is not applicable in the matter. 2nd party prays reference be answered in its favour.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
4526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom in terminating the
services of Shri Rajusingh Kushwah S/o Shri Phool
Singh Kushwah w.e.f. December 1998 is justified?
In Affirmative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5.
The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of Ist party workman. Ist party workman
filed affidavit of his evidence contending that he was working on daily wages. In 1989, he worked for 9 years. He
completed 240 days continuous service. As per circular dated 10-9-93, daily wage employees working for 240 days till
10-9-93 was granted temporary status. His services were terminated in December 98 without notice. He was not paid
retrenchment compensation. In his cross-examination, workman says he passed 5th standard. Appointment letter was
not given to him, he was not interviewed, his name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was
presently working as labour.
6.
Management’s witness Shri Gajendra Singh Senger filed affidavit denying engagement of workman in
telephone exchange neither he completed 240 days continuous service during any calendar year. Appointment letter
was not given to him. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says that during 1989 to 1999, he was posted at
JTO, Gwalior. Distance between Gwalior to Guna is about 215 kms. He doesnot know Phone Mechanic Mr. Aditya
Narayan Chourasia. He says that the work of telephone repair was carried by Telephone Mechanic, work of telephone
cable fault and digging ditches was carried through petty workers. They were paid wages in the evening. Petty workers
were engaged as per exigency. Petty workers were not engaged for months, they were engaged for 2-3 days. Account
of payments was maintained in the office. Accounts are retained for 10 years.
7.
Though affidavit of Rajendra Prasad is filed, it was not pressed. Management’s witness Mahendra Singh
Gohariya in affidavit of evidence denied engagement of workman more than 240 days, appointment letter was not
issued to him. Said witness also not appeared for cross-examination. Evidence of workman is not corroborated by any
documents.
8.
Learned counsel, for Ist party Shri Salunke submitted written notes of argument narrating the facts raising the
dispute. Copies of award in R/25/01, R/26/0 are also submitted for consideration. I have carefully gone through both
the copies of awards. The evidence of workman was corroborated by evidence and other witness and documents. Ist
party failed to establish that he was illegally terminated. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1
in Affirmative.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management terminating workman is proper and legal.
(2) Ist party is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2059-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV
vkWiQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@111@2001) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@71@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2016
S.O. 2059.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/111/2001) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Department of Telecommunication and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 26.09.2016.
[No. L-40012/71/2001-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4527
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/111/2001
Shri Abdul Maheed, S/o Shri Abdul Wahid,
Dalla Patha, Opp Nizamuddin Madarse,
Guna Cantt. MP
…Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. Of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,
Bhopal (MP)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of August, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 31-5-2001 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-40012/71/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of District Engineer, Admn. Guna in terminating the services of Shri
Abdul Maheed S/o Shri Abdul Wahid w.e.f. 5-8-2000 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1
to 2/3. Case of workman is that he was orally engaged on 1-7-78 as LMV Driver on daily wages on sanctioned post.
He was paid Rs.1500 per month. During 1-7-98 to 19-2-99, he was driving Jeep No. MP-08-7439 during period 1-7-98
to 19-1-99, Jeep No. MP-08-E-5511 from 20-1-99 to 18-3-99 and Jeep No. MP-08-F-0838 during period 19-3-99 to
4-8-00. That he was working for 15-18 hours. He was paid less than subsistence wages. He could not refuse as he was
working on daily wages. On 4-8-00, he was discharged from duty. His services were orally terminated. Without
according any opportunity to him, he was not offered re-employment. On Rajiv Kushwah was appointed on March 99
as LMV Driver on daily wages. He was driving Jeep No. MP08-E-5378. He is continued in service after termination of
his services. 2nd party failed to prepare seniority list and paste its copy on notice board. Ist party further submits that
termination of his service without notice amount to retrenchment. He was not paid one month salary in lieu of notice on
such ground, Ist party submits that termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F,G of ID Act. 2nd party not
given opportunity to re-employment to him is in violation of Section 25-Fof ID Act. Ist party prays for reinstatement
with backwages.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party denied workman was engaged as
Driver. It is also denied that workman was paid wages Rs.1500 per month. Ist party workman was not engaged as
casual driver. The question of driving the vehicles shown in the statement of claim doesnot arise. There was no
question of termination of workman on 4-8-00. The contentions of Ist party about oral appointment are denied. As
workman was never engaged, there is no question of giving one month’s notice or retrenchment compensation. 2nd
party prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the management of
District Engineer, Admn. Guna in terminating the
services of Shri Abdul Maheed S/o Shri Abdul
Wahid w.e.f. 5-8-2000 is justified?
In Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per final order.
REASONS
5.
Point No.1 the term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Ist party Abdul filed
affidavit of his evidence. He has stated that he was engaged as daily wage Driver on 1-7-78. He was holding licence for
4528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
my motor vehicle. He was working as Driver till 4-8-00. He was paid Rs.1500 at end of the month. He completed more
than 240 days service in each of the calendar year. His services were terminated on 4-8-00. One Sanjay Kushwah
engaged after termination of his service is retained in service. he was not given seniority. Seniority list was not
displayed on notice board before termination of his service. he is unemployed. His family is facing hardship. From
evidence of workman, documents Exhibit W-1 to 4 are admitted in evidence. Ist party in his cross says original of
Exhibit W-2 to W-4 are in the office. When he was returning with the articles, he had secured zerox copies of those
documents. He had not taken permission for any officer, post was advertised. Appointment letter was not issued to him.
He claims ignorance about process followed for recruitment. He denies that he had never worked in the department.
6.
Ist party also examined witness Rahis Khan. In his affidavit, Rahis Khan has stated that Ist party Abdul was
engaged on daily wages on 1-7-98 as Driver. He was driving different vehicles MP 08-7439, MP 08-E-5511, MP-08-
F-0838 . His services were terminated on 4-9-00. Ist party had worked more than 240 days during each of the calendar
year. In his cross, Rahis Khan admits that Ist party had given evidence in reference of dispute raised by him. He denies
that therefore he has given false evidence to support claim of workman. He denies that Ist party never worked with the
management.
7.
2nd party filed affidavit of evidence of Gajendra Singh supporting contentions of management in Written
Statement. That Ist party was never engaged by the management. Ist party had not completed 240 days continuous
service in any calendar years. For casual nature of work, there is no provision of payment of retrenchment
compensation. In his cross, management’s witness says he was posted in Gwalior office during 1998 to 2000. The
distance between Guna to Gwalior is 25 Kms. The department was having Vehicles No. vehicles MP 08-7439, MP 08-
E-5511, MP-08-F-0838. The management’s witness was unable to tell who was driving those vehicle during 1998 to
2000 he denied copies of log book produced by Ist party. Shri Rajiv Kushwah, Sanjay Kushwah was not working as
Driver in Guna office.
8.
Both parties have adduced evidence. Evidence of Ist party is corroborated by documents Exhibit W-1
application, W-4 copies of log book. The vehicle number is not mentioned in log book, however names of the officers
using the vehicles are mentioned. Management’s witness has not rebutted entries in log book. When all the three
vehicles are owned by management of 2nd party, management’s witness was unable to tell who was driving those
vehicles. The evidence of Ist party that he was driving those vehicles cannot be discarded. Document Exhibit W-2 is
letter for supply of Modi Zerox Fax Machine Model No. 7241. Said letter finds clear reference that zerox machine be
handed over to Mohit Khan. Exhibit W-3 is invoice of fax machine. Evidence of management is not corroborated by
any documents. The evidence of Ist party corroborated by Rahis Khan and document Exhibit W-4 deserves to be relied.
As per document W-4, it is established that workman worked more than 240 days preceding termination of his service.
Ist party workman was not served termination notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Termination of
his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
9.
Point No.2 In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of service of workman is in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act, question remains for decision is whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages.
10.
Learned counsel for Ist party Shri N.K.Salunke relies on ratio held in case of
Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others reported in 2013(10)SCC-
324. Their Lordship dealing with question of reinstatement with backwages etc. on holding termination illegal
held conduct of employer and suffering of employee, reinstatement entitles such employee to claim full
backwages. Denial of backwages would amount to gross violation of rules of natural justice.
The facts of above cited case are not comparable. In present case, termination of workman is found illegal for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act whereas in above cited case, employee was terminated for certain charges. Tribunal
had found action of management fully arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
The question of back wages cannot be considered in isolation from the question of reinstatement. Therefore
ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.
11.
Next reliance is placed on ratio held in
Case between Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi Flight Services reported in 2010(1)SCC-142. Their
lordship considering findings respondent having not conducted any enquiry, dismissal of workman without
issuing chargesheet or showcause notice held unsustainable. Instead of reinstatement, compensation Rs.60,000
was allowed. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2 Lakhs.
Ist party workman in his cross-examination says appointment letter was issued to him, he was engaged on daily
wages. Considering the mode of employment on daily wages, reinstatement of Ist party would not be appropriate. As
per evidence of Ist party, he worked from 1-7-98 till 4-8-00 for about 2 years in my considered view, compensation
Rs.75000/- would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in point No. 2.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4529
12.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of management terminating Ist party workman w.e.f. 5/8/2000 is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.75,000 to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2060-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Oghdy
iSQDVªh] tcyiqj ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@114@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&14012@10@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2016
S.O. 2060.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/114/2003) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 26.09.2016.
[No. L-14012/10/2003-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/114/03
Shri G.K.Tiwari,
S/o Shri C.P.Tiwari,
C/o B.S.Philora, 50,
Shaktinagar, Jabalpur
…Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Vehicle Factory,
Jabalpur
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 26th day of August 2016
1.
As per letter dated 20-6-03 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-
14012/10/2003-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur in awarding the
punishment of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 17-2-2001 to Shri G.K.Tiwari S/o Shri C.P.Tiwari Ex Mechanist
“C” is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was employed on permanent post of machinist Grade C since 6-2-
76. Considering his efficient service, he was considered for post of machinist skilled in 1984. That due to sickness of
his wife, he had submitted application for 10 days leave. Thereafter he herself fell sick from 11-11-95. After he was
declared fit for work, he reported on duty on 7-12-75. The officers did not believe him, he was threatened and sent for
medical examination. Due to mental torture, he again fell sick, he consulted Doctor and he was advised for complete
4530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
rest for the period 8-12-95 to 28-6-97. Medical Certificates were sent to the management. After recovery from illness,
he submitted fitness certificate and reported for duty on 30-6-95. He was allowed to work.
3.
That he received memorandum of chargesheet under Rule 14. CCS alleging gross misconduct of remaining
absent from 1-11-95 to 28-6-97. He submitted reply to chargesheet denying the misconduct. He submitted the copies of
medical certificates to the management. Enquiry Officer was appointed by management for conducting enquiry against
him. Enquiry was conducted violating principles of natural justice, not following the settled law while conducting
enquiry. Report of Enquiry Officer was received by him at his residence. Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer has
come to his home. He was on bed at that time. Workman submits that the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse.
Without giving the details, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed against him. Workman submits after the
punishment was imposed against him, he is unemployed and leaving in starvation. The punishment is harsh and
excessive. He prays for setting aside order of his compulsory retirement.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/5 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that workman
while working as machinist skilled remained absent from duty during the period 1-11-95 to 28-6-97. He had not taken
prior sanctioned leave intimated about the reasons for his absence. Workman did not intimate as to whether he was
sick or forward any medical certificate certifying that he was unfit for duty on 8-12-95 along with fitness certificate for
the period 13-7-95 to 2-12-95. He was referred for 2nd medical opinion by management to factory hospital without
taking him on duty as per the prevailing system. Thereafter workman did not report for duty and without intimation
remained absent. After lapse of 20 months, workman reported for duty on 30-6-97 along with certificate of fitness
from 30-6-97. Workman was again referred to Factory Hospital on 30-6-97 for medical opinion. After his medical
examination, he was declared fit and fit to join duty by Medical Officer of Factory Hospital. Accordingly workman was
allowed to join duty.
5.
Chargesheet was issued to workman on 6-6-97 under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rule 1965. Chargesheet pertaining
to misconduct remaining absent from duty unauthorisely. Workman denied charges, he requested for enquiry. Enquiry
Officer was appointed, Presenting Officer was also appointed. Enquiry was conducted allowing reasonable opportunity
to management and workman for presenting their case. After Enquiry Officer submitted report to Disciplinary
Authority, the charges were established from evidence. Disciplinary Authority found that enquiry conducted against
workman according to the procedure following principles of natural justice, the punishment of compulsory retirement
was imposed. On 17-2-01, Ist party workman challenged said order in appeal. The appeal was rejected on 1-4-02. 2nd
party reiterates workman was given fair opportunity for his defence. The findings of Enquiry Officer are based on
evidence in enquiry. Copy of Enquiry Report was supplied to workman by Disciplinary Authority before imposing the
punishment. Punishment imposed against workman is commensurate to the gravity of misconduct. It is reiterated that
enquiry was conducted following principles of natural justice.
6.
As per order dated 17-9-14, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.
7.
Considering pleadings on record and findings on enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and
determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the misconduct alleged against
workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
In Affirmative
(ii) Whether the punishment of compulsory
retirement imposed against workman is proper and
legal?
In Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per final orders.
REASONS
8.
Point No.1 – Vide order dated 17-9-14, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal. Whether charges
alleged against workman are proved needs to be decided form evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Statement of
Management’s witness Shri Shagnu Lal at Page 9/32 to 9/34 of enquiry record shows that said witness was working as
UDC. He was doing work of attendance booking. He has produced attendance booking of Shri G.K.Tiwari Ist party
workman from 1-11-95 to 9-11-95. He was shown absent. Since 10-11-95 to 30-6-97, he was marked “D”. in his
further cross examination at Page 9/37, he has explained when intimation about absence was not received, the remark
was shown by letter “B”. intimation received on the date the remark was made by letter “A” and thereafter the absence
was marked by letter “D”. the evidence of PWI Shagnu lal shows workman was absent from 1-11-95 to 20-6-97. One
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4531
postcard was received from workman regarding his absence on 0-11-95 as his wife was suffering from illness. The
period of absence was not shown in post card. The evidence of Shagnu lal management’s witness about absence of Ist
party workman during the period 1-11-95 to 30-6-97 is not shattered. From his evidence, it is clear that workman had
sent letter explaining his absence on account of illness of his wife. He had not received any information from time
office. Management’s witness Viswas corroborated evidence of witness No.1 Shagnulal that workman was absent from
duty during the period 1-11-95 to 28-6-97. During said period, wife of workman was suffering from illness. His
evidence about absence of workman from duty during above said period is not shattered. In his explanation, Exhibit M-
6 workman has claimed that he had submitted unfit certificate dated 8-12-95 to 7-3-96. In Exhibit M-7, Ist party
workman has claimed that if harsh action was taken against him, his family would be sufferer. He prayed for showing
mercy. During course of argument, medical certificates Exhibit M-9 to M-13 were brought to my notice in Exhibit M-
9, medical certificate issued by Dr. Awasthy, workman was shown suffering from Neuvocurculatory Asthama with
Hiper tension. He was advised absence from duty for 4 months from 8-12-95. As per Exhibit M-10, workman was
reported suffering from Neuvocurculatory Asthama. He was advised treatment and rest for further 3 months from 8-3-
96. In Exhibit M-11, workman was reported suffering from Hyper Tension with Neuvocurculatory Asthama. He was
advised treatment and rest for six months from 9-6-96. Vide Exhibit M-12, workman was reported suffering from
Hyper Tension with complicated UTI with Neuvocurculatory Asthama. He was advised absence from duty for six
months from 9-12-96. Exhibit M-13 workman was found fit for duty but advised light work for three months. All those
documents are produced by management shows documents were sent under UPC. However the evidence on record
shows workman had submitted Medical Certificate for the entire period Ex. M-9 to Ex.M-13. He had not submitted
leave application management has proved Ist party workman remained absent during the period 1-11-95 to 20-6-97. 2nd
party has alleged charge that workman not submitted medical unfit certificate within 7 days however cannot be
accepted in view of documents Ex.M-9 to Ex.M-13 were proved. For above reasons, I record my finding that charge
only w.r.t. workman remaining absent from 1-11-95 to 28-6-97 is prodeced. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No.1.
9.
Point No.2 – Workman remained absent from duty during 1-11-95 to 20-6-97. The articles of charge issued to
workman also refers to his previous misconduct that Shri G.K.Tiwari was warned two times on 28-12-84, 1-1-91. For
similar misconduct, he was imposed penalty of with holding of one increment when next due for one year with
cumulative effect on 10-12-81, 7-1-85, 11-1-90, 16-1-90 for his unauthorized absence from duty and reduction in pay
by one stage with cumulative effect. No documents are produced by management in that regard. Workman had denied
charges against him. As per Exhibit M-2 after workman submitted medical certificate, he was reffered for verification
to the Chief Medical Officer. As per Exhibit M-3, Ist party workman had not attended duties after 8-12-95. No
evidence has come on record what was result of verification whether workman had appeared or not before Chief
Medical Officer. As per my finding on Point No.1 only absence of workman from duty for the period 1-11-95 to 28-6-
97 is established as workman failed to submit leave application for above period. I have discussed about the documents
about past record of workman are not produced, punishment of compulsory retirement against workman has been
imposed without considering the medical certificates submitted by him Ex.M-9 to Ex.M-13. Only for failure of
workman to submit application for leave when he had already submitted medical certificates Ex.M-9 to Ex.M-13
punishment of compulsory retirement would not be justified. The evidence of management’s witness is silent as to
what action was taken after medical certificates Ex.M-9 to Ex.M-13 were received by the management. Chargesheet
was issued to the workman for absence from duty. The evidence of Ist party shows he was in employment of 2nd party
since 1995. His wife was suffering from illness. Thereafter he was suffering from illness. Evidence of management’s
witness Shagnu Lal also shows that workman had sent post card explaining his absence from duty. Only for failure of
workman, punishment of compulsory retirement shockingly shockingly disproportionate. Documents Exhibit M-14 to
M-25 are intimations about enquiry conducted against workman, not much relevant about dealing with question of
punishment.
10.
Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri P.Shankaran relies on ratio held in case between-
L&T Komatsu Ltd. Versus N.Udayakumar reported in 2008(1)SCC-224. Their Lordship dealing with
misconduct of absenteeism and habitual absence held it amounts to gross violation of discipline. Where the
workman who had been in the past found guilty of unauthorized absenteeism several times ( 15 times in the
above cited case was a properly conducted departmental enquiry once again found guilty of absence for along
period of 105 days in the case. The dismissal from service ought not to have been treated to be harsh and
interfered by Labour Court.
The ratio cannot be applied to case at hand, 2nd party management has not produced any document about past
adverse service record of workman though it has been mentioned in the article of charge. Ist party workman had sent
medical certificates about his illness and post card explaining his absence for illness of his wife. The ratio cannot be
applied to present case.
4532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In case of North Eastern Karnataka R.T.Corporation versus Ashappa and another reported in AIR 2006-SC-
2164. Their Lordship dealing with proportionality of punishment, misconduct- Bus conductor remained absent
not only for period of more than 3 years but also remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions.
Misconduct committed cannot be treated as minor. For running buses, service of conductor is imperative and
no employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a long time. Punishment of
dismissal not disproportiaonate.
The facts of present case are different. Workman had sent post card explaining his absence for illness of his
wife. He also sent medical certificates Exhibit M-9 to M-13. Workman was suffering from illness. While passing order
of punishment, Disciplinary Authority did not consider those medical certificates. Therefore ratio held in the case
cannot be applied to case at hand.
Though ratio held in above cases cannot be applied to case at hand, it is clear that workman was absent. He not
submitted any application for leave and therefore the misconduct of unauthorized absence has been established.
However the punishment of compulsory retirement deserves to be modified to withholding 3 increments of Ist party
with cumulative effect. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
11.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management is not legal.
(2)
Punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on Ist party workman is modified to punishment of with-
holding 3 increments with cumulative effect. As workman has already attained age of superannuation,
workman be allowed all consequential benefits of salary for the period from order of compulsory retirement
dated 17-2-01 till attaining age of superannuation 60 years be paid.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2061-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xu dSfjt
iSQDVªh] tcyiqj ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@178@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&14011@42@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
Ikh- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2016
S.O. 2061.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/178/2000) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 26.09.2016.
[No. L-14011/42/2000-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/178/2000
Shri S.A.Khan,
Mahamantri,
GCF Mazdoor Union,
135/1, Vidyanagar, GCF Estate,
Jabalpur
…Workman
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4533
Versus
General Manager,
Gun Carriage Factory,
Jabalpur
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of August, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 28-9-00 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-
14011/42/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in promoting Shri Adward Mare to
the post of Miller (High Skilled Gr.II) w.e.f. 1-1-98 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
and from which date?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at Page
3/1 to 3/2. Case of Ist party is vide order dated 3-12-91, Ist party workman was punished. He was reverted in the post of
Miller skilled from post of Miller Highly skilled Grade II for 5 years. That after completion of 5 years time, 2nd party
employer violating its own order not reposted him to his original post from 3-12-96. 2nd party without considering
circumstances of the case not allowing him original post, he was entitled from 3-12-96. No clarification was given by
the management for the same. That 2nd party delayed test of Ist party workman for reposting him in his original post is
illegal. Ist party further submits that he did not work in the skilled post but all the time he was engaged for the work of
Miller highly skilled. Incharge M.M.Section vide order dated 4-9-97 directed that applicant will work under direction
of chargeman on machine of Shri Tilak chand T.No.4735 I.E that workman was posted in machine of Shri Tilakchand
and worked as highly skilled workman Grade II. He was performing work of highly skilled workman. Management did
not change his work. He was continuously doing the work of highly skilled workman Miller. There was no need to take
test of workman in above circumstances. For his re-posting to the original post . On above ground, workman claims
that he is entitled to promotion to original post from the date when penalty period of 5 years ended. 2nd party
management not promoting workman after completion of promotion period of workman 5 years is illegal. The delay in
trade test by Board, workman is not responsible. He cannot be penalized for mistake of management. On above
contentions, workman is praying promotion to the higher post on seniority including difference of pay and allowances.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/5 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that
workman was caught red handed by Security on 4-11-90 while admitting to smuggle 21 kg of brass from West gate of
GCF. Workman was suspended immediately. Chargesheet was issued to workman under Rule 4 of CCS CCA Rules
1965. Workman denied charges against him. Enquiry Officer was appointed as per rules. During enquiry, workman was
provided opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and examined himself. He was given opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses. From evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, the charges were proved. Enquiry Report was forwarded to
workman asking him to submit his written brief. Considering the evidence and reply to Enquiry Report, Disciplinary
Authority imposed punishment of revision of Grade of Miller HS-II to Miller Skilled. However it was mentioned in the
penalty order that applicant will be considered for promotion after 5 years provided he is found fit. It is reiterated that
only after completion of 5 years penalty period, workman was not entitled to promotion to the original post. The
punishment order clearly provided that he would be considered for promotion after 5 years provided he is found fit.
2nd party further submits that workman had to pass Trade Test. He cannot claim higher grade as a matter of right. It is
frequently seen that for promotion, workman should be found fit. The demand of Union is in violation of SRO 185 of
1994 and penalty order. Merely working under chargeman doesnot restore right to workman for post of higher grade.
2nd party submits that claim of Ist party workman cannot be accepted.
4.
As per order dated 18-8-15, enquiry conducted against workman was found legal.
5.
Considering pleadings on record and findings on Enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and
determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the charges alleged against workman is
proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings?
In Affirmative
(ii) Whether the punishment of reversion imposed
against workman is proper and legal?
In Affirmative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
4534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
6.
Point No.1- As per order dated 18-8-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal. Question remains
for consideration whether charges alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Charges
alleged against workman pertains to attempting to commit theft of 21 brass metals. Record of enquiry is produced at
Exhibit M-1 management examined 3 witnesses. Evidence of all 3 management’s witness is cogent that Ist party
workman was found carrying 21 brass swarf at Western gate carrying 2 bags on his cycle. Management witness No. 1
says that he was told by Nayak that 2 bags of brass were ceized from Adward. He did not touch the bag. He was unable
to see what was seized in the bag. Evidence of MW-1 Raikwar is corroborated by other witnesses. The scope of
judicial review is restricted that the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence. MW-2 Nayak Subedar joshi has
corroborated evidence of Raikwar MW-3 is corroborated by evidence of Raikwar and Joshi. The evidence in Enquiry
Proceeding is sufficient to prove charge alleged against workman. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1
in Affirmative.
7.
Point No.2- For proved charge of attempt of committing theft, punishment of reversion for 5 years is imposed.
The punishment of dismissal or discharge is not imposed against workman. Punishment of reversion against workman
for proved charge of attempt to theft cannot be said disproportionate. No interference is called for.
8.
In present case, Ist party workman is claiming original post of Miller after completion of reversion of 5 years as
per penalty order. Whether said claim of workman could be granted needs to be considered. The order of penalty
produced at Annexure M-7 clearly provides that it is further ordered that he will be considered for promotion after 5
years if he is found fit. The order of penalty is clear that workman be considered for promotion after he was found fit.
Said condition of order of punishment was not modified therefore claim of Ist party workman for promotion to the
original post of Miller cannot be upheld. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in point No.2 in Affirmative.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2062-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wukbVsM cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k]
iVuk ds iapkV ¹lanHkZ dsl la- 03 (C) vkWiQ 2014º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@19@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2016
S.O. 2062.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. Case No. 3 (C) of 2014] of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna as shown in
the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of United Bank of India and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 28.09.2016.
[No. L-12012/19/2012-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No. 03 (C) of 2014
59 of 2012
The management of Chief Regional Manager, Bihar Regional Office, United Bank of India, IInd Floor, Abhay
Bhawan Fraser Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001 and their workman Sri Prem Kishore, S/O- Sri Ramanand Singh,
Vill+PO-Purushottampur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Pin-842002.
For the management
:
Sri Arun Kumar Sinha, Dy. General Manager & Chief Regional Manager
For the workman
:
himself represent.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4535
Present :
Bipin Dutta Pathak, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated 19th July, 2016
By notification order No.- L-12012/19/2012-IR(B-II) New Delhi, dated- 30.08.2012 Govt. of India,// Bharat
Sarkar Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( hereinafter to be referred to as ‘ the Act ‘ ) the following
dispute between The management of Chief Regional Manager, Bihar Regional Office, United Bank of India, IInd
Floor, Abhay Bhawan Fraser Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001 and their workman Sri Prem Kishore, S/O- Sri
Ramanand Singh, Vill + PO-Purushottampur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Pin-842002 for adjudication to the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-2, Dhanbad. However, in the light of L-12012/19/2012-IR(B-II) New
Delhi, dated- 13.03.2014 Govt. of India,// Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi, and the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Ttribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-2, Dhanbad transferred the Reference case No.-59 of 2012 vide
letter No.- LCT 1/2010/346 dated- 16th July, 2014 to State Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh. Prem
Kishore S/O- Sri Ramanand Singh w.e.f. 20.01.2009 without adhering the provision of ID Act, 1947, is legal and
justified? Whether the demand of Sh. Prem Kishore for regularization and payment of due wages is just and proper?
What relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Prior to corrigendum dated- 23.05.2013 the case was referred to CGIT No.-2 Dhanbad with the terms of
reference.
Corrigendum dated- 23.05.2013
In partial modification of this Ministry’s Order of even number dated-30.08.2012 the disputed party is amended at
serial
No. *2 & *3 as under:-
“The Chief Regional Manager,
Shri Prem Kishore
Bihar Regional Office,
S/O-Sri Ramanand Singh,
United Bank of India,
Vill + Purushottampur,
IInd Floor, Abhay Bhawan, Fraser Road,
Dist.-Muzaffarpur,
Patna-800001.”
Bihar, Pin-842002
The Adjudication Order was issued vide this Ministry’s letter dated- 30.08.2012 to CGIT-cum-Labour court, Dhanbad.
The disputed party was as under:-
The Zonal Manager,
Shri Prem Kishore
United Bank of India, 2nd Floor
S/O-Sri Ramanand Singh,
Block-B, Maurya Lok Complex,
Vill + Purushottampur,
Dak Bunglow Road,
Dist.-Muzaffarpur,
Patna (Bihar)-800001
Bihar, Pin-842002
3.
Written statement has been filed on behalf of the workman in this case. It has been stated that in para-2 of
written statement of workman that management bank stated incorrectly that workman had never worked with the bank
and there is no dues of salary of workman and as such denied the claim of workman.
Prem Kishore ( workman ) come to know that one post of sub-staff is vacant in United Bank of India,
Purushottampur branch from the notice pasted on the notice board of the bank. He applied for the post and after
interview he was selected to work on the post of daily rated sub-staff of the aforesaid branch for doing the work of said
branch of the bank on and from 09.03.2005. No appointment letter was issued to him. He worked as daily rated sub-
staff for the period 02.04.2005 to 19.04.2005, and thereafter. Period stated by him in para-5 of written statement. He
had worked in the bank as permanent sub-staff Mr. Upendra Mishra was on leave. In the year 2007 he worked from
11.07.2007 to 01.08.2007, Upendra Mihara was promoted to clerk post. From 02.08.2007 to 19.01.2009 he had ( Prem
Kishore ) continuously worked against the vacant sanctioned post of sub-staff as Upendra Mishra was relieved to join
new post at Mohali on 01.08.2007. On 20.01.2009 when he reported his duty to the bank. Branch Manager orally
terminated his service. No termination letter was given to him. In January, 2008 Chief Manager inspected
Purushottampur branch and again there was interview of workman on confirmation on the post of permanent vacant
sub-staff, then branch manager sent a letter dated- 16.02.2008 for the approval of Chief Manager but management kept
mum. He was initially appointed on Rs. 25/- per day which was increased from time to time upto Rs. 70/- per day. He
4536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
performed duties of peon ( Daftari grade-4 ) and other duties. Separate duties register used to be maintained for him.
Workman claimed to regularise on vacant post of sanctioned permanent post due to transfer of Mr. Upendra Mishra
since 09.03.2005 to 19.01.2009, much more than 240 days.
4.
Management has filed written statement stating therein that reference is without and / or in excess of
jurisdiction and suffer from error apparent from records. Management does not admit any of contrary allegation made
in paragraphs- 1 to 40 of the statement of claim of the disputant alleged workmen. It has been stated that Mr Prem
Kishore is not a “ workman” and is not an employee of the management bank and not competent to raise instant
dispute. He was never employed by the bank vide letter No.- RO/BR/82/2009 dated- 18.02.2009 has intimated him. He
had deployed his diesel generator set on rent for the purpose of emergency power supply to the bank in case of power
failure. Bank never offered any employment to disputant at any point of time and question of his retrenchment does not
arise. Bank never issued any appointment letter. It has been stated that no recruitment / appointment shall be made
dehors recruitment rule.
Bank had made full and final payment to Mr. Prem Kishore for the occasional work of sanitation if any, or any
other work of similar nature done by him in case of exigencies of the said branch. So these payment made out random
basis. Bank denied constitutional engagement continuously for period of 240 days in a calendar year. Mr. Prem Kishore
has moved in writ petition which was dismissed. Mr. Prem Kishore has no right to ask for the appointment.
5.
Rejoinder to written statement of the management has been filed by the workman.
6.
One witness has been examined on behalf of the management and two witness has been examined on behalf of
the workman and some documents has been Extd. The evidence and document is hereby considered in finding.
FINDINGS
7.
M.W-1 is Arun Kumar Sinha presently posted as Chief Manager, Patna Regional Office, Patna. He has stated
that in his oath that Prem Kishore has never been employed by the bank and as such employer-employee relationship
between the bank and him does not exist and this facts his duly intimated vide letter No. RO/BR/82/2009 dated-
18.02.2009.
It has been further stated that Mr. Prem Kishore had deployed his diesel generator set on rent for the purpose of
emergency power supply to the bank, Purushottampur Branch in case of power failure as per the terms of condition of
the agreement reached between the bank as lesses Mr. Prem Kishore as lessor. Agreement was renewed from time to
time and it was duly paid as per terms and conditions. Under no circumstances, a person can sign agreement with bank
if he is indeed, under permanent/temporary employment of nationalized bank in violation of service conditions as
applicable on its workmen. Bank never offered any employment to him. In absence of any such employer-employee
relationship the question of retrenchment does not arise. Never appointment letter was issued to him. Any appointment
can only be offered for a public post following a due recruitment procedure. He is not a workman and he is mere
provider of service of his diesel generator. Bank had made full and final payment to him for occasional work of
sanitation if any, or other work of similar nature done by him in case of exigencies. It has been denied that he has been
continuously engaged / worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year. Prem Kishore filed writ petition which was
dismissed.
Two letters Ext.-M and M/1 has been Extd. by this witness one letter has been issued by public information
officer of Regional Office of the bank. Another letter has been issued by Assistant General Manager of the bank.
In cross-examination he has stated that he never worked in Purushottampur Branch. He is appearing as a
witness as General Manager personal and administration. He learnt from the records about the facts of this case. Prem
Kishore was running generator in the bank and occasional he did some repair work as labourer. Payment was made to
him. Seldom cleaning work was taken from him. Occasionally payment was made @ Rs. 50-60 per day according to
merit of the work. This witness has stated tht he does not know whether daftari was posted in the year 2007 in
Purushottampur Branch or not, but sub-staff was posted there. He denied that at that time sub-staff was not posted
there. He also denied that when sub-staff was not posted then Prem Kishore worked as sub-staff. This witness identified
vouchers, conveyance sanitation charge, generator charge, meeting charge which are in one 165 pages marked as Ext.-
W. He has stated that on vouchers there is no signature of the person who received payment but name has been
mentioned. This witness also identified photo stat of token register of cash payment which are from page 169 to 712
marked as Ext.-W/1. He has also identified photo stat of pass book register which is Ext.-W/2 which is from page 713
to 766. This witness also identified photo stat of peon book which has been marked as Ext.-W/3 containing as page 768
to 776. He has also identified photo stat of account opening cum delivery register which has been marked as Ext.-W/4.
This witness has stated that letter No.- POP/Misc./109 can not be read this has been marked as X for identification and
another letter has been written by Chief Manager to Head Office marked as ext.-W/5 and it has been mentioned that
Purushottampur Branch is running without sub-staff.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4537
In further cross-examination it has been stated that vouchers of full and final payment of Prem Kishore has not
been filed by the management. But Prem Kishore has filed so many vouchers in regard to payment. He has further
stated that Prem Kishore has worked occasionally for which payment was made to him. He used to remain present in
bank for running the generator and seldom he used to go to post office, to do cleaning work etc. He has also stated that
daftari was not posted in Purushottampur Branch because it was very small branch.
8.
W.W-1 Prem Kishore has been examined on behalf of the workman himself. Who stated that he is worker in his
case and raised the dispute. Further he has stated that he has seen notice in the year 2005 plated on the notice board of
United Bank of India, Purushottampur Branch for the post of daftari and he applied for the post. After interview he was
appointed as daily wages workers and appointment letter was not given to him. Branch Manager used to take work
from him only on the dates when permanent employee Upendra Mishra remained on leave. Work was taken from him
as daily wages. Worker and he was paid Rs. 25/- per day. Which was increased upto Rs. 70/- per day. In the year 2007
when Upendra Mishra went to Kolkatta for training due to his promotion then this witness worked as daftari from
01.07.2007 to 01.08.2007, he also used to do regularly other works in the branch. Upendra Mishra was relieved from
Purushottampur Branch w.e.f 01.08.2007 to join in Mohali branch. Then he regularly worked on the post of daftari
from 02.08.2007 to 19.01.2009. On 20.01.2009 when he went branch then the branch manager Sri Ashok Kumar Jha
orally told him not to work and also told that there is no need for him to work in the branch. No reason was stated for
this. Till 20.01.2009 he worked regularly for four (4) years. Since he regularly demanded prodata salary for the period
from 01.09.2008 to 19.01.2009 which was used to be paid to Sri Upendra Mishra (daftari), then salary was not paid to
him. He made complaint to superior officer. Nature of work has been stated by him. In January 2008 when the then
Chief Manager Sri P.N.Sinha had arrived in branch then directed the then branch manager Sri A. K. Sinha to send letter
to Regional Office for making his service in permanent and then branch manager sent letter on 16.02.2008. He used to
make attendance on separate register and payment was made as head P/L conveyance. P/L Sanitation, P/L remittance,
etc. His service was bank service. His service was unblemish. He is unemployed. He worked for more than 250 days in
a year.
In cross-examination he has stated that he has not filed the notice for appointment. He has also not filed copy of
his application of appointment. Call letter was not given to him for interview. His interview was taken by branch
manager and one another officer and cashier. He was appointed orally. Result of interview was not filed. He does not
remember for the month but interview was taken in of 2005. Agreement for running generator is of some other place
which has been filed for example that service of generator operator was regularised. Further he has stated
Purushottampur Branch generator is running since the year 2004 and agreement for running generator in name of P.K.
Electronic and he is owner of P.K. Electric.
Next witness on behalf of the workman is W.W-2 ( Ram Sawarath Rai ). Who is stated that he is acquainted
with Prem Kishore and he has seen him working in United Bank of India of Purushottampur Branch from the year 2005
to 2009. He has seen him operating computer and doing other work. He has identified token register marked as exhibit.
He has also identified pass book in writing of Prem Kishore.
In cross-examination he has stated that he retired from the service of Military and he is getting pension from
United Bank of India Purushottampur Branch. He is getting pension from bank since 2002. He used to go bank one or
twice in a months.
9.
Two documents has been Extd on behalf of the management one Ext.-M is the letter given to Prem Kishore by
the bank in which the management bank informed him that Prem Kishore was not engaged as daily wages worker.
Further it has been stated that since generator of Prem Kishore is being run in Purushottampur Branch as such Prem
Kishore used to go in the branch and during that period if branch has taken any other work for cleaning etc from him
then appropriate payment was made to him. Ext.- M/1 is the letter given to Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Patna
from the management stating therein that claim of Prem Kishore is false, fabricated and misconceived.
10.
Documents Extd on behalf of the workman. One document sent to the Chief Regional Manager of the bank on
21.06.2000( Annexure-A) by the branch in which it has been stated that claim of Prem Kishore regarding payment of
dues on bank is false fabricated and bears not truth. Ext.-W is the letter sent to Sri Prem Kishore along with enclosure
of vouchers, total vouchers 165 is attached. This vouchers relates to payment for different heads and no interference
can be drawn in favour of workman. Ext.-W/1 is the photo copies of the token register is submitted to Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C) and total page is 712. Ext.-W/2 is the photo stat of peon book total page 713 to 776 and Ext.- W/3 is
also photo stat of peon book total page is 768 to 776 and Ext.-W/4 is the photo stat of account open total page is 777 to
800. Ext.-W/5 is the photo stat of letter dated- 02.07.2009. From this Exts it appears that Chief Regional Manager has
sent letter to Chief Manager ( D & IR ) stating therein that Purushottampur Branch of the bank was running without
any sub-staff since 2007. After the promotion Sri Upendra Mishra sub-staff. Prem Kishore complainant provided power
supply to Purushottampur Branch through his generator. For which he remains in branch. As such there was no sub-
staff in the branch so his services were utilized for different purposes since August 2007 for which he was paid too &
4538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
his claim of dues is false. From perusal of vouchers through which payment was made to Mr. Prem Kishore it revealed
that different P/L accounts like Sanitation, Conveyance etc were debited to make payment to Sri Prem Kishore. It
worthwhile to mentioned that on one hand Sri Prem Kishore has claimed that who has worked in the branch from the
period 09.03.2005 to 20.01.2009. Vide his complaint letter dated-13.04.2009 and the other hand he had mentioned in
his earlier complaint letter dt- 02.01.2009 that he was engaged on daily wages workers since 11.07.2009. It is to be
noted further that Sri Prem Kishore had never been continuously engaged. Ext.-W/6 is the agreement for generator and
a part of Ext.-W/6 has been filed to demonstrate that call letter for interview was sent to one another candidates
Ramanand Singh who is canteen boy. Who is appointed as sub-staff in the same rank. Ext.-W/7 is complain before
Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). Ext.-W/8 cant not be read. Ext.-W/9 is the letter sent Prem Kishore to Chief
Regional Manager for payment of dues wages. Ext.-W/10 is cant not be read. Ext.-W/11 is the photo stat of pass book
of one Ram Swarath Ray. Ext.-W/11 & 12 is not relevant to decide this case.
11.
Two sets of written argument has been filed on behalf of the workman in which he has stated that he is working
since 09.03.2005 when permanent Daftari Sri Upendra Mishra used to to go on leave. It has also been stated that notice
was pasted on the notice board in the year 2005 and he applied and after interview he was selected. The said Upendra
Mishra was relieved from the branch on 02.08.2007 to join at Mohali branch and since then this workman continuously
worked till 19.01.2009. He was assured by the then branch manager that he will be made permanent. Then joining letter
has been issued. His wages was stopped from September 2008 and orally he was terminated on 20.01.2009.
Further statement is that he has worked more than 240 days in one calendar year prior to his termination. One
decision of writ petition of Hon’ble High Court Gohati has been referred in W.A. In which direction was given to
prepare a list of casual workmen and to make fresh recruitment on any regular vacancy.
Details written argument has been filed on 12.05.2015 and some decision of apex court in Civil Appeal No.-
3190 of 2011 ( Devinder Singh Vs Municipal Council, Sanaur) (ii) Civil Appeal No.- 6950 of 2009 ( Tamilnadu
Terminated Full Time Temporary L.I.C Employee Association Vs LIC of India and others has been referred.
12.
Written argument has also been filed on behalf of the management. Denial of the management is same as stated
in written statement.
The case of the management is that Prem Kishore is not a workman. He has never been employed. Prem
Kishore has deployed his diesel generator set for the purpose of power supply to our branch of the bank. and supply.
Bank has made full final payment to Prem Kishore for occasional work of sanitation if any, or any other work of
similar nature done by him in case of exigencies of the said branch. These payments made on random basis must not be
confused from engagement on daily basis. This is own admission of the management, so apart from operating generator
Prem Kishore has done some other work of the branch. Management has not stated in details for how many days such
work were taken and what amount were paid to Prem Kishore, decision in Criminal Appeal No.- 2054 of 2010
(National aviation Company of India Vs State of Assam has been placed on record in which National Aviation
Company has stated that services of 27 employees will not be disposed with and they will be regularised in phase
manner. On that ground Criminal Proceeding was quashed. In view of decision report in AIR 2010 SC 1236 burden of
proof was on the employer to prove that workman did not complete 240 days of service in requisite period to constitute
continuous service. From letter marked X it appears that when ever there was necessity management used to engage
including Prem Kishore for arranging record, filling and other sanitation work and they used to be paid for there work.
From Ext.-W/5 it appears that Purushottampur Branch running without any sub-staff since August 2007 after the
promotion of Sri Upendra Mishra sub-staff. Prem Kishore provided power supply to our branch through his own
generator for which he remain in the branch. As such since there was no sub-staff in the branch so his service were
utilized for different purpose since August 2007 for which he was paid too & his claim dues is false. Payment was
made through vouchers. From different P/L account like sanitation, conveyance, Remittance, Postage Services charge
were debited to make payment to Sri Prem Kishore and Prem Kishore claimed that he has worked in the branch from
09.03.2005 to 02.01.2009. He was engaged on daily wages worker since 11.07.2007. This letter is dated- 03.06.2009 as
such Prem Kishore worked in the branch since 11.07.2007 to the date of sending this letter which is dated- 06.03.2009.
Even from Ext.- W/6 it appears that in same bank interview was taken from canteen boy namely Ramanand Singh and
he was appointed as sub-staff under absorbtion of canteen boy as sub-staff in this circumstances management has no
option but to appoint this workman Prem Kishore as sub-staff in the bank. This facts has been established from the
Ext.s as stated and bank failed to discharged his burden that Prem Kishore did not work in the bank in continuous
service as daily wager not for 240 days in one calendar year. Moreover, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of H.S. Rajshekhar Vs State Bank of Mysore and another and Hon’ble SC has express the view in para-5
“ It is therefore clear that for related matter the terms “ calendar year “ and block of months are
…………………………………… it would be sufficient if the petitioner could establish that he had rendered more
than 240 days service in a block of 12 months. In the facts and the circumstances it is apparent that action of the
management of United Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh. Prem Kishore S/O- Sri Ramanand Singh w.e.f.
20.01.2009 without adhering the provision of ID Act, 1947, is not legal and justified.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4539
Demand of Prem Kishore for regularisation and payment of dues wages is just and proper and for that relief
workman is entitled to get regularisation since workman was working against vacant permanent post of sub-staff so
management is directed to regularise the workman as sub-staff immediately. Since workman was also operating
generator so back wages is not given to him.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2063-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] iVuk ds
iapkV ¹lanHkZ dsl la- 19 (C) vkWiQ 2014º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@37@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2016
S.O. 2063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. Case No. 19 (C) of 2014] of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 28.09.2016.
[No. L-12011/37/2014-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No. 19 (C) of 2014
35 of 2014
The management of Assistant General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Om Shanti Complex, P.O
Ramna, Distt. Muzaffarnagar and Their workman Yogendra Mehtar represented through the General Secretary,
Allahabad Bank Karamchari Sangh,Bihar-Jharkhand ),C/O- Allahabad Bank, Patna, ( Bihar)-5.
For the management
:
Sri Onkar Nath Sharma, Senior Manager, (Law)
For the workman
:
Sri B. Prasad, President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar
Present :
Bipin Dutta Pathak, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated 27th June, 2016
By notification order No.- L-12011/37/2014-IR(B-II) New Delhi, dated- 11.08.2014 Govt. of India,// Bharat
Sarkar Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( hereinafter to be referred to as ‘ the Act ‘ ) the following
dispute between The management of Assistant General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Om Shanti
Complex, P.O Ramna, Distt. Muzaffarnagar and Their workman represented through the General Secretary,
Allahabad Bank Karamchari Sangh, ( Bihar-Jharkhand ), C/O- Allahabad Bank, Patna, ( Bihar)-5 for
adjudication to the Cent. Govt. Indus. Ttribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-2, Dhanbad. However, in the light of Govt. of
India,// Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi, letter vide order No.- Z-25025/4/2014-CLS-II
dated- 07th May, 2014 the Cent. Govt. Indus. Ttribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-2, Dhanbad transferred this Industrial
Dispute vide letter No.- LCT 1/2014/900 dated- 15 September, 2014 to State Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Allahabad bank to propose the punishment of Removal from service
to Sri Yogendra Mehtar was proportionate? If not, what relief the workman was entitled to?”
4540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Prior to corrigendum dated- 11.08.2014 the case was referred to CGIT No.-2 Dhanbad with the terms of
reference which are as follows:-
Corrigendum dated- 11.08.2014
“Whether the action of the management of Allahabad bank in removing the workman Sri Yogendra
Mehtar, Part-time Sweeper from the services of the Bank is legal and justified? What relief the workman
is entitled to?”
3.
Statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the workman Yogendra Meshtar
stating therein that he was
offered the post of part time sweeper on 1/3 scale wages of a full time subordinate staff vide letter dated-29.10.2005.
He joined the services of Allahabad Bank at Akhta Branch, Dist.- Sitamarhi as a Part-time Sweeper on 11.11.2005. As
per terms and conditions of the appointment letter he was confirmed in the services of the Bank after expiry of the
probation period of six months. All of a sudden, on 13.09.2006 he was issued a show cause notice dated- 13.09.2006
which was replied by him on 25.09.2006. After a period of about 6 years charge sheet was issued on 13.07.2012 which
was properly replied by him on 30.07.2012. Disciplinary authority being not satisfied with reply of the workman,
decided to hold domestic enquiry and for that enquiry officer, and presenting officer were appointed.
Enquiry report was submitted. Thereafter disciplinary authority agreed with the perverse finding of enquiry
officer and imposed the punishment “ Removal from service with superannuation benefit and without disqualification
from future employment,” thereafter dispute was referred here.
4.
Preliminary objection has been filed on behalf of the management stating therein that disciplinary authority who
is quasi judicial authority, has followed all rules and procedures as laid down in the memorandum of settlement dated-
10th April, 2002 which governs the disciplinary proceedings of the workmen employee. It has been stated that workman
was expected to conform to the highest standard of honesty and integrity and even minor doubt on the character of
employee warrants stiff punishment.
As per service condition Yogendra Meshtar was to be confirmed after 6 months of his service. It was mentioned
in appointment letter dated- 29.10.2005 that “ your confirmation to the permanent establishment of the bank on 1/3rd
basis will be considered provided your work and conduct are found to be satisfactory in the interim.” But bank received
a chain of complaints immediately after his appointment claiming that he has got an appointment by cheating the bank,
by hiding his educational qualification. The Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur vide letter no.- ZO/MZ/PA/364 dated-
16.05.2006 requested for confirmation of the allegation of matriculation pass from the Secretary, Bihar School
Examination Board, Patna. After follow up the Principal, Mahanth Shree Ayodhya Ramanuja Uchh Vidyalaya, Rewasi,
Sitamarhi vide letter no.- 63 dt- 05.09.2006 confirmed that Sri Meshtar had passed the Matriculation examination in the
year 1995. Show-cause notice was issued to Sri Meshtar which was replied and departmental proceeding was
contemplated against him. There was no question to make him confirm/permanent in the bank service. Enquiry was
conducted and enquiry report was supplied to Sri Meshtar along with second show cause and on the matter of proposed
punishment, hearing was done thereafter punishment has been given.
It appears that charge sheet was issued to Sri Yogendra Meshtar on 13.07.2012 stating therein, while applying
for the post of Part Time Sweeper in Akhta Branch he has submitted wrong information and concealed the fact in order
to procure employment in the bank. He has committed the following acts of omission & commission.
(i) He has submitted application for appointment as part-time sweeper on 14.11.2005 in which you had
mentioned the qualification as class 7th passed. He had also enclosed a certificate of Rajkiya Madhya
Vidyalaya, Rewasi in support of educational qualification.
(ii)
He had passed class 10th from Mahant Sri Ayodhya Ramanuj Uchh Vidayalaya, Rewasi in the year 1995
but you had deliberately suppressed the fact at the time of appointment in the year 2005 and given false
declaration on the application in order to procure employment with the bank.
It appears that in departmental enquiry workman was found guilty and he was removed from service. Matter
was heard on the point of fairness of domestic enquiry and order was passed on 05.06.2015 on the point of fairness of
domestic enquiry and it was found and hold that enquiry was conducted fairly and properly. Thereafter, evidence was
produced. Now the point for determination is about the quantum of punishment.
5.
It appears that as a management witness M.W-1 Sri Rakesh Kumar Sinha was examined. He has supported the
case of the management that departmental enquiry of Sri Yogendra Meshtar was conducted on 27.12.2012 and enquiry
was concluded on 25.02.2013. He had witnesses the documents from the management.
In cross-examination he has stated that he has seen appointment letter of the workman marked as Ext.-W. Name
of Yogendra Meshtar was received from the employment exchange and thereafter interview was conducted and he was
selected and appointment letter was issued. He has also stated that initially educational qualification for part-time
sweeper was class VIIth to class IX and it has not mentioned that candidate having above qualification will be not able
to apply.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4541
10.
On behalf of the workman W.W-1 Vidyut Kumar Pal was examined. Who has stated that at the time
appointment, Yogendra Meshtar has not submitted correctly his educational qualification and management had issued
letter to submit declaration of correct educational qualification.
In cross-examination he has stated that show cause notice was issued from management to Yogendra Meshtar.
Then witness came to know that prior to joining Yogendra Meshtar passed 10th examination and in declaration he has
mentioned VIIth pass. Workman in his cross-examination has stated that at the time of filing the application he learnt
that for that post education qualification should be VIIth pass and not matric pass. Why workman stated the one officer
has stated to fill up qualification of 7th pass and he did so.
11.
Heard argument both on behalf of the management and workman and perused the record.
In view of 2014-IV-LLJ-257(SC) similar matter was raised in which in Appointment- Fixation of qualification
was discussed and Punishment of Removal- Validity for removal from service was also considered. It was found that
qualification fixed for the post of peon that candidates should not possess higher qualification then IX standard but
peon concealing his Bachelor’s degree, got selected as peon later found to be guilty of misconduct of suppression of
material facts. After enquiry, he was removed from service for misconduct. Hon’ble High Court held that candidate
should not possess higher qualification then IX standard is violative of Article 14 of Constitution. Also held that
similarly situated employee inflicted with penalty of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect, as
punishment awarded to Respondent was discriminatory.
Next decision is also of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Ors Vs District and Session
Judge. In that case candidates with higher education than standard VII were completely shut out for being considered
for the posts of peon. Further it has been held that higher qualification can not become a disadvantage to the candidates.
Argument has been advanced on behalf of the management bank. A decision of Hon’ble High Court Patna in
CWJC No.- 4031 of 2015 ( Seema Kumari Vs Allahabad Bank and others ) has been demonstrated that in the
similar matter no relief was granted to the petitioner and it was found that appointment was ab initio void and the
petitioner stands removed from service forthwith and if respondent no.-3 wants equity to be done to him by not
subjecting to him criminal prosecution for obtaining appointment by playing a fraud, he has to also do the equity……..
if he has become liable for criminal prosecution, this court, to grant him limited reprieve to the extent that if he would
refund the payment of entire salary already drawn by him pursuant to his appointment obtained by playing a fraud, he
shall not be subjected to criminal prosecution.
In this case appointment of respondent no.-3 namely Binod Kumar Pandit was questioned on the ground that he
was not holding the valid qualification for his appointment. Matter was heard at length. Records from Bihar School
Examination Board were produced and it was found that respondent no.-3 was not qualified in the terms of
advertisement, in as much as he had passed class X examination, whereas the requirement in the advertisement was that
a candidate should not have passed class X examination.
Admittedly this of workmen Yogendra Meshtar is similar to the case decided by Hon’ble High Court in CWJC
No.- 4031 of 2015. But since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has adopted lenient view in his decision as disclosed above.
FINDINGS
12.
From the evidence of the M.W-1 it appears that enquiry was conducted on 27.12.2012 and was concluded on
25.02.2013. Enquiry report was submitted on 06.04.2013. Charge framed against Yogendra Meshtar from serial no.- 1
to 2 was proved. Admittedly workman has given wrong information regarding educational qualification as 7th pass in
standard proforma of the bank and it was established that the CE had degree of 10th pass at the time of appointment in
2005. This facts can not been denied.
From the evidence of W.W-1 Yogendra Meshtar it appears that he has two registration card of employment
exchange one of 7th pass and second is matric pass. He has also stated that prior to interview one officer had advised to
mentioned his educational qualification as 7th pass. It means Yogendra Meshtar has concealed the truth that he was
matric pass and remained in service for 9th years.
Though management has demonstrated that charge sheet and departmental enquiry was fair and proper but in
the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2014-IV-LLJ-257 (SC) in same case penalty was inflicted
on the employee of stoppage of increment. In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Md.Riazul Usman
Gani and Ors Vs District and Session Judge it has been held that higher qualification can not became disadvantage to
the candidates. Keeping in view of this decision the award is answered that action of the management of Allahabad
bank in removing the workman Sri Yogendra Meshtar, Part-time sweeper from the services of the Bank was not legal
and justified.
In the light of above finding award is passed that order of removal from service to Sri Yogendra Meshtar is set-
aside and it is directed to reinstate him in service but his four (4) increment is stopped with cumulative effect and in the
facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order of payment of back wages.
4542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2016/ASVINA 9, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2064-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] iVuk ds
iapkV ¹lanHkZ dsl la- 05 (C) vkWiQ 2011º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@06@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2016
S.O. 2064.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. Case No. 05 (C) of 2011] of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 28.09.2016.
[No. L-12012/06/2011-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No. 05 (C) of 2011
Between the management of Uco Bank, Zonal Office, Central Jail Road, Jabaripur, Bhagalpur (Bihar) and
their workmen Sri N.N.Choudhary, S/o. Sh. Basudeo Choudhary, C/o. Pawan Kumar Jain, Hindustan Club
Road, Mohalla & PO: Naya Bazar, P.S- Korwali, Dist.- Bhagalpur (Bihar ).
For the management
:
Sri Vinit Kumar, Senior Manager, HRM, Deptt. Zonal Office, Bhagalpur.
For the workman
:
himself represent
Present :
Bipin Dutta Pathak, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated 19th July, 2016
By the adjudication order no.- L-12012/-06/2011-IR (B-II) dated- 11.03.2011 the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) and sub-section (2A) of section-10 of the Industrial
Dispute Act,1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as ‘ the Act’), the following dispute between the management of Uco
Bank, Zonal Office, Central Jail Road, Jabaripur, Bhagalpur (Bihar) and their workmen Sri N.N.Choudhary,
S/o. Sh. Basudeo Choudhary, C/o. Pawan Kumar Jain, Hindustan Club Road, Mohalla & PO: Naya Bazar, P.S-
Korwali, Dist.- Bhagalpur (Bihar ) for adjudication to this tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of UCO bank in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service
vide order dated-26/09/1997 and 27/09/1997 is legal and proper? What relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?
2.
Though the matter of punishment is for period of 26.09.1997 and 27.09.1997 but the matter has been referred
vide notification dated- 11.03.2011. Name of the workman was not mentioned. Vide notification dated-13.05.2011
corrigendum was issued the word “ workmen” may be read as “ workman” in the 3rd line of the para 1 of the order and
the words “upon the workman Sh. N.N. Choudhary may be treated as inserted after the date 27.09.1997.
3.
Statement of claim in details filed on behalf of the workman with a prayer pass an award in favour of the
workman granting relief as prayed for by the workman which is to hold and declare that order of punishment of
dismissal from service passed and imposed upon the workman by the Regional Manager of UCO Bank, now zonal
manager Regional/Zonal Office, Bhagalpur dated- 26.09.1997 and passed by the Regional Manager of UCO Bank now
zonal manager are incompetent, unjustified, improper, unlawful etc.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 1] 2016@vkf'ou 9] 1938
4543
Matter in details has been explained by the management in its preliminary objection by way of written
statement filed by the management bank on 10.11.2011 stating therein that the dispute is not maintainable and
workman has not availed the liberty given by Hon’ble High Court in C.W.J.C No.- 1800 of 1999. The writ petition
1800 of 1999 was heard in details and petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to enable him to raise
Industrial Dispute before the appropriate authority and liberty was granted to raise dispute within six weeks but
workman raised dispute after a laps a 3 months 13 days. It has been mentioned that domestic enquiry was started
against the workman in the year 1974 and in the pendency of enquiry he has filed title suit no.- 46/79 on 12.04.1979
and succeed to got injunction and in the result domestic enquiry was held up and after a laps of 18 years the injunction
order was vacated by the Hon’ble High Court by order passed in Criminal Revision No.- 1997/1994 on 12.09.1997 and
thereafter the enquiry was concluded on 26.09.1997/27.09.1997. Workman preferred appeal before the Appellate
Authority which was dismissed on 31.03.2008. Workman filed writ petition no.- 1800 of 1999 which was withdrawn
on 09.01.2009. Other facts and circumstances has been stated that workman brought misleading facts in his case.
4.
It appears from the order dated- 09.01.1999 passed in C.W.J.C No.- 1800 of 1999 that after some arguments,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition to enable to raise the
Industrial disputes before the appropriate authority and writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
5.
Matter remained pending before this tribunal and this tribunal had first to decide the question about the fairness
of domestic enquiry. Though management have taken much time for filing the documents but that was not filed so vide
order dated- 19.05.2014 order was passed “ in the circumstances necessary order will be passed on the materials
available on record of this reference case pending in this tribunal and 16.06.2014 details order was passed and it was
hold that in the absence of enquiry proceeding which was to be filed on behalf of the management. Nothing could be
said about the fairness of the domestic enquiry and it was hold in the circumstances it could not be stated that enquiry
was proper and fair. It is pertinent to note that earlier enquiry report was set-aside by the then appellate authority in
with direction to examine defense witness Sri M.P. Pandey before the enquiry officer which was not done. Even after
passing this order nothing has been done by the management to proved and established the charges as leveled against
the workman in the enquiry. Even no witness has been examined on behalf of the management. In the circumstances
can be said that when the management failed to established that domestic enquiry was fair and proper so award is here
by passed that action of the management of UCO bank in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service vide order
dated-26/09/1997 and 27/09/1997 was not legal and proper. Workman is entitled to be reinstated on the post from
which he was dismissed but so far back wages is concerned much delay has been cost by the workman itself by file title
suit delaying the matter why 18 years and so he will be entitled to get 3/4 back wages from the punishment till
superannuation. Cost of dispute as Rs. 10,000/-.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
HARINDRA
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
HARINDRA KUMAR
Date: 2016.10.18 10:32:03
+05'30'